Ts rated all items for the three academic measures on a

Ts rated all items for the three academic measures on a five-point scale ranging from 1 (not at all) to 5 (all the time). Higher mean scores denoted more positive academic outcomes, and all three measures demonstrated good reliability ( = .75 for school engagement; = .85 for academic activities; = .79 for school belonging). Covariates–Data on students’ gender and race/ethnicity (i.e., Latino, African AZD4547 web American) were collected from school records. Based on student reports, we identified immigrant status (1 = at least one parent born outside U.S., 0 = both parents born in U.S.), family structure (1 = living with both biological parents, 0 = other family structure), and parent education (1 = less than high school, 4 = four-year college graduates or higher). We also controlled for the school the student attended and the language version of the survey. Analysis Plan Data analyses were conducted in a structural equation modeling framework in the following steps. We first conducted preliminary analyses to investigate similarities and differences in cultural socialization across contexts through bivariate correlations and comparisons of mean differences among the four types of cultural socialization: family socialization of heritage culture, family socialization of mainstream culture, peer socialization of heritage culture, and peer socialization of mainstream culture. We also examined bivariate correlations between cultural socialization and adolescents’ demographic characteristics (i.e. gender, race/ethnicity, family structure, parental education, immigrant status). In our primary analyses, we used variable- and person-centered approaches to examine the influence of family and peer cultural socialization for adolescent well-being. Adolescent well-being was PD325901 site captured by a latent construct of socioemotional distress based on depressive symptoms and loneliness, and a latent construct of academic adjustment based on school engagement, shared academic activities with peers, and school belonging. A measurementAuthor Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author ManuscriptJ Youth Adolesc. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2017 March 16.Wang and BennerPagemodel was fit to assess the validity of the latent constructs. All the analyses controlled for adolescents’ demographic characteristics (i.e. gender, race/ethnicity, family structure, parental education, immigrant status), survey language, and the school each adolescent attended. For the variable-centered approach, we first examined main effects of family and peer cultural socialization on adolescents’ socioemotional distress and academic adjustment and then introduced interaction terms between family and peer socialization to the models. Both linear and quadratic interaction effects were tested in an attempt to capture potential complex relationships between family-peer congruence and adolescent well-being (Edwards, 1994; Laird De Los Reyes, 2013). When significant interaction terms emerged, we used two approaches to interpret the interaction effects. We first conducted simple slope analyses (Aiken West, 1991; Preacher, Curran, Bauer, 2006) to examine the extent to which family cultural socialization was linked to adolescent well-being when peer cultural socialization was low (i.e., one standard deviation below the mean) versus high (i.e., one standard deviation above the mean). We also used the Johnson-Neyman technique (Muth Muth , 1998?014; Preacher, Curran, Bauer, 2006) to.Ts rated all items for the three academic measures on a five-point scale ranging from 1 (not at all) to 5 (all the time). Higher mean scores denoted more positive academic outcomes, and all three measures demonstrated good reliability ( = .75 for school engagement; = .85 for academic activities; = .79 for school belonging). Covariates–Data on students’ gender and race/ethnicity (i.e., Latino, African American) were collected from school records. Based on student reports, we identified immigrant status (1 = at least one parent born outside U.S., 0 = both parents born in U.S.), family structure (1 = living with both biological parents, 0 = other family structure), and parent education (1 = less than high school, 4 = four-year college graduates or higher). We also controlled for the school the student attended and the language version of the survey. Analysis Plan Data analyses were conducted in a structural equation modeling framework in the following steps. We first conducted preliminary analyses to investigate similarities and differences in cultural socialization across contexts through bivariate correlations and comparisons of mean differences among the four types of cultural socialization: family socialization of heritage culture, family socialization of mainstream culture, peer socialization of heritage culture, and peer socialization of mainstream culture. We also examined bivariate correlations between cultural socialization and adolescents’ demographic characteristics (i.e. gender, race/ethnicity, family structure, parental education, immigrant status). In our primary analyses, we used variable- and person-centered approaches to examine the influence of family and peer cultural socialization for adolescent well-being. Adolescent well-being was captured by a latent construct of socioemotional distress based on depressive symptoms and loneliness, and a latent construct of academic adjustment based on school engagement, shared academic activities with peers, and school belonging. A measurementAuthor Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author ManuscriptJ Youth Adolesc. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2017 March 16.Wang and BennerPagemodel was fit to assess the validity of the latent constructs. All the analyses controlled for adolescents’ demographic characteristics (i.e. gender, race/ethnicity, family structure, parental education, immigrant status), survey language, and the school each adolescent attended. For the variable-centered approach, we first examined main effects of family and peer cultural socialization on adolescents’ socioemotional distress and academic adjustment and then introduced interaction terms between family and peer socialization to the models. Both linear and quadratic interaction effects were tested in an attempt to capture potential complex relationships between family-peer congruence and adolescent well-being (Edwards, 1994; Laird De Los Reyes, 2013). When significant interaction terms emerged, we used two approaches to interpret the interaction effects. We first conducted simple slope analyses (Aiken West, 1991; Preacher, Curran, Bauer, 2006) to examine the extent to which family cultural socialization was linked to adolescent well-being when peer cultural socialization was low (i.e., one standard deviation below the mean) versus high (i.e., one standard deviation above the mean). We also used the Johnson-Neyman technique (Muth Muth , 1998?014; Preacher, Curran, Bauer, 2006) to.