Predictors of Resilience in Maltreated and Nonmaltreated Latino ...

Developmental Psychology Copyright 2005 by the American Psychological Association
2005, Vol. 41, No. 2, 338–351 0012-1649/05/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/0012-1649.41.2.338
Predictors of Resilience in Maltreated and Nonmaltreated Latino Children
Elisa Flores, Dante Cicchetti, and Fred A. Rogosch
Mt. Hope Family Center, University of Rochester
To date, few studies have sought to investigate the effects of child maltreatment and processes
influencing maladaptation and resilience in Latino children. In the current investigation, multiple aspects
of functioning, personal resources, and relationship features were examined in school-age maltreated and
nonmaltreated Latino children. Maltreated Latino children were found to have fewer areas of resilient
functioning. Ego-resiliency and ego-control, as personal resources, and the ability to form a positive
relationship with an adult figure outside of the immediate family predicted resilience. However, certain
aspects of interpersonal functioning were differentially related to resilience for maltreated and nonmaltreated
Latino children. These findings have implications for understanding how resilience can be
promoted in maltreated and nonmaltreated Latino children.
Latino children are among the largest growing minority group in
the United States, comprising 16% of children younger than 18
years of age (Flores et al., 2002). Historically, there has been a
paucity of research investigating the developmental processes and
outcomes of Latino children (Dihn, Roosa, Tein, & Lopez, 2002;
Fisher, Jackson, & Villarruel, 1998; Flores et al., 2002). Owing to
issues such as immigration, language barriers, discrimination, acculturative
stress, and parental factors such as teenage pregnancy,
Latino children may be at high risk for maladaptive outcomes,
even more so than children from other minority groups of similar
socioeconomic status (SES; Arcia, Keyes, & Gallagher, 1994;
Canino, Gould, Prupris, & Shaffer, 1986; Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention, 1999; Fisher et al., 1998; Flores et al.,
2002). Consequently, there is now a great urgency to conduct
research to elucidate the processes contributing to adaptive and
maladaptive functioning in this population of children.
In addition, many environmental risk factors have been identified
that predict maladaptive functioning in children independent
of race/ethnicity, including limited maternal education, unskilled
occupational status of the head of the household, low SES, dependency
on the state for financial support, parental unemployment,
low number of parents living in the home, large family size,
parental mental illness, and parental relationship instability
(Brooks-Gunn, Duncan, & Aber, 1997; Cicchetti & Toth, 1998;
Elisa Flores, Dante Cicchetti, and Fred A. Rogosch, Mt. Hope Family
Center, University of Rochester.
This work was supported in part by grants from the U.S. Administration
for Children and Families, Office of Child Abuse and Neglect and the
Spunk Fund, Inc. We thank Michael Lynch, Jennifer Larter, Robin Sturm,
and Enid De Jesus for their outstanding leadership in directing the research
camp throughout the years that this work was conducted. We also appreciate
the continuous cooperation of the Monroe County and the New York
State Departments of Social Services. We are especially grateful to all of
the children and families who participated in the camp and made this work
possible. Finally, we thank Sheree L. Toth and Jungmeen Kim for their
comments and feedback on prior versions of this article.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Elisa
Flores or Dante Cicchetti, Mt. Hope Family Center, University of Rochester,
187 Edinburgh Street, Rochester, NY 14608. E-mail: eaflores@
psych.rochester.edu or mhfc@netacc.net
338
Duncan & Brooks-Gunn, 1997; Jessor, 1993; Luthar, 1999;
McLoyd, 1998b; Rutter, 1979; Sameroff, Seifer, Barocas, Zax, &
Greenspan, 1987; Seifer, Sameroff, Baldwin, & Baldwin, 1992).
Furthermore, many children living in low-income families tend to
experience negative outcomes such as higher rates of academic
failure, emotional distress, and mental health problems (Duncan &
Brooks-Gunn, 1997; Duncan, Brooks-Gunn, & Klebanov, 1994;
Huston, McLoyd, & García Coll, 1997; Luthar, 1999; McLoyd,
1998a, 1998b).
According to the National Child Abuse and Neglect Data System
(U. S. Department of Health and Human Services, National
Clearinghouse on Child Abuse and Neglect Information, 2002),
approximately 879,000 children in the United States are victims of
child maltreatment, and about 15% of those victims are Latino/
Hispanic. Prior research has shown that maltreated children are at
high risk for maladaptive functioning and psychopathology across
the life span because of the many detrimental effects on biological,
cognitive, social, emotional, representational, and linguistic development
associated with child maltreatment (Cicchetti, 2002; Cicchetti
& Lynch, 1995; Cicchetti & Rogosch; 2001a, 2001b; De-
Bellis, Baum, et al., 1999; DeBellis, Keshaven, et al., 1999;
Malinowsky-Rummel & Hansen, 1993; Trickett & McBride-
Chang, 1995). Maltreatment also is associated with disruptions in
several stage-salient areas of development, including emotion regulation,
the formation of secure attachment relationships, the development
of an autonomous and integrated self-system, effective
peer relations, and successful adaptation to school (Cicchetti &
Lynch, 1993; Cicchetti & Toth, 1995; Eckenrode, Laird, & Doris,
1993; Shields & Cicchetti, 1998; Shonk & Cicchetti, 2001; Toth,
Cicchetti, Macfie, & Emde, 1997; Trickett & McBride-Chang,
1995). Because of the extensive risk factors for maladaptive development
faced by many Latino children, the deleterious effects
of child maltreatment may place some Latino children at even
greater risk for negative outcomes.
A content analysis of three major journals specializing in child
maltreatment research revealed that very few studies of child
maltreatment examine the ethnicity of their participants (Behl,
Crouch, May, Valente, & Conyngham, 2001). Of the 1,133 articles
that were published in these journals from 1977 to 1998, only 6.7%
(N 76) focused on ethnicity in their participant sampling and
study designs. Fewer than half of all studies reviewed included

information regarding the ethnic representation of their participants,
and in those studies, the mean percentage of study participants
reported to be Latino was 7% (Behl et al., 2001).
As suggested by Cohen, Deblinger, Mannarino, and de Arellano
(2001), minority children who have been abused may be at greater
risk for developing more detrimental sequelae of child maltreatment
than are maltreated children from more mainstream cultures.
Although few studies of Latino children have investigated the
deleterious effects of different types of child maltreatment, several
studies have demonstrated greater rates of behavioral problems,
depressive symptoms, self-esteem issues, and emotional trauma
among sexually abused African American and Latino children than
among European American sexually abused children (Morrow &
Sorrell, 1989; Russell, 1986; Sanders-Phillips, Moisan, Wadlington,
Morgan, & English, 1995; Stein, Golding, Siegel, Burnam, &
Sorenson, 1988). For instance, a study of African American and
Latina sexually abused girls by Sanders-Phillips and colleagues
(1995) found higher rates of depression among sexually abused
Latina girls than among sexually abused African American girls of
the same socioeconomic background. Compared with African
American girls, Latina girls were more likely to have been sexually
abused by a family member, experienced lower self-esteem and
feelings of inadequacy, and received less maternal support after
disclosure of the abuse.
Thus, prior investigations of maltreated Latino children (primarily
sexually abused children) have demonstrated that these children
are at high risk for maladaptive outcomes (e.g., depression, behavior
problems; Morrow & Sorrell, 1989; Russell, 1986; Sanders-
Phillips et al., 1995; Stein et al., 1988). Because very little is
known about the predictors of developmental outcomes in general
and of resilient outcomes in particular in Latino children, it is
imperative that we begin to evaluate what processes may contribute
to resilient functioning in both maltreated and nonmaltreated
Latino children.
Resilience is conceptualized as a dynamic process that influences
an individual’s capacity to adapt and function successfully
despite experiencing chronic stress and adversity; it does not
represent a personality trait or other static condition (Egeland,
Carlson, & Sroufe, 1993; Luthar, 2003; Luthar, Cicchetti, &
Becker, 2000). Although previous studies of resilience in maltreated
children have not focused solely on Latino children, a prior
investigation of predictors of resilient adaptation evaluated multiple
areas of functioning in a heterogeneous sample of economically
disadvantaged maltreated children and nonmaltreated comparison
children (Cicchetti, Rogosch, Lynch, & Holt, 1993).
Maltreated children were rated as more disruptive–aggressive and
more withdrawn, had significantly greater levels of internalizing
behavior problems, and evinced lower overall competence on the
indices of functioning that were assessed than nonmaltreated children.
However, among the maltreated children, ego-resiliency,
ego-overcontrol, and positive self-esteem were found to be predictors
of resilient adaptation. In contrast, among the nonmaltreated
children, only ego-resiliency and positive self-esteem were
predictive of resilient adaptation. Likewise, in a 3-year longitudinal
study of another heterogeneous sample, Cicchetti and Rogosch
(1997) demonstrated that in maltreated, socioeconomically disadvantaged
children, factors such as positive self-esteem, egoresiliency,
and ego-overcontrol predicted resilient functioning,
whereas in nonmaltreated children, relationship features, as well as
ego-resiliency, proved to be more influential.
PREDICTORS OF RESILIENCE IN LATINO CHILDREN
339
Intellectual functioning is another factor that may predict resilience
among high-risk children. Prior investigations have shown
that intellectual functioning, as typically measured by intelligence
tests, not only predicts academic achievement but also may serve
as a protective factor against the development of antisocial behavior
problems (Garmezy, Masten, & Tellegen, 1984; Luthar, 1991;
Masten et al., 1999; White, Moffitt, & Silva, 1989). High intellectual
abilities may be associated with normal brain functioning
and cognitive development despite the experience of adversity
(Curtis & Cicchetti, 2003). Furthermore, high intellectual ability
may indicate effective information-processing skills that a highrisk
child may use when coping with environmental hardships,
including better problem-solving skills and the ability to attract the
interest of teachers and improve school functioning (Masten &
Coatsworth, 1998). In a study conducted by Herrenkohl, Herrenkohl,
and Egolf (1994), average or above average intellectual
performance was found to be an individual factor that contributed
to ongoing competent functioning in a longitudinal investigation of
maltreated and nonmaltreated children. Because previous studies
have shown that there is a link between intellectual functioning
and positive developmental outcomes, in the present investigation
we examined the role of intellectual functioning as a predictor of
resilience in Latino children.
Despite the fact that past research has sought to identify predictors
of resilient adaptation in maltreated children, current studies
have not conducted within-group analyses of maltreated Latino
children, and it is not known if the same predictive factors of
resilience would be applicable to this group. For instance, in many
Latino cultures, relationships are extremely valued and considered
of central importance (Harrison, Wilson, Pine, Chan, & Buriel,
1990). Yet it is not known whether relationship features would
serve as predictors of resilient adaptation for both maltreated and
nonmaltreated Latino children. In other diverse populations, the
ability to form relationships with others has been shown to promote
resilience (Luthar, 2003; Masten & Coatsworth, 1998). In
addition, in a sample of high-risk children, Werner (1993) identified
protective factors associated with the development of resilience
in Hawaiian children followed over the course of a 32-year
longitudinal study. One of the important findings of that investigation
was that the ability to establish and seek out emotional
support systems that extended beyond the immediate family network
promoted resilience in adulthood. That is, external support
systems served as a protective factor for high-risk Hawaiian children
and made a significant impact on the development of resilience
over time. To date, it is unknown whether this pattern would
emerge in a sample of high-risk, socioeconomically disadvantaged,
maltreated and nonmaltreated Latino children.
Likewise, there is very little known about the role of gender in
developmental outcomes among maltreated Latino children. Previous
literature has suggested that gender may influence responses
to adversity; specifically, it has been noted that girls may be less
reactive to family stress than boys, and they may be less at risk for
developing externalizing responses (Emery & O’Leary, 1982; Fergusson
& Horwood, 2001; Hetherington, 1989; Porter & O’Leary,
1980). However, to our knowledge, no investigations have examined
whether gender influences resilient functioning among Latino
children or the impact of cultural sex roles in predicting resilience.
Because traditional sex roles such as machismo (a man who carries
himself with respect, responsibility, and honor) and marianismo (a
woman who is self-sacrificing and virtuous) are prominent in

340
many Latino cultures, they may influence early socialization and
behavioral development in Latino boys and girls (Bem, 1981; de
Rios, 2001; Vasquez, 1994).
Hypotheses
On the basis of extant theory and empirical research, we hypothesized
(a) that maltreated Latino children would manifest less
adaptive functioning than their equally disadvantaged nonmaltreated
Latino counterparts; (b) that for nonmaltreated Latino children,
ego-resiliency and intelligence would predict resilient functioning,
whereas in the maltreated Latino group, ego-overcontrol,
ego-resiliency, and intelligence would predict resilient functioning;
and (c) that for maltreated and nonmaltreated Latino children,
relationship features would prove to be significant in contributing
to resilience. In addition, we conducted exploratory analyses and
investigated the potential role of sex differences in the functioning
of Latino children.
Method
Participants
Participants in this investigation included 133 Latino children from an
upstate New York urban setting who attended a summer day camp research
program designed for maltreated and nonmaltreated low-income, disadvantaged
children. In this investigation, the term Latino refers to children
“whose origins can be traced back to Spanish speaking regions of Latin
America, including that of the Caribbean, Mexico, Central America, and
South America” (Flores et al., 2002, p. 83). The children were identified by
their primary caregivers as Latino and were, on average, 8.68 years of age
(SD 1.78; see Table 1); 30.8% of the children were girls and 69.2% were
boys. All Latino children who attended the camp were fluent in English
according to parent report and interactions with the child. The Latino
sample was drawn from the larger group of camp attendees and was
composed of all the Latino children who had attended the day camp during
the years 1986–2000. This selection criterion is a strength of the study
because it provides the unique opportunity to evaluate a large sample of
Latino children within the context of a diverse pool of children of varied
racial and ethnic backgrounds. By selecting a sample of Latino children
from among a larger representation of ethnicities, counselors were not
exclusively rating Latino children but were simultaneously evaluating
children from many different ethnicities interacting as they would in an
everyday context. Moreover, the counselors were unaware of the experimental
hypotheses and the children’s maltreatment status.
This sample comprised both maltreated Latino children (N 76; 56
boys and 20 girls) and demographically comparable nonmaltreated Latino
children (N 57; 36 boys and 21 girls). Consistent with the larger
percentage of boys in the Monroe County Department of Human and
Health Services (MCDHHS) population and consequently in the overall
camp sample, the Latino sample had a higher percentage of boys (69.2%)
than girls (30.8%). However, the gender distribution did not differ significantly
for the maltreated and nonmaltreated groups.
Prior to enrolling their children in the camp, parents of all children
provided informed consent for their children’s participation as well as for
examination of any MCDHHS records. Maltreated children were identified
by MCDHHS as having experienced child abuse and/or neglect. All existing
MCDHHS records were screened and coded by raters using the
Barnett, Manly, and Cicchetti (1993) classification system for child maltreatment.
In order to obtain a demographically comparable comparison
group, nonmaltreated children were recruited from families receiving Aid
to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) and through notices placed
in neighborhoods where the maltreated children resided. MCDHHS record
searches were conducted on the comparison group families, and trained
research assistants also interviewed them, in order to further verify that
there was no history of prior MCDHHS involvement. Families were
excluded from the nonmaltreated Latino comparison group if any family
history of child abuse and/or neglect existed or if the family had received
preventive services through MCDHHS because of concerns over risk for
maltreatment.
Demographic Characteristics
The sample as a whole can be characterized as disadvantaged and at risk
for maladaptive outcomes because of environmental risk factors such as
living in single-parent homes with multiple children, low SES, dependency
on the state for financial support, and minority status (see Table 1).
Procedure
The week-long summer day camp is designed to provide children with
a variety of recreational activities and opportunities for peer interaction
while in a supportive environment. At the day camp, the children were
Table 1
Comparison of Demographic Characteristics of Maltreated and Nonmaltreated Children
Variable
FLORES, CICCHETTI, AND ROGOSCH
Maltreated
(n 76)
Nonmaltreated
(n 57)
M SD % M SD %
Gender
Male 73.7 63.2
Female 26.3 36.8
Age 8.53 1.47 8.90 2.12
Number of adults in home 1.66 0.69 1.50 0.56
Number of children in home 3.27 2.41 3.06 1.18
Marital status
Single, not living with a partner 38.0 42.9
Married or living with a partner 40.8 26.5
Divorced, separated, widowed 21.1 30.6
Family Hollingshead (Levels 1 and 2) 90.0 81.6
Receiving public assistance 89.9 76.6
Note. There were no significant differences between maltreated and nonmaltreated children on any of the
demographic variables. Hollingshead Hollingshead Index of Social Position.

placed in groups consisting of three counselors (one head counselor and
two co-counselors) and 6–8 children who were matched according to age
and gender. The percentages of maltreated and nonmaltreated children in
the groups were approximately equal (50% maltreated and 50% nonmaltreated).
Within the groups, many different ethnicities (e.g., African American,
Latino, European American) were represented among the children.
New groups of children attended the camp every week.
A typical camp day lasted 7 hr, resulting in 35 hr of interaction between
the children and the counselors during the week. In addition to recreational
activities, the children also were asked to participate in a variety of research
assessments. Child assent was obtained prior to any administration of
research assessments. Research assistants were trained in administering
assessments such as the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test—Revised
(PPVT–R) to individual children (see the following section). Camp counselors
completed a variety of assessments that measured their interactions
with, and observations of, the children assigned to their respective groups.
Measures
Maltreatment Classification System
In order to determine children’s maltreatment experiences, coding of
MCDHHS records was conducted by trained research assistants, doctoral
students, and PhD-level psychologists using the Maltreatment Classification
System (MCS) developed at the Mt. Hope Family Center (Barnett et
al., 1993). The MCS uses MCDHHS records detailing investigations and
findings regarding maltreatment occurrences in identified families. Rather
than relying on official designations and case dispositions, the MCS codes
all information available on a designated family from MCDHHS records,
making independent determinations of maltreatment experiences. (See
Manly, Kim, Rogosch, & Cicchetti, 2001, for a more detailed explanation
of this coding system.)
Among the maltreated sample of Latino children in this study, 74.6%
experienced physical neglect, 83.1% experienced emotional maltreatment,
66.2% experienced physical abuse, and 15.5% experienced sexual abuse.
Consistent with previous maltreatment literature, there was a high comorbidity
of multiple subtypes among the maltreated Latino sample. Multiple
subtypes were experienced by 77.6% of the Latino children. Because of the
high comorbidity among the maltreatment subtypes, discrete subgroups for
use in subtype comparisons were not feasible.
Counselor Measures
Camp counselors each evaluated the children in their respective groups
by providing assessments of individual child functioning. The counselors
were each trained on how to complete the assessments described below,
and counselors conducted their ratings of the children independently at the
end of each week, after 35 hr of interaction with the children. Interrater
determinations were made by computing Cronbach’s alphas among the
raters in each camp group. Individual counselor measures were averaged
for each individual child, thus combining the independent perspectives of
two to three different adult raters.
Behavior ratings (Wright, 1983). Counselors rated the behavior of
individual children on nine items that assessed three different aspects of
interpersonal functioning: prosocial behavior, aggression, and withdrawal.
Seven-point ratings were completed each day and based on 45-min observations
of children in unstructured and structured camp settings (e.g.,
sports, art, free play). Interrater reliabilities across the years of assessment
(1986–2000) ranged from .67 to .85 for prosocial behavior, from .70 to .88
for aggression, and from .65 to .80 for withdrawal. Individual counselor
assessments were averaged together to generate individual child scores for
each of the three scales.
Pupil Evaluation Inventory (PEI; Pekarik, Prinz, Liebert, Weintraub, &
Neale, 1976). Counselors completed the PEI at the end of each week. The
PEI makes use of a nomination technique and consists of 35 items that
assess social behavior. It yields three homogeneous and stable factors:
PREDICTORS OF RESILIENCE IN LATINO CHILDREN
341
Aggression, Withdrawal, and Likability. Counselors nominated up to 2
children in their groups who were characterized best by each individual
item. Interrater reliabilities across camp years ranged from .88 to .90.
Aggregate scores for each of the three scales were generated on the basis
of the number of nominations each child received on the respective scale
items. Scores were then averaged across counselors to obtain three subscale
scores per child.
Teacher Report Form of the Child Behavior Checklist (TRF; Achenbach,
1991b). At the end of each camp week, counselors rated each child’s
behavioral symptomatology by completing the TRF (a teacher-completed
version of the Child Behavior Checklist; Achenbach, 1991a). The TRF is
a widely used and validated instrument for assessing behavioral disturbance
from the perspective of teachers. In the present study, because camp
counselors were able to observe behaviors similar to those observed by
teachers, camp counselors completed the measure to provide an analogous
assessment of child functioning by an adult external to the family. The TRF
contains 118 items rated for frequency that assess two broadband dimensions
of child symptomatology: externalizing behavioral problems (e.g.,
delinquent and aggressive behavior) and internalizing behavioral problems
(e.g., withdrawal, anxiety–depression, and somatic complaints). The scores
for each child, in each group, were averaged among counselors to obtain
individual child scores for both internalizing and externalizing behavior
problems. Interrater reliabilities ranged from .83 to .91 for externalizing
behavior problems and from .70 to .88 for internalizing behavior problems.
California Child Q-Set (CCQ; J. H. Block & Block, 1969). At the end
of each week, the three counselors in each group independently completed
the CCQ for each child in their respective group on the basis of their
week-long intensive interactions with and observations of the children. The
CCQ consists of 100 diverse items about the personality, cognitive, and
social characteristics of children. Raters sort the individual items printed on
cards into a fixed distribution of piles depicting nine categories ranging
from most to least characteristic of the individual child. Thus, individual
profiles consisting of the 100 items are generated for each child. Interrater
agreement ranged from .68 to .86. Two-dimensional scores are derived
from the Q-set data: ego-resiliency and ego-control. On the basis of profiles
for prototypical children displaying high ego-resiliency and high egoundercontrol,
each item was assigned a criterion score for each respective
dimension (J. H. Block & Block, 1980). Each individual child’s profile of
Q-sorted items was correlated with the criterion sorts. The resulting correlations
of each child’s profile with the prototypical ego-resiliency and
ego-control criterion sorts represented how similar to or different from the
prototype profiles the individual child was. For instance, a high positive
correlation with the ego-resiliency sort would indicate that a child had a
high level of ego-resiliency, and a negative correlation would be indicative
of low ego-resiliency, or ego-brittleness (J. H. Block & Block, 1980).
Similarly, the ego-control dimension is organized such that high scores on
the ego-control dimension would indicate ego-undercontrol, and low scores
would indicate ego-overcontrol. The correlations of each counselor’s
Q-sort profiles for each child with the criterion sorts were averaged to
obtain individual scores of ego-resiliency and ego-control for each child.
Student–Teacher Relationship Scale (STRS; Pianta & Steinberg, 1992).
The STRS is a 30-item measure assessing the quality of the relationship
between a child and a teacher, as reported from the teacher’s perspective.
Because of the similarity between the roles of a teacher and a camp
counselor in terms of these individuals representing nonfamilial adults, the
STRS was deemed to be appropriate for the counselors to use to rate their
relationships with the individual children in their respective groups. Items
are rated on a 5-point scale representing how applicable each item is for a
particular child. Subscales for this instrument include Warm, Open Communication,
Conflicted, Dependent, and Closed/Troubled. A total relationship
score can also be obtained and was used in these analyses. Interrater
reliability was not obtained because relationship quality with each child
could vary from counselor to counselor. Because the head counselors of
each group were considered the group leaders and typically had the most
experience working with high-risk children, the ratings of the head coun-

342
selors for each respective group were used to characterize the relationship
quality for each child.
Peer Measure
Peer nominations (Coie & Dodge, 1983) were the peer measure used. On
the last day of each week, after children had interacted with each other
across the week of summer camp, children evaluated the characteristics of
their peers, within their respective camp groups, using a peer nomination
method (Coie & Dodge, 1983). Each child was asked to select one peer
from his or her group who best fit a series of statements that described the
following behavioral categories: cooperative, leader, shy, disruptive,
fighter, liked most, and liked least. These descriptions tapped into the
aggressive, withdrawn, and prosocial dimensions assessed in the study. A
photograph of the group was used to facilitate administration of the
measure, and the children were assured that their responses would be kept
confidential. The total number of nominations each individual child received
from his or her peers in each category was determined, and these
totals were converted to proportions of the possible nominations in each
category. The proportions were subsequently standardized within each
camp year.
Child Self-Report Measure
The PPVT–R (Dunn & Dunn, 1981) measures an important aspect of
intelligence by assessing receptive vocabulary 1 (Aber & Allen, 1987). The
PPVT–R has been demonstrated to have adequate internal consistency (a
split-half reliability of .80) and has been shown to correlate .64 with the
Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children (WISC) Full Scale IQ (Dunn &
Dunn, 1981). The PPVT–R was administered in English by trained research
assistants in a one-on-one interview setting.
Composite Scores of Resilient Functioning
An overall resilient functioning score was created to assess multiple
aspects of adaptive functioning (including social competence and behavioral
symptomatology). Indicators of social competence were evaluated
using measures obtained from both peers and counselors; indicators of
behavioral symptomatology were obtained only from counselors. A total of
nine indicators were assessed and used in the creation of an overall resilient
functioning score.
First, three composite variables assessing prosocial behavior, aggressiveness,
and withdrawal were created from the perspective of counselors.
These aspects of a child’s interpersonal behavior are important because
they portend long-term adjustment (Deater-Deckard, 2001; Masten et al.,
1999; Newcomb, Bukowski, & Pattee, 1993; Parker, Rubin, Price, &
DeRosier, 1995). Scores from the behavior ratings and the PEI were used.
A prosocial score was created by averaging z scores for the behavior
ratings score of prosocial behavior and the PEI score for Likability (
.66). Likewise, z scores for the behavior ratings’ and PEI’s aggression
scales were averaged ( .69), and z scores for the behavior ratings’ and
PEI’s withdrawal scales were averaged ( .68).
From the perspective of peers, four indicators of social functioning based
on peer nominations for “cooperative,” “disruptive,” “shy,” and “fighter”
were used. In addition to these measures of social functioning, indicators of
behavioral symptomatology also were used in the creation of the composite
of resilient functioning. These indicators included the counselor ratings of
internalizing and externalizing behavior problems from the TRF.
Because resilient functioning may be manifested in different domains by
different individuals (Luthar, 1991, 1993; Masten & Coatsworth, 1998;
Masten et al., 1999), we used a person-centered strategy to evaluate the
patterns of strengths and weaknesses of individual children across multiple
areas. Thus, in order to gain a clearer depiction of variation across the
multiple domains of functioning within individual Latino children, criteria
for high functioning were established for each of the nine indicators.
FLORES, CICCHETTI, AND ROGOSCH
Specifically, whether children scored in the most adaptive third of the
distribution was determined for each indicator (i.e., in the highest third for
counselor-rated prosocial behavior and peer-rated “cooperative”; in the
lowest third for counselor-rated aggression and withdrawal; in the lowest
third for peer-rated “shy,” “fighter,” and “disruptive”; and in the lowest
third for internalizing and externalizing behavior problems).
For each of the nine indicators, scores were dichotomized to reflect high
functioning (a score of 1) or no high functioning (a score of 0). Summing
across the nine indicators resulted in a total score of resilient functioning,
with a possible range of scores from 0 to 9 (M 3.04; SD 2.12). No
child scored highly on all indicators of adaptive functioning (i.e., received
a score of 9). However, 4 Latino children in the nonmaltreated group
achieved a score of 8.
The composite of resilient functioning was also used to categorize
children into three levels of functioning. The range of scores from 0 to 8
was divided into three levels. Resilient children were defined as those
having high functioning in 6–8 areas. These children were one standard
deviation above the mean on the resilience composite. Children with high
functioning in 2–5 areas were considered in the middle range of functioning,
and children with scores of 0–1 were considered in the low range, as
they evidenced either no high functioning or high functioning in only one
area and were one standard deviation below the mean.
Results
Contrasts of Maltreated and Comparison Children
In order to examine the differences between the maltreated and
nonmaltreated Latino children, an omnibus multivariate analysis of
variance was first conducted to determine if there was a significant
multivariate main effect for maltreatment. The main effect of
maltreatment was significant, F(9, 121) 2.24, p .05. Individual
t tests were then performed for each of the nine components of
resilient functioning (see Table 2). Maltreated Latino children
exhibited significantly greater aggressive behavior, exhibited significantly
less prosocial behavior, were rated more frequently by
their peers as fighters, had more internalizing symptoms, and had
more externalizing symptoms than did nonmaltreated Latino comparison
children.
The resilient functioning composite, which summarized the
number of domains in which children exhibited levels of high
functioning, also was evaluated. Maltreated Latino children had
significantly fewer areas of resilient functioning (2.61 vs. 3.61),
t(131) 2.79, p .01, than did nonmaltreated Latino children.
Because the children were categorized into three levels of adaptive
functioning (low, medium, and high), the distribution of
maltreated and nonmaltreated Latino children at each of these
levels also was evaluated in greater detail. Table 3 summarizes the
percentages of maltreated and nonmaltreated Latino children in
each of the three levels of competent functioning. There was a
significant difference between maltreated and nonmaltreated
Latino children, 2 (2, N 133) 6.88, p .05. At the high end
of functioning, there were fewer maltreated Latino children (9.2%)
represented than nonmaltreated Latino children (17.5%). In addition,
9.2% (N 7) of the maltreated Latino children versus 8.8%
(N 5) of the nonmaltreated Latino children achieved a score of
0, indicating no areas of resilient functioning. When the 30.8% of
1 In the summer day camp, the PPVT–R was used instead of the
PPVT–III in order to remain consistent with data that had been collected
prior to the introduction of the PPVT–III.

children in the low adaptive functioning group were compared
with all others, significantly more maltreated Latino children, 2 (1,
N 133) 6.22, p .02, than nonmaltreated Latino children
were in the low group.
Predicting Resilient Functioning
In order to identify contributors to differences in resilient functioning
among the Latino children, several process variables were
evaluated as potential predictors of resilient functioning. Personal
resource variables were assessed in these analyses, including egoresiliency,
ego-control, and receptive vocabulary. In addition to the
personal resource variables, aspects of interpersonal relations that
could serve to promote resilience among high-risk Latino children
were evaluated. In particular, the ability of a child to form a
positive relationship with the head camp counselor was assessed
and considered an indication of a child’s capacity to relate successfully
to a new adult figure. Table 4 provides a summary of
each of these variables contrasting maltreated and nonmaltreated
Latino children. 2 A number of significant differences were found.
Specifically, maltreated Latino children evinced lower levels of
ego-resiliency and receptive vocabulary than did nonmaltreated
children. Maltreated Latino children also evinced marginally
higher levels of ego-undercontrol than did nonmaltreated children.
In terms of interpersonal relationships, maltreated Latino children
were rated by their counselors as more conflicted than were
nonmaltreated children. Similarly, nonmaltreated Latino children,
compared with maltreated children, were rated as being warmer,
were rated as having more open communication, and received
higher total relationship scores, indicating that the nonmaltreated
children were better able to achieve positive relationships with
their head counselors.
In order to determine whether the process variables predicted
resilient functioning and whether they related differentially to
resilient functioning for maltreated and nonmaltreated Latino children,
we conducted a series of hierarchical regressions. Gender
was included in the regression analyses to explore whether it
contributed significantly to resilient functioning.
Ego-Resiliency and Ego-Control
In the first hierarchical regression analysis, resilient functioning
total scores were regressed onto the predictor variables of ego-
Table 2
Comparisons of Maltreated and Nonmaltreated Latino Children
on Nine Indicators of Resilient Functioning
Indicator
Maltreated Nonmaltreated
M SD M SD
t (131) p
Prosocial 0.27 0.82 0.26 0.95 3.48 .001
Aggressive 0.16 0.93 0.20 0.80 2.33 .02
Withdrawn 0.07 0.91 0.07 0.90 0.89 ns
Cooperative 0.05 0.94 0.32 0.93 1.64 ns
Disruptive 0.12 0.78 0.36 0.66 1.85 .06
Shy 0.001 0.91 0.19 0.97 1.15 ns
Fighter 0.05 0.88 0.38 0.56 2.61 .01
Internalizing 53.12 8.08 49.71 8.20 2.39 .02
Externalizing 57.11 8.79 52.49 8.24 3.08 .003
Resilience
composite 2.61 1.93 3.61 2.23 2.79 .006
PREDICTORS OF RESILIENCE IN LATINO CHILDREN
Table 3
Levels of Resilient Functioning by Maltreatment Status
Resilient functioning
Maltreated Nonmaltreated Total
n % n % N %
Low (0–1 indicators) 30 39.5 11 19.3 41 30.8
Middle (2–5 indicators) 39 51.3 36 63.2 75 56.4
High ( 6 indicators) 7 9.2 10 17.5 17 12.8
Total 76 57 133 100
343
resiliency and ego-control. In Steps 1 and 2 of the regression,
maltreatment status and gender were entered followed by the main
effects of ego-resiliency and ego-control entered simultaneously at
Step 3. Last, the linear interactions between ego-resiliency and
maltreatment status and between ego-control and maltreatment
status were entered simultaneously at Step 4. The unique contributions
to the variance explained (reported as sr 2 ) for each predictor
variable are summarized in Table 5. The main effects of
maltreatment status, gender, ego-resiliency, and ego-control each
made significant contributions to the prediction of resilient functioning,
with ego-resiliency serving as the most powerful predictor.
High ego-resiliency scores were associated with high resilience
( .60), and high ego-undercontrol scores were associated
with low resilience ( .17). Together these variables resulted
in a highly significant regression equation, F(6, 126) 21.17, p
.01, accounting for 50.2% of the variance in resilient functioning
(adjusted R 2 .48).
The linear interactions of both ego-resiliency and ego-control
with maltreatment status were found to be not significant. Because
the personal resource variable of ego-control theoretically has a
curvilinear relation with adaptation and maladaptation (i.e., extreme
ego-overcontrol and ego-undercontrol are associated with
maladaptation; Kremen & Block, 1998), a separate analysis of a
possible quadratic effect was evaluated for the interaction of
maltreatment status and ego-control on resilient functioning. In
Steps 1 and 2 of this analysis, the main effects of maltreatment
status and ego-control were entered into the regression equation,
respectively, followed by the quadratic term of ego-control at Step
3. Next, the product of ego-control and maltreatment was entered
at Step 4 to evaluate the linear interaction, followed by the product
of maltreatment and the quadratic term for ego-control at the final
step, to evaluate the quadratic interaction. The main effects of
maltreatment status, ego-control, and the quadratic effect of egocontrol
were significant, R 2 .21, F(3, 129) 11.46, p .01,
together accounting for 21% of the variance in the resilient functioning
composite. The linear and curvilinear interactions of mal-
2 Twenty-eight children were missing interpersonal relationship scores
because in the early years of camp, the STRS measure was not administered.
In addition, 27 children were missing scores of receptive vocabulary
because of issues such as absence from camp or concerns of validity. Thus,
owing to differences in sample size resulting from missing data, interpersonal
relationship variables and personal resource variables were evaluated
in separate hierarchical regression analyses. Receptive vocabulary, as
measured by the PPVT–R, was not significantly correlated with scores of
resilient functioning (r .05); thus it was not included as a variable in the
regression analyses.

344
Table 4
Comparison of Maltreated and Nonmaltreated Latino Children on Personal Resource
Characteristics, Receptive Vocabulary, Interpersonal Relationship Factors, and Overall
Relationship With Head Camp Counselor
Variable
treatment status and ego-control were not significant, thus showing
that regardless of maltreatment status, Latino children who demonstrated
either high ego-overcontrol or high ego-undercontrol
demonstrated less resilient functioning than children who had
ego-control scores that were more moderate to slightly overcontrolled.
In other words, for Latino children, mid-range ego-control
promotes resilient functioning.
Although there was a significant main effect of gender in the
overall regression evaluating the predictors of ego-resilience and
ego-control, the interactions of gender with each of the personal
resource variables were not significant, suggesting that the predictor
variables of ego-resiliency and ego-control did not relate differently
to resilient functioning for Latino girls and boys.
Relationship Quality With an Extrafamilial Adult
Two subsequent hierarchical regression analyses were conducted
to evaluate the interpersonal variables that represent aspects
Maltreated Nonmaltreated
M SD M SD
t df p
Ego-resiliency 0.15 0.30 0.34 0.34 3.40 131 .001
Ego-undercontrol 0.06 0.23 0.01 0.22 1.94 131 .06
Receptive vocabulary (PPVT–R) 81.74 14.53 88.02 16.32 2.10 104 .04
Open communication 2.93 0.85 3.49 0.80 3.47 103 .001
Dependent 1.96 0.64 1.93 0.70 0.18 103 ns
Closed/troubled 2.75 0.66 2.69 0.50 0.52 103 ns
Warm 3.33 0.66 3.67 0.61 2.74 103 .007
Conflicted 2.38 0.82 1.94 0.81 2.78 103 .006
Overall relationship 3.42 0.51 3.77 0.53 3.46 103 .001
Note. PPVT–R Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test—Revised.
of relationship features (i.e., the STRS overall relationship score
and the “conflicted,” “warm,” “open communication,” “dependent,”
and “closed/troubled” variables), in order to determine if
they related to the resilient functioning composite. The overall
relationship quality was examined first; individual components of
this relationship were subsequently evaluated.
In the first regression analysis, maltreatment status and gender
were entered first, followed by the overall quality of the relationship
with the head counselor. Significant main effects of maltreatment
and of the overall relationship with the head counselor were
found (see Table 6). There was no significant main effect of
gender. The interaction between maltreatment status and the overall
quality of the relationship with the head counselor was also
nonsignificant. Thus, for Latino children, regardless of maltreatment
status, the overall quality of the relationship with the head
counselor significantly predicted higher resilient functioning, contributing
to 50.6% of the variance in the resilient functioning score,
R 2 .51, F(1, 101) 124.20, p .01, .76.
Table 5
Influences of Maltreatment, Gender, and Personal Resource Variables on Level of Resilient
Functioning
Step F df R 2
Adjusted R 2
Step 1 7.79** 1, 131 .06 .05
Maltreatment status .24 .06**
Step 2 6.07** 2, 130 .03 .07
Maltreatment status .22 .05*
Gender .17 .03*
Step 3 31.56** 4, 128 .41 .48
Maltreatment status .02 .00
Gender .15 .02*
Ego-resiliency .60 .31**
Ego-control .17 .02*
Step 4 21.17** 6, 126 .01 .48
Maltreatment status .01 .00
Gender .14 .02*
Ego-resiliency (ER) .61 .31**
Ego-control (EC) .16 .02*
Maltreatment Status ER .06 .00
Maltreatment Status EC .07 .00
* p .05. ** p .01.
FLORES, CICCHETTI, AND ROGOSCH
sr 2

Table 6
Influences of Maltreatment, Gender, the Overall Counselor Relationship Variable, and the
Interpersonal Relationship Variables on Level of Resilient Functioning
Step F df R 2
In the second hierarchical regression analysis, the influences of
the individual features of the relationship with the head counselor
were examined. Maltreatment status and gender were entered at
Steps 1 and 2 of the regression equation, followed by the interpersonal
variables, which were simultaneously entered in the third
step of the analysis (see Table 6). Maltreatment status and the
interpersonal variables of “conflicted,” “warm,” and “closed/troubled”
uniquely contributed to the variance in the total resilient
functioning score. Together, maltreatment status, gender, and the
interpersonal variables resulted in a highly significant regression
equation, F(7, 97) 22.5, p .01, accounting for 61.9% of the
variance in resilient functioning (adjusted R 2 .59). The interpersonal
variables uniquely accounted for 53.5% of the variance in
the resilient functioning score, R 2 .54, F(5, 97) 27.25, p
.01, which is similar to the amount of variance accounted for by
the overall quality of the relationship with the head counselor.
Next, separate regression analyses were conducted to explore
whether any of the interpersonal relationship variables related to
the composite of resilient functioning differentially for maltreated
and nonmaltreated Latino children. To do so, we evaluated possible
interaction effects between maltreatment status and the interpersonal
variables. In each of these analyses, maltreatment status
was entered first, followed by one of the interpersonal variables,
and finally by the interaction between maltreatment and the interpersonal
variable. No significant interactions were found for the
“warm,” “dependent,” and “conflicted” interpersonal variables. In
contrast, the interaction between maltreatment status and the
“closed/troubled” variable was found to be significant, accounting
for an additional 2.6% of the variance in resilient functioning
scores, R 2 .03, F(1, 101) 3.76, p .05. As shown in Figure
1, the negative relation between closed/troubled relationship features
and resilient functioning was stronger for nonmaltreated
children ( .54) than maltreated children ( .40).
The interaction of maltreatment status and open communication
was also found to be significant, accounting for 3.1% of the
variance in the resilient functioning scores, R 2 .03, F(1,
101) 4.37, p .05. As shown in Figure 2, the positive relation
Adjusted R 2
Step 1 6.32* 1, 103 .06 .05
Maltreatment status .24 .06*
Step 2 4.64* 2, 102 .03 .07
Maltreatment status .21 .04*
Gender .16 .03
Step 3a 48.22** 3, 101 .51 .58
Maltreatment status .01 .00
Gender .04 .00
Overall counselor relationship .76 .51**
Step 3b 22.49** 7, 97 .54 .59
Maltreatment status .01 .00
Gender .01 .00
Conflicted .43 .07**
Warm .26 .02*
Open communication .12 .01
Dependent .17 .01
Closed/troubled .18 .02*
* p .05. ** p .01.
PREDICTORS OF RESILIENCE IN LATINO CHILDREN
between open communication and resilient functioning was stronger
for nonmaltreated ( .58) than maltreated ( .30) Latino
children.
Discussion
This investigation was designed to gain an understanding of the
impact of child maltreatment on Latino children as well as to
examine the processes contributing to resilient functioning in
Latino children at high risk for adverse outcomes. Consistent with
our first hypothesis, maltreated Latino children evinced more
difficulty across multiple aspects of functioning than their equally
socioeconomically disadvantaged nonmaltreated Latino peers.
Even though both maltreated and nonmaltreated Latino children
experienced multiple adversities that placed them at high risk for
maladaptive functioning (i.e., living in single-parent homes with
multiple children, low SES, dependency on the state for financial
support, and minority status), maltreated children evinced more
difficulties in several important areas of functioning. In accord
with prior investigations of resilience in samples of maltreated
children that have been composed predominantly of African
American and European American children (Cicchetti & Rogosch,
1997; Cicchetti et al., 1993), maltreated Latino children were rated
by both peers and counselors as having more difficulties in interpersonal
relations (e.g., exhibiting greater aggressive behavior and
less prosocial behavior and being more likely to be rated as
fighters) than nonmaltreated Latino children, and they also displayed
more symptoms of internalizing and externalizing behavior
problems than nonmaltreated Latino children.
Furthermore, consistent with other studies of resilience and
maltreatment (Cicchetti & Rogosch, 1997; Cicchetti et al., 1993;
McGloin & Widom, 2001; Moran & Eckenrode, 1992), maltreated
Latino children demonstrated a lower level of resilient functioning
than did equally disadvantaged nonmaltreated Latino children.
Moreover, several Latino children evinced a paucity of resilient
strivings (39.5% maltreated vs. 19.3% nonmaltreated), highlighting
the fact that in addition to ethnicity, SES, and other high-risk
sr 2
345

346
FLORES, CICCHETTI, AND ROGOSCH
Figure 1. Interaction of maltreatment and closed/troubled relationship features.
Figure 2. Interaction of maltreatment and open communication.

environmental factors, child maltreatment promotes maladaptive
functioning in Latino children. In this sample, twice as many
maltreated Latino children as nonmaltreated Latino children were
functioning maladaptively. Because resilience was determined by
scores of adaptive functioning only at one point in time, future
studies should focus on evaluating Latino children’s resilience
longitudinally.
In terms of identifying factors that would explain individual
differences in resilient functioning among both maltreated and
nonmaltreated Latino children, analyses revealed that maltreated
Latino children were rated as significantly more conflicted in
relationships with an adult counselor than were nonmaltreated
Latino children and evinced higher levels of ego-undercontrol;
conversely, nonmaltreated Latino children evidenced higher egoresiliency
and higher receptive vocabulary and were rated as
having more open communication, more warmth, and demonstrating
a more positive relationship with their head camp counselor.
Thus, the nonmaltreated Latino children displayed higher levels of
the interpersonal relationship factors previously associated with
higher resilient functioning than did the maltreated Latino children
(Cicchetti & Rogosch, 1997).
For both maltreated and nonmaltreated Latino children, analyses
of personal resource variables revealed that higher ego-resiliency
and moderate ego-overcontrol were associated with higher resilient
functioning. Being female also was associated with higher
resilient functioning. Contrary to the findings in previous literature
(Cicchetti & Rogosch, 1997), the effects of ego-resiliency and
ego-control did not relate differentially in predicting resilience for
maltreated and nonmaltreated Latino children; thus, only partial
support for our second hypothesis was found. Ego-resiliency was
found to be the strongest predictor of resilient functioning for this
sample, and consequently, the child’s ability to modify his or her
own characteristic level of ego-control, in order to accommodate
and sustain possible stressors in the environment as they arise, was
an adaptive resource (J. Block, 1982). For the children in this
sample, high ego-resiliency may have helped them to overcome
the many environmental hardships they experienced and, thus,
fostered resilient functioning.
The significant quadratic main effect for ego-control found in
this study suggests that there is an optimal amount of ego-control
that both maltreated and nonmaltreated Latino children should
exhibit for higher resilient functioning. For Latino children, resilient
functioning was found to decrease significantly as scores of
ego-undercontrol increased; that is, Latino children who had difficulty
regulating behavioral, affective, and cognitive expressions
of impulse had worse outcomes. Likewise, Latino children who
were extremely overcontrolled, and excessively inhibited in emotional
and behavioral expressiveness, also had fewer areas of
resilient functioning. For the Latino children in this sample, a
moderate amount of ego-overcontrol was found to be the most
adaptive. Our findings are similar to those of prior investigations
in showing that demonstrating more ego-overcontrol, or the ability
to adopt more reserved and controlled ways of interacting with
others, may help maltreated children function successfully and
cope with their adverse home environments (Cicchetti & Rogosch,
1997; Cicchetti et al., 1993). However, in this study, both maltreated
and nonmaltreated Latino children were found to benefit
from moderate ego-overcontrol; thus, the ability to exhibit greater
ego-control may also be important for nonmaltreated Latino children.
Previous findings have suggested that in other samples of
PREDICTORS OF RESILIENCE IN LATINO CHILDREN
347
maltreated and nonmaltreated children, ego-overcontrol has been
an important predictor of resilience in maltreated children only
(Cicchetti & Rogosch, 1997; Cicchetti et al., 1993). Because
Latino children may be at an even greater risk for maladaptive
outcomes than children of more mainstream cultures, there may be
a greater tendency for both resilient maltreated and nonmaltreated
Latino children to exhibit moderate amounts of behavioral and
emotional expressiveness. As described by J. H. Block and Block
(1980), some Q-sort items that characterize features of children
with a resilient overcontrolling type of personality organization
include “compliant,” “calm/relaxed,” and “empathic.” Similarly,
in the Latino culture, characteristics such as respect and control of
emotions (de Rios, 2001; Durrett, O’Bryant, & Pennebaker, 1975;
Simoni & Perez, 1995) are often valued by many Latino parents.
Thus, certain value systems may inculcate modulation of expressiveness
through expectations for respect and fostering of restraint,
and these features appear to be valuable for promoting resilience in
nonmaltreated as well as maltreated Latino children.
In addition, in terms of interpersonal relationship factors that
predict resilient functioning in Latino children, the main effects of
having a positive relationship with the head camp counselor and of
being rated as less conflicted, warmer, and being less closed/
troubled were also significant in predicting adaptive functioning.
The fact that these interpersonal variables were significantly associated
with higher functioning supports the notion that interpersonal
factors play a role in overcoming environmental hardships.
However, not all of these factors were found to relate to resilient
functioning differentially for maltreated and nonmaltreated Latino
children. As indicated above, the interactions of maltreatment
status with the relationship variables of “closed/troubled” and
“open communication” were significant, lending partial support to
our second and third hypotheses. Analyses revealed that, as in
previous investigations of resilience (Cicchetti & Rogosch, 1997),
the relations between these interpersonal relationship features and
resilient functioning were stronger for nonmaltreated Latino children.
That is, although relationship features do promote higher
resilient functioning in maltreated Latino children than in nonmaltreated
Latino children, the deleterious effects of maltreatment
may lessen the relative effectiveness of relationship features in
promoting positive outcomes. Maltreated children may not be able
to make use of relationships with adults in order to succeed and
surmount environmental hardships as well as nonmaltreated children
may. Thus, for maltreated Latino children, internal strengths
such as ego-resiliency and ego-overcontrol may be more essential
than relationship features in predicting resilience.
In terms of gender differences, being female was associated with
higher levels of resilient functioning in Latino children. However,
none of the linear interactions of gender with any of the predictor
variables was significant, suggesting that the predictors of resilience
did not differ for Latino girls and boys. Caution should be
taken when interpreting the role of gender in predicting resilience
because there were small numbers of girls in both the maltreated
group and the nonmaltreated comparison group. Thus, we recommend
that future investigators not only increase their sample size
to include more Latina girls but also that they continue to explore
possible gender differences that may exist in the development of
resilient functioning in Latino children. Because strong gender
roles and cultural ideals such as machismo and marianismo exist in
the Latino culture, they may promote differences in resilient functioning
between Latino girls and boys. For Latino boys growing up

348
in an environment that adheres to ideals of machismo, maltreatment
experiences may promote feelings of shame and frustration
around not being able to defend oneself or one’s family, thus
leading to increased aggression and increased externalizing and
internalizing behaviors. Likewise, many Latina girls who are socialized
to be self-sacrificing and obedient may develop the ability
to better cope with environmental adversities and avoid conflict.
Because it remains unclear, for example, how certain Latino
traditions, beliefs, and attitudes may promote resilient functioning
in both maltreated and nonmaltreated Latino children, future studies
need to incorporate models of development that investigate the
importance of culture and its role in predicting resilience. Future
investigations should use an emic (culture-specific) (García Coll,
Akerman, & Cicchetti, 2000; Shweder et al., 1998) approach by
obtaining measures that target specific cultural factors, in order to
examine patterns of adaptation and maladaptation, and predictors
of resilience within Latino culture. One such paradigm, proposed
by García Coll et al. (1996), recognizes the importance of developing
theory that would take into account many of the cultural
characteristics unique to minority cultures. This perspective has
been lacking in most existing models of child development. García
Coll and her colleagues proposed a social stratification model for
studying developmental pathways in minority children. Several
constructs proposed in this model were of particular relevance to
this study and may have contributed to how developmental processes
operated to promote resilience in Latino children. For
example, social position variables (e.g., race, social class, ethnicity,
gender), family (e.g., structure and roles, family values), and
developmental competencies (e.g., cognitive, social, emotional)
may differentially influence what factors facilitate resilience. Future
research on resilience should be guided by models sensitive to
the effects of culture on developmental processes and to culture’s
unique contributions to how successful adaptation is achieved in
the face of adversity.
Despite important findings in this study, several limitations must
be addressed. First, contrary to past research in child maltreatment,
receptive vocabulary, which is indirectly related to intellectual
functioning, was not found to be a predictor of resilience for either
maltreated or nonmaltreated Latino children in this investigation.
This is not to suggest that for Latino children receptive vocabulary
is not related to resilient outcomes. Instead, one explanation may
be that the PPVT–R may not have been a valid measure of
receptive vocabulary for Latino children because of language
differences and acculturation issues. In this study, scores for both
maltreated and nonmaltreated Latino children were generally below
average (84% achieved a score of less than 100). This limited
range of scores may provide an explanation as to why the PPVT–R
was not related to the resilient functioning composite. However, it
is important to note that the PPVT–R scores for the Latino children
in this sample were comparable to those of the other children
attending the summer day camp. Therefore, the low scores may not
be due to cultural factors but instead may be more associated with
the demographic characteristics of this group. Thus, future investigations
should use measures of receptive vocabulary and intellectual
functioning that have proven validity for Latino
populations.
Second, measures of acculturation were not obtained in this
study, nor were specific Latino subgroups identified (e.g., Puerto
Rican, Mexican American, Cuban, Dominican). Because there are
many different traditions and value systems within the Latino
FLORES, CICCHETTI, AND ROGOSCH
culture, it is important to measure acculturation and to recognize
the diversity within specific groups of Latinos in future investigations.
Third, because of the sample size and the high comorbidity
of maltreatment subtypes, the potential differential effects of physical
neglect, emotional maltreatment, physical abuse, and sexual
abuse among Latino children could not be rigorously investigated.
Future investigations should use a much larger sample of maltreated
Latino children in order to perform further subtype analyses.
Finally, self-system processes were not evaluated in this study.
Processes such as self-esteem, self-confidence, self-reliance, and
social self-efficacy have been indicated as protective factors in
reducing behavior problems among maltreated children (Cicchetti
& Rogosch, 1997; Kim & Cicchetti, 2003) and may predict resilience
in maltreated children. In other minority cultures, it has been
found that the presence of a positive ethnic identity is associated
with the development of an integrated self-system and increased
self-esteem (Spencer, Dupree, & Hartmann, 1997; Spencer, Fegley,
& Harpalani, 2003). For Latino children who are able to
establish a positive ethnic identity, these self-system processes
may be of particular importance. Thus, future studies need to
examine the influence of such processes on adaptive and maladaptive
development in Latino children.
Definitive intervention implications await additional research on
pathways to adaptive and maladaptive functioning in Latino children.
Because certain aspects of relationship features differed as
predictors of resilient functioning in nonmaltreated and maltreated
Latino children, one clinical implication that should be considered
is the development and fostering of relationships with persons
outside of the nuclear family for maltreated Latino children. Relationship
features may not have been as effective in predicting
resilience in maltreated Latino children because, unlike many
nonmaltreated Latino children, maltreated Latino children may not
have experienced a positive relationship within their families and
may find it more difficult to relate to, or to rely on, others. Thus,
future work with this population should focus on promoting resilience
in maltreated Latino children through the development of
supportive relationships with adults and peers outside of the immediate
family system. Finally, because ego-resiliency was found
to be the strongest predictor of resilient functioning in high-risk Latino
children, and may be essential to the development of resilience in
maltreated Latino children (J. Block, 1993), future interventions
should focus on how to enhance the development of ego-resiliency in
both nonmaltreated and maltreated Latino children.
Although the Latino population is rapidly increasing, our current
understanding of pathways to resilience in high-risk Latino children
has not shown commensurate progress. In fact, this investigation
is among the first to advance our knowledge of the deleterious
effects of child maltreatment on Latino children and to
elucidate some of the predictors of resilient adaptation in these
youngsters. The important findings emanating from this investigation
highlight the need to conduct additional work on the predictors
of resilient functioning in maltreated Latino children. As our
knowledge base expands, our ability to design and implement the
preventive interventions necessary to promote resilience in this
high-risk population of children will be greatly enhanced.
References
Aber, J. L., & Allen, J. P. (1987). The effects of maltreatment on young
children’s socioemotional development: An attachment theory perspective.
Developmental Psychology, 23, 406–414.

Achenbach, T. (1991a). Manual for the Child Behavior Checklist and 1991
profile. Burlington: University of Vermont, Department of Psychiatry.
Achenbach, T. (1991b). Manual for the Teacher’s Report Form and 1991
profile. Burlington: University of Vermont, Department of Psychiatry.
Arcia, E., Keyes, L., & Gallagher, J. J. (1994). Indicators of developmental
and functional status of Mexican American and Puerto Rican children.
Journal of Developmental & Behavioral Pediatrics, 5, 27–33.
Barnett, D., Manly, J. T., & Cicchetti, D. (1993). Defining child maltreatment:
The interface between policy and research. In D. Cicchetti & S. L.
Toth (Eds.), Child abuse, child development, and social policy (pp.
7–74). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Behl, L. E., Crouch, J. L., May, P. F., Valente, A. L., & Conyngham, H. A.
(2001). Ethnicity in child maltreatment research: A content analysis.
Child Maltreatment, 6, 143–147.
Bem, S. L. (1981). Gender schema theory: A cognitive account of sex
typing. Psychological Review, 88, 354–364.
Block, J. (1982). Assimilation, accommodation, and the dynamics of
personality development. Child Development, 53, 281–295.
Block, J. (1993). Studying personality the long way. In D. Funder, R.
Parke, C. Tomlinson-Keasey, & K. Widaman (Eds.), Studying lives
through time: Personality and development (pp. 3–41). Washington,
DC: American Psychological Association.
Block, J. H., & Block, J. (1969). The California Child Q-Set. Berkeley:
University of California, Institute of Human Development.
Block, J. H., & Block, J. (1980). The role of ego-control and ego-resiliency
in the organization of behavior. In W. A. Collins (Ed.), Minnesota
Symposia on Child Psychology: Vol. 13. Development of cognition,
affect, and social relations (pp. 39–101). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Brooks-Gunn, J., Duncan, G. J., & Aber, J. L. (Eds.). (1997). Neighborhood
poverty: Policy implications in studying neighborhoods (Vol. 2).
New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Canino, I. A., Gould, M. S., Prupris, S., & Shaffer, D. (1986). A comparison
of symptoms and diagnosis in Hispanic and Black children in an
outpatient mental health clinic. Journal of the American Academy of
Child Psychology, 25, 254–259.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (1999). Youth risk behavior
surveillance: United States. Retrieved May 2, 2002, from http://www
.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrthml/ss4905a.1htm
Cicchetti, D. (2002). The impact of social experience on neurobiological
systems: Illustration from a constructivist view of child maltreatment.
Cognitive Development, 17, 1407–1428.
Cicchetti, D., & Lynch, M. (1993). Toward an ecological/transactional
model of community violence and child maltreatment: Consequences for
children’s development. Psychiatry, 56, 96–117.
Cicchetti, D., & Lynch, M. (1995). Failures in the expectable environment
and their impact on individual development: The case of child maltreatment.
In D. Cicchetti & D. J. Cohen (Eds.), Developmental psychopathology:
Vol. 2. Risk, disorder, and adaptation (pp. 32–71). New York:
Wiley.
Cicchetti, D., & Rogosch, F. A. (1997). The role of self-organization in the
promotion of resilience in maltreated children. Development and Psychopathology,
9, 797–815.
Cicchetti, D., & Rogosch, F. A. (2001a). Diverse patterns of neuroendocrine
activity in maltreated children. Development and Psychopathology,
13, 677–693.
Cicchetti, D., & Rogosch, F. A. (2001b). The impact of child maltreatment
and psychopathology on neuroendocrine functioning. Development and
Psychopathology, 13, 783–804.
Cicchetti, D., Rogosch, F. A., Lynch, M., & Holt, K. D. (1993). Resilience
in maltreated children: Processes leading to an adaptive outcome. Development
and Psychopathology, 5, 629–647.
Cicchetti, D., & Toth, S. L. (1995). A developmental perspective on child
abuse and neglect. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent
Psychiatry, 34, 541–565.
Cicchetti, D., & Toth, S. L. (1998). Perspectives on research and practice
PREDICTORS OF RESILIENCE IN LATINO CHILDREN
349
in developmental psychopathology. In W. Damon, I. E. Sigel, & K. A.
Renninger (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 4. Child psychology
in practice (pp. 479–583). New York: Wiley.
Cohen, J. A., Deblinger, E., Mannarino, A. P., & de Arellano, M. A.
(2001). The importance of culture in treating abused and neglected
children: An empirical review. Child Maltreatment, 6, 148–157.
Coie, J. D., & Dodge, K. A. (1983). Continuities and changes in children’s
social status: A five-year longitudinal study. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly,
29, 261–282.
Curtis, J. W., & Cicchetti, D. (2003). Moving research on resilience into
the 21st century: Theoretical and methodological considerations in examining
the biological contributors to resilience. Development and Psychopathology,
15, 773–810.
Deater-Deckard, K. (2001). Annotation: Recent research examining the
role of peer relationships in the development of psychopathology. Journal
of Child Psychology and Psychiatry and Allied Disciplines, 42,
565–579.
DeBellis, M. D., Baum, A. S., Birmaher, B., Keshaven, M. S., Eccard,
C. H., Boring, A., et al. (1999). Developmental traumatology. Part I:
Biological stress systems. Biological Psychiatry, 45, 1259–1270.
DeBellis, M. D., Keshavan, M. S., Casey, B. J., Clark, D. B., Giedd, J.,
Boring, A. M., et al. (1999). Developmental traumatology: Biological
stress systems and brain development in maltreated children with PTSD.
Part II: The relationship between characteristics of trauma and psychiatric
symptoms and adverse brain development in maltreated children
and adolescents with PTSD. Biological Psychiatry, 45, 1271–1284.
de Rios, M. D. (2001). Brief psychotherapy with the Latino immigrant
client. Binghamton, NY: Haworth Press.
Dihn, K. T., Roosa, M. W., Tein, J. Y., & Lopez, V. A. (2002). The
relationship between acculturation and problem behavior proneness in a
Hispanic youth sample: A longitudinal mediation model. Journal of
Abnormal Child Psychology, 30, 295–309.
Duncan, G. J., & Brooks-Gunn, J. (Eds.). (1997). Consequences of growing
up poor. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Duncan, G. J., Brooks-Gunn, J., & Klebanov, P. K. (1994). Economic
deprivation and early childhood development. Child Development, 65,
296–318.
Dunn, L. M., & Dunn, L. M. (1981). Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test—
Revised manual. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service.
Durrett, M. E., O’Bryant, S., & Pennebaker, J. W. (1975). Child-rearing
reports of White, Black, and Mexican-American families. Developmental
Psychology, 2, 871.
Eckenrode, J., Laird, M., & Doris, J. (1993). School performance and
disciplinary problems among abused and neglected children. Developmental
Psychology, 29, 53–62.
Egeland, B., Carlson, E., & Sroufe, A. L. (1993). Resilience as process.
Development and Psychopathology 5, 517–528.
Emery, R. E., & O’Leary, K. D. (1982). Children’s perceptions of marital
discord and behavior problems of boys and girls. Journal of Abnormal
Child Psychology, 10, 11–24.
Fergusson, D. M., & Horwood, J. L. (2001). Resilience to childhood
adversity. In S. S. Luthar (Ed.), Resilience and vulnerability: Adaptation
in the context of childhood adversities (pp. 130–155). New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Fisher, C. B., Jackson, J. F., & Villarruel, F. A. (1998). The study of
African American and Latin American children and youth. In W. Damon
& R. M. Lerner (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 1. Theoretical
models of human development (pp. 1145–1207). New York: Wiley.
Flores, G., Fuentes-Afflick, E., Barbot, O., Carter-Pokras, O., Claudio, L.,
Lara, M., et al. (2002). The health of Latino children: Unanswered
priorities, unanswered questions, and a research agenda. Journal of the
American Medical Association, 288, 82–90.
García Coll, C., Akerman, A., & Cicchetti, D. (2000). Cultural influences
on developmental processes and outcomes: Implications for the study of

350
development and psychopathology. Development and Psychopathology,
12, 333–356.
García Coll, C., Lamberty, G., Jenkins, R., McAdoo, H. P., Crnic, K.,
Wasik, B. H., & Vasquez García, H. (1996). An integrative model for the
study of developmental competencies in minority children. Child Development,
67, 1891–1914.
Garmezy, N., Masten, A. S., & Tellegen, A. (1984). The study of stress and
competence in children: A building block for developmental psychopathology.
Child Development, 55, 97–111.
Harrison, A. O., Wilson, M. N., Pine, C. J., Chan, E. Q., & Buriel, R.
(1990). Family ecologies of ethnic minority children. Child Development,
61, 347–362.
Herrenkohl, E. C., Herrenkohl, R., & Egolf, M. (1994). Resilient early
school-age children from maltreating homes: Outcomes in late adolescence.
American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 64, 301–309.
Hetherington, E. M. (1989). Coping with family transitions: Winners,
losers, and survivors. Child Development, 60, 1–14.
Huston, A. C., McLoyd, V. C., & García Coll, C. (1997). Poverty and
behavior: The case for multiple levels of analysis. Developmental Review,
17, 376–393.
Jessor, R. (1993). Successful adolescent development among youth in
high-risk settings. American Psychologist, 48, 117–126.
Kim, J., & Cicchetti, D. (2003). Social self-efficacy and behavior problems
in maltreated and nonmaltreated children. Journal of Clinical Child and
Adolescent Psychology, 32, 106–117.
Kremen, A. M., & Block, J. (1998). The roots of ego-control in young
adulthood: Links with parenting in early childhood. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 75, 1062–1075.
Luthar, S. S. (1991). Vulnerability and resilience: A study of high-risk
adolescents. Child Development, 62, 600–616.
Luthar, S. S. (1993). Annotation: Methodological and conceptual issues in
the study of resilience. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry and
Allied Disciplines, 34, 441–453.
Luthar, S. S. (1999). Poverty and children’s adjustment. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Luthar, S. S. (Ed.). (2003). Resilience and vulnerability. New York: Cambridge
University Press.
Luthar, S. S., Cicchetti, D., & Becker, B. (2000). The construct of resilience:
A critical evaluation and guidelines for future work. Child Development,
71, 543–562.
Malinowsky-Rummel, R., & Hansen, D. J. (1993). Long-term consequences
of childhood physical abuse. Psychological Bulletin, 114,
68–79.
Manly, J. T., Kim, J. E., Rogosch, F. A., & Cicchetti, D. (2001). Dimensions
of child maltreatment and children’s adjustment: Contributions of
developmental timing and subtype. Development and Psychopathology,
13, 759–782.
Masten, A. S., & Coatsworth, J. D. (1998). The development of competence
in favorable and unfavorable environments: Lessons from research
on successful children. American Psychologist, 53, 205–220.
Masten, A. S., Hubbard, J. J., Gest, S. D., Tellegen, A., Garmezy, N., &
Ramirez, M. (1999). Competence in the context of adversity: Pathways
to resilience and maladaptation from childhood to late adolescence.
Development and Psychopathology, 11, 143–169.
McGloin, J. M., & Widom, C. S. (2001). Resilience among abused and
neglected children grown up. Development and Psychopathology, 13,
1021–1038.
McLoyd, V. C. (1998a). Children in poverty: Development, public policy,
and practice. In W. Damon, I. E. Sigel, & K. A. Renninger (Eds.),
Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 4. Child psychology in practice (pp.
135–208). New York: Wiley.
McLoyd, V. C. (1998b). Socioeconomic disadvantage and child development.
American Psychologist, 53, 185–204.
Moran, P. B., & Eckenrode, J. (1992). Protective personality characteristics
FLORES, CICCHETTI, AND ROGOSCH
among adolescent victims of maltreatment. Child Abuse & Neglect, 16,
743–754.
Morrow, K. B., & Sorrell, G. T. (1989). Factors affecting self-esteem,
depression, and negative behaviors in sexually abused female adolescents.
Journal of Marriage and the Family, 51, 677–686.
Newcomb, A. F., Bukowski, W. M., & Pattee, L. (1993). Children’s peer
relations: A meta-analytic review of popular, rejected, neglected, controversial,
and average sociometric status. Psychological Bulletin, 113,
99–128.
Parker, J. G., Rubin, K. H., Price, J. M., & DeRosier, M. E. (1995). Peer
relationships, child development, and adjustment: A developmental psychopathology
perspective. In D. Cicchetti & D. J. Cohen (Eds.), Developmental
psychopathology: Vol. 2. Risk, disorder, and adaptation (pp.
96–161). New York: Wiley.
Pekarik, E., Prinz, R., Liebert, D., Weintraub, S., & Neale, J. (1976). The
Pupil Evaluation Inventory: A sociometric technique for assessing children’s
social behavior. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 4,
83–97.
Pianta, R. C., & Steinberg, M. (1992). Teacher–child relationships and the
process of adjusting to school. New Directions for Child Development,
57, 61–80.
Porter, B., & O’Leary, K. D. (1980). Marital discord and childhood
behavior problems. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 8, 287–295.
Russell, D. E. H. (1986). The secret trauma: Incest in the lives of girls and
women. New York: Basic Books.
Rutter, M. (1979). Protective factors in children’s responses to stress and
disadvantage. In M. W. Kent & J. E. Rolf (Eds.), Primary prevention in
psychopathology: Social competence in children (Vol. 8, pp. 49–74).
Hanover, NH: University Press of New England.
Sameroff, A. J., Seifer, R., Barocas, R., Zax, M., & Greenspan, S. (1987).
Intelligence Quotient scores of 4-year-old children: Social–
environmental risk factors. Pediatrics, 79, 343–350.
Sanders-Phillips, K., Moisan, P., Wadlington, S., Morgan, S., & English,
K. (1995). Ethnic differences in psychological functioning among Black
and Latino sexually abused girls. Child Abuse & Neglect, 19, 691–706.
Seifer, R., Sameroff, A., Baldwin, C., & Baldwin, C. (1992). Child and
family factors that ameliorate risk between 4 and 13 years of age.
Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry,
31, 893–903.
Shields, A., & Cicchetti, D. (1998). Reactive aggression among maltreated
children: The contributions of attention and emotional dysregulation.
Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 27, 381–395.
Shonk, S. M., & Cicchetti, D. (2001). Maltreatment, competency deficits,
and risk for academic and behavioral maladjustment. Developmental
Psychology, 37, 3–17.
Shweder, R. A., Goodnow, J., Hatano, G., LeVine, R. A., Markus, H., &
Miller, P. (1998). The cultural psychology of development: One mind,
many mentalities. In W. Damon (Series Ed.), Handbook of child psychology
(5th ed., Vol. 4, pp. 865–937). New York: Wiley.
Simoni, J. M., & Perez, L. (1995). Latinos and mutual support groups: A
case for considering culture. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 65,
440–445.
Spencer, M. B., Dupree, D., & Hartmann, T. (1997). A phenomenological
variant of ecological systems theory (PVEST): A self-organization perspective
in context. Development and Psychopathology, 9, 817–833.
Spencer, M. B., Fegley, S. G., & Harpalani, V. (2003). A theoretical and
empirical examination of identity as coping: Linking coping resources to
the self processes of African American youth. Applied Developmental
Science, 7, 181–188.
Stein, J. A., Golding, J. M., Siegel, J. M., Burnam, M. A., & Sorenson, S.
(1988). Long-term psychological sequelae of child sexual abuse: The
Los Angeles epidemiologic catchment area study. In G. Wyatt & G.
Powell (Eds.), Lasting effects of child sexual abuse (pp. 135–154).
Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Toth, S. L., Cicchetti, D., Macfie, J., & Emde, R. N. (1997). Representa-

tions of self and other in the narratives of neglected, physically abused,
and sexually abused preschoolers. Development and Psychopathology,
9, 781–796.
Trickett, P. K., & McBride-Chang, C. (1995). The developmental impact of
different forms of child abuse and neglect. Developmental Review, 15,
311–337.
U. S. Department of Health and Human Services, National Clearinghouse
on Child Abuse and Neglect Information. (2002, April). Children’s
Bureau, Administration on Children, Youth, and Families, National
Child Abuse and Neglect Data System (NCANDS): Summary of key
findings from calendar year 2000. Retrieved May 13, 2003, from http://
www.calib.com/nccanch/pubs/factsheets/canstats.cfm
Vasquez, M. (1994). Latinas. In L. Comas-Diaz & B. Greene (Eds.),
Women of color (pp. 78–92). New York: Guilford Press.
PREDICTORS OF RESILIENCE IN LATINO CHILDREN
351
Werner, E. E. (1993). Risk, resilience, and recovery: Perspectives from the
Kauai Longitudinal Study. Development and Psychopathology, 5, 503–
515.
White, J. L., Moffitt, T. E., & Silva, P. A. (1989). A prospective replication
of the protective effects of IQ in subjects at high risk for juvenile
delinquency. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 57, 719–
724.
Wright, J. (1983). The structure and perception of behavioral consistency.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Stanford University.
Received January 13, 2004
Revision received May 15, 2004
Accepted July 9, 2004