Family_NN1 and_CC Neighborhood_NN1 Fit_NN1 or_CC Misfit_NP1 and_CC the_AT Adaptation_NN1 of_IO Mexican_JJ Americans_NN2 Introduction_NN1 Numerous_JJ studies_NN2 have_VH0 shown_VVN that_DD1 neighborhood_NN1 characteristics_NN2 are_VBR related_VVN to_II adult_NN1 and_CC child_NN1 physical_JJ ,_, social_JJ ,_, and_CC psychological_JJ problems_NN2 (_( e.g._REX ,_, Dupere_NP1 and_CC Perkins_NP1 2007_MC ;_; Kupersmidt_NP1 ,_, Giesler_NP1 ,_, DeRosier_NP1 ,_, Patterson_NP1 ,_, &;_NULL Davis_NP1 ,_, 1995_MC ;_; Roosa_NP1 et_RA21 al._RA22 ,_, 2005_MC )_) ._. 
Most_DAT studies_NN2 have_VH0 characterized_VVN neighborhoods_NN2 as_CSA sources_NN2 of_IO stress_NN1 with_IW which_DDQ residents_NN2 contend_VV0 ._. 
Despite_II the_AT utility_NN1 of_IO stress_NN1 process_NN1 models_NN2 for_IF understanding_VVG variations_NN2 in_II adjustment_NN1 due_II21 to_II22 neighborhood_NN1 characteristics_NN2 ,_, these_DD2 usually_RR are_VBR applied_VVN mechanistically_RR such_CS21 that_CS22 neighborhood_NN1 characteristics_NN2 influence_VV0 individuals_NN2 who_PNQS are_VBR characterized_VVN as_CSA relatively_RR passive_JJ participants_NN2 in_II the_AT process_NN1 (_( Roosa_NP1 ,_, Jones_NP1 ,_, Tein_NP1 ,_, &;_NULL Cree_NP1 ,_, 2003_MC )_) ._. 
In_II contrast_NN1 ,_, human_JJ development_NN1 and_CC adaptation_NN1 clearly_RR unfold_VV0 because_II21 of_II22 the_AT constant_JJ interaction_NN1 between_II individuals_NN2 and_CC the_AT contexts_NN2 in_II which_DDQ they_PPHS2 are_VBR embedded_VVN (_( Bronfenbrenner_NP1 &;_NULL Ceci_NP1 ,_, 1994_MC ;_; Lerner_NP1 ,_, 1983_MC ;_; 1985_MC ;_; Rutter_NP1 et_RA21 al._RA22 ,_, 1997_MC )_) ._. 
Thus_RR ,_, adaptation_NN1 depends_VVZ upon_II characteristics_NN2 of_IO the_AT context_NN1 ,_, characteristics_NN2 of_IO the_AT individual_NN1 ,_, and_CC relationships_NN2 between_II characteristics_NN2 of_IO the_AT context_NN1 and_CC those_DD2 of_IO the_AT individual_NN1 ._. 
Missing_VVG from_II most_DAT studies_NN2 of_IO the_AT relations_NN2 between_II neighborhood_NN1 characteristics_NN2 and_CC individual_JJ well-being_NN1 is_VBZ the_AT simultaneous_JJ consideration_NN1 of_IO the_AT characteristics_NN2 of_IO individuals_NN2 and_CC their_APPGE neighborhoods_NN2 ._. 
In_II the_AT current_JJ study_NN1 ,_, the_AT person-environment_JJ fit_JJ model_NN1 was_VBDZ tested_VVN using_VVG data_NN from_II a_AT1 study_NN1 of_IO 750_MC Mexican_JJ American_JJ families_NN2 with_IW children_NN2 in_II 5th_MD grade_NN1 ._. 
Rather_II21 than_II22 using_VVG a_AT1 variable-centered_JJ approach_NN1 to_II exploring_VVG relationships_NN2 between_II neighborhood_NN1 characteristics_NN2 ,_, family_NN1 characteristics_NN2 ,_, and_CC adjustment_NN1 ,_, this_DD1 study_NN1 used_VVD a_AT1 combination_NN1 of_IO a_AT1 family-centered_JJ (_( i.e._REX ,_, using_VVG multiple_JJ family_NN1 characteristics_NN2 simultaneously_RR ;_; Weaver_NP1 and_CC Kim_NP1 2008_MC )_) and_CC a_AT1 neighborhood-centered_JJ (_( using_VVG multiple_JJ characteristics_NN2 of_IO neighborhoods_NN2 simultaneously_RR )_) approach_NN1 to_TO better_RRR understand_VVI the_AT complex_JJ influences_NN2 on_II adjustment_NN1 ._. 
Similar_JJ dimensions_NN2 were_VBDR used_VVN to_TO characterize_VVI families_NN2 and_CC neighborhoods_NN2 ._. 
A_AT1 socioeconomic_JJ dimension_NN1 included_VVD family_NN1 variables_NN2 of_IO parent_NN1 education_NN1 ,_, income_NN1 ,_, and_CC number_NN1 of_IO parents_NN2 and_CC the_AT neighborhood_NN1 variables_NN2 of_IO percent_NNU of_IO families_NN2 living_VVG below_II the_AT poverty_NN1 line_NN1 and_CC percent_NNU of_IO individuals_NN2 with_IW a_AT1 high_JJ school_NN1 or_CC higher_JJR level_NN1 of_IO education_NN1 ._. 
A_AT1 cultural_JJ dimension_NN1 was_VBDZ represented_VVN by_II mothers_NN2 '_GE nativity_NN1 (_( U.S._NP1 versus_II Mexico_NP1 )_) at_II the_AT family_NN1 level_NN1 and_CC ,_, at_II the_AT neighborhood_NN1 level_NN1 ,_, the_AT percent_NNU of_IO Hispanics_NN2 within_II a_AT1 neighborhood_NN1 ._. 
In_II contrast_NN1 to_II other_JJ studies_NN2 that_CST tested_VVD a_AT1 person-environment_JJ fit_JJ model_NN1 to_TO understand_VVI how_RRQ neighborhood_NN1 characteristics_NN2 relate_VV0 to_II adjustment_NN1 ,_, this_DD1 study_NN1 used_VVD an_AT1 ethnic_JJ homogenous_JJ design_NN1 ;_; in_II more_RGR integrated_JJ samples_NN2 ,_, race/ethnicity_NN1 and_CC social_JJ class_NN1 often_RR are_VBR confounded_VVN making_VVG it_PPH1 difficult_JJ to_TO interpret_VVI results_NN2 (_( Mertens_NP1 ,_, 1998_MC )_) ._. 
In_RR21 addition_RR22 ,_, the_AT sample_NN1 was_VBDZ very_RG diverse_JJ in_II31 terms_II32 of_II33 social_JJ class_NN1 ,_, family_NN1 structure_NN1 ,_, cultural_JJ orientation_NN1 ,_, and_CC neighborhood_NN1 characteristics_NN2 ,_, whereas_CS most_DAT studies_NN2 of_IO Mexican_JJ Americans_NN2 have_VH0 focused_VVN on_II low-income_NN1 ,_, English_JJ speaking_NN1 ,_, inner_JJ city_NN1 residents_NN2 (_( Gonzales_NP2 ,_, Knight_NP1 ,_, Morgan-Lopez_NP1 ,_, Saenz_NP1 ,_, &;_NULL Sirolli_NP1 ,_, 2002_MC )_) ._. 
We_PPIS2 used_VVD a_AT1 variation_NN1 of_IO the_AT person-centered_JJ approach_NN1 (_( Bergman_NP1 &;_NULL Magnusson_NP1 ,_, 1997_MC )_) via_II latent_JJ class_NN1 cluster_NN1 analysis_NN1 to_TO identify_VVI clusters_NN2 of_IO relatively_RR homogenous_JJ types_NN2 of_IO families_NN2 and_CC of_IO neighborhoods_NN2 ,_, respectively_RR ._. 
Then_RT we_PPIS2 integrated_VVD the_AT family-_NN1 and_CC neighborhood-centered_JJ methods_NN2 by_II using_VVG these_DD2 clusters_NN2 as_CSA variables_NN2 in_II hierarchical_JJ linear_JJ models_NN2 to_TO determine_VVI how_RGQ well_RR ,_, individually_RR and_CC jointly_RR ,_, they_PPHS2 helped_VVD explain_VVI diversity_NN1 in_II adjustment_NN1 of_IO Mexican_JJ American_JJ adults_NN2 and_CC children_NN2 ._. 
Methods_NN2 Sample_VV0 Data_NN for_IF this_DD1 study_NN1 came_VVD from_II an_AT1 investigation_NN1 of_IO the_AT roles_NN2 of_IO culture_NN1 and_CC context_NN1 in_II the_AT lives_NN2 of_IO Mexican_JJ Americans_NN2 in_II a_AT1 large_JJ southwestern_JJ metropolitan_JJ area_NN1 (_( Roosa_NP1 et_RA21 al._RA22 ,_, 2008_MC )_) ._. 
Participants_NN2 were_VBDR 750_MC Mexican_JJ American_JJ students_NN2 in_II 5th_MD grade_NN1 and_CC their_APPGE families_NN2 who_PNQS were_VBDR selected_VVN from_II schools_NN2 in_II ethnically_RR ,_, economically_RR ,_, and_CC linguistically_RR diverse_JJ communities_NN2 ._. 
Eligible_JJ families_NN2 met_VVD the_AT following_JJ criteria_NN2 :_: (_( a_ZZ1 )_) the_AT child_NN1 and_CC mother_NN1 agreed_VVD to_TO participate_VVI ;_; (_( b_ZZ1 )_) they_PPHS2 had_VHD a_AT1 fifth_MD grader_NN1 attending_VVG a_AT1 sampled_JJ school_NN1 ;_; (_( c_ZZ1 )_) the_AT participating_JJ mother_NN1 was_VBDZ the_AT child_NN1 's_GE biological_JJ mother_NN1 ,_, lived_VVD with_IW the_AT child_NN1 ,_, and_CC self-identified_JJ as_CSA Mexican_JJ or_CC Mexican_JJ American_JJ ;_; (_( d_ZZ1 )_) the_AT child_NN1 's_GE biological_JJ father_NN1 was_VBDZ of_IO Mexican_JJ origin_NN1 ;_; (_( e_ZZ1 )_) the_AT child_NN1 was_VBDZ not_XX severely_RR learning_VVG disabled_JJ ;_; and_CC (_( f_ZZ1 )_) no_AT step-father_NN1 was_VBDZ living_VVG with_IW the_AT child_NN1 ._. 
Of_IO the_AT 570_MC two-parent_JJ families_NN2 (_( 76.6%_FO of_IO the_AT sample_NN1 )_) in_II the_AT study_NN1 ,_, 460_MC (_( 80.7%_FO )_) fathers_NN2 were_VBDR interviewed_VVN ._. 
On_II average_NN1 ,_, mothers_NN2 were_VBDR about_RG 36_MC years_NNT2 old_JJ ,_, fathers_NN2 about_RG 38_MC years_NNT2 old_JJ ,_, and_CC children_NN2 about_RG 10_MC years_NNT2 old_JJ ._. 
Most_DAT mothers_NN2 (_( 69.9%_FO )_) and_CC fathers_NN2 (_( 76.7%_FO )_) were_VBDR interviewed_VVN in_II Spanish_JJ while_CS most_DAT children_NN2 (_( 82.5%_FO )_) were_VBDR interviewed_VVN in_II English_NN1 ._. 
Table_NN1 1_MC1 presents_VVZ demographic_JJ characteristics_NN2 of_IO families_NN2 included_VVN in_II the_AT current_JJ analyses_NN2 (_( n_ZZ1 =_FO 738_MC )_) ._. 
Twelve_MC families_NN2 were_VBDR excluded_VVN due_II21 to_II22 missing_JJ data_NN for_IF at_RR21 least_RR22 one_MC1 of_IO the_AT variables_NN2 used_VVN in_II the_AT creation_NN1 of_IO the_AT family_NN1 and_CC neighborhood_NN1 profiles_NN2 ._. 
Analytic_JJ Procedures_NN2 To_TO investigate_VVI whether_CSW family-neighborhood_JJ fit_JJ or_CC misfit_NN1 was_VBDZ related_VVN to_II parent_NN1 and_CC child_NN1 psychological_JJ outcomes_NN2 ,_, three-level_JJ hierarchical_JJ linear_JJ models_NN2 were_VBDR tested_VVN ._. 
Multilevel_VV0 modeling_NN1 was_VBDZ used_VVN to_TO account_VVI for_IF the_AT possible_JJ non-independency_NN1 of_IO the_AT variables_NN2 due_II21 to_II22 the_AT fact_NN1 that_CST families_NN2 (_( level-1_MC1 )_) were_VBDR nested_VVN within_II neighborhoods_NN2 (_( level-2_MC )_) ,_, which_DDQ ,_, in_II turn_NN1 ,_, were_VBDR nested_VVN within_II school_NN1 catchment_NN1 areas_NN2 (_( level-3_MC )_) ._. 
However_RR ,_, the_AT intraclass_NN1 correlations_NN2 (_( ICC_NP1 )_) for_IF psychological_JJ problems_NN2 were_VBDR generally_RR low_JJ for_IF this_DD1 sample_NN1 (_( i.e._REX ,_, mean_VV0 =_FO .03_MC ;_; range_NN1 =_FO 0_MC to_II .08_MC for_IF neighborhood-level_JJ variances_NN2 ;_; mean_VV0 =_FO .01_MC ;_; range_NN1 =_FO 0_MC to_II .03_MC for_IF school-level_JJ variances_NN2 )_) across_II the_AT studied_JJ variables_NN2 ._. 
In_II the_AT multilevel_NN1 model_NN1 ,_, family_NN1 type_NN1 was_VBDZ the_AT level-1_MC1 predictor_NN1 and_CC neighborhood_NN1 type_NN1 was_VBDZ the_AT level-2_MC predictor_NN1 ._. 
The_AT cross-level_JJ interaction_NN1 of_IO family_NN1 type_NN1 and_CC neighborhood_NN1 type_NN1 signified_VVD fit/misfit_NN1 effects_NN2 ._. 
Specifically_RR ,_, the_AT interaction_NN1 evaluated_VVD whether_CSW neighborhood_NN1 types_NN2 had_VHD similar_JJ or_CC different_JJ effects_NN2 on_II psychological_JJ problems_NN2 across_II family_NN1 types_NN2 and_CC vice_RR21 versa_RR22 ._. 
SAS_NP1 PROC_NP1 MIXED_VVD was_VBDZ used_VVN to_TO conduct_VVI the_AT analyses_NN2 ._. 
Results_NN2 Family_NN1 and_CC Neighborhood_NN1 Latent_JJ Classes_NN2 Parental_JJ education_NN1 ,_, household_NN1 income_NN1 ,_, family_NN1 structure_NN1 (_( 1-_NN1 vs._II 2-parent_JJ household_NN1 )_) ,_, and_CC maternal_JJ nativity_NN1 (_( born_VVN in_II Mexico_NP1 vs._II born_JJ in_II U.S._NP1 )_) were_VBDR specified_VVN as_CSA indicators_NN2 in_II the_AT family_NN1 latent_JJ class_NN1 models_NN2 ._. 
Household_NN1 income_NN1 and_CC parental_JJ education_NN1 were_VBDR allowed_VVN to_TO be_VBI correlated_VVN within_II each_DD1 class_NN1 ._. 
Models_NN2 consisting_VVG of_IO one-_NN1 through_II seven-classes_NN2 were_VBDR estimated_VVN ._. 
As_CSA shown_VVN in_II Table_NN1 2_MC ,_, the_AT six-class_JJ solution_NN1 was_VBDZ supported_VVN by_II both_DB2 information_NN1 criterion_NN1 indices_NN2 (_( AIC_NP1 and_CC SABIC_NP1 )_) as_CSA being_VBG the_AT best_JJT fitting_JJ model_NN1 among_II the_AT admissible_JJ solutions_NN2 ,_, although_CS this_DD1 solution_NN1 was_VBDZ not_XX a_AT1 statistically_RR better_RRR fit_VVI to_II the_AT data_NN than_CSN the_AT five-class_JJ solution_NN1 (_( see_VV0 LMR_NP1 LRT_NP1 tests_NN2 )_) ._. 
The_AT primary_JJ distinction_NN1 between_II the_AT five-_NN1 and_CC six-class_JJ solutions_NN2 was_VBDZ the_AT emergence_NN1 of_IO a_AT1 class_NN1 comprised_VVN of_IO families_NN2 characterized_VVN by_II the_AT highest_JJT parental_JJ education_NN1 and_CC household_NN1 income_NN1 levels_NN2 ,_, a_AT1 subpopulation_NN1 rarely_RR examined_VVN in_II research_NN1 with_IW Mexican_JJ Americans_NN2 ._. 
Overall_RR ,_, we_PPIS2 viewed_VVD the_AT six-class_JJ solution_NN1 as_CSA being_VBG the_AT most_RGT interpretable_JJ and_CC conceptually_RR meaningful_JJ ._. 
Testing_VVG the_AT Relations_NN2 of_IO Family_NN1 and_CC Neighborhood_NN1 Fit/Misfit_NN1 to_II Psychological_JJ Adjustment_NN1 Using_VVG the_AT family_NN1 type_NN1 (_( with_IW five_MC levels_NN2 after_II combining_VVG the_AT two_MC higher_JJR income_NN1 groups_NN2 )_) and_CC the_AT neighborhood_NN1 type_NN1 (_( with_IW three_MC levels_NN2 )_) variables_NN2 that_CST resulted_VVD from_II the_AT latent_JJ class_NN1 analyses_VVZ as_II the_AT level-1_MC1 and_CC level-2_MC predictors_NN2 ,_, respectively_RR ,_, and_CC the_AT interaction_NN1 of_IO the_AT two_MC types_NN2 as_II the_AT cross-level_JJ predictor_NN1 ,_, multilevel_VV0 analyses_NN2 were_VBDR conducted_VVN on_II each_DD1 of_IO the_AT psychological_JJ outcomes_NN2 ._. 
Table_NN1 5_MC summarizes_VVZ the_AT Type_NN1 III_MC F_ZZ1 statistics_NN for_IF the_AT overall_JJ fixed_JJ effects_NN2 ._. 
Family_NN1 type_NN1 appeared_VVD to_TO have_VHI stronger_JJR effects_NN2 on_II parent_NN1 and_CC child_NN1 psychological_JJ problems_NN2 than_CSN neighborhood_NN1 type_NN1 ._. 
There_EX were_VBDR six_MC significant_JJ main_JJ effects_NN2 for_IF family_NN1 type_NN1 but_CCB only_RR one_MC1 significant_JJ main_JJ effect_NN1 for_IF neighborhood_NN1 type_NN1 ._. 
There_EX was_VBDZ one_MC1 significant_JJ cross-level_JJ interaction_NN1 ._. 
For_IF significant_JJ main_JJ effects_NN2 not_XX conditioned_VVN by_II an_AT1 interaction_NN1 ,_, we_PPIS2 conducted_VVD post-hoc_JJ pairwise_RR comparisons_NN2 of_IO the_AT least-square_JJ means_NN using_VVG Tukey-Kramer_NP1 tests_NN2 (_( West_ND1 ,_, Welch_NP1 ,_, &;_NULL Galecki_NP1 ,_, 2006_MC )_) ._. 
For_IF the_AT cross-level_JJ interaction_NN1 ,_, with_IW three_MC levels_NN2 of_IO neighborhood_NN1 type_NN1 and_CC five_MC levels_NN2 of_IO family_NN1 type_NN1 ,_, post-hoc_JJ comparisons_NN2 could_VM be_VBI done_VDN in_II many_DA2 different_JJ ways_NN2 ._. 
We_PPIS2 focused_VVD on_II the_AT simple_JJ effects_NN2 of_IO family_NN1 type_NN1 differences_NN2 for_IF each_DD1 neighborhood_NN1 type_NN1 ._. 
Scheffe_NN1 tests_NN2 ,_, which_DDQ are_VBR more_RGR appropriate_JJ for_IF post-hoc_JJ comparisons_NN2 with_IW interaction_NN1 effects_NN2 ,_, were_VBDR conducted_VVN to_TO test_VVI for_IF significant_JJ differences_NN2 of_IO the_AT simple_JJ effects_NN2 ._. 
Discussion_NN1 This_DD1 study_NN1 applied_VVD a_AT1 person-environment_JJ fit_JJ model_NN1 to_TO examine_VVI how_RRQ family_NN1 and_CC neighborhood_NN1 characteristics_NN2 ,_, separately_RR and_CC jointly_RR ,_, were_VBDR related_VVN to_II variations_NN2 in_II adjustment_NN1 in_II a_AT1 sample_NN1 of_IO Mexican_JJ Americans_NN2 ._. 
Latent_JJ class_NN1 analysis_NN1 was_VBDZ used_VVN to_TO identify_VVI six_MC distinct_JJ family_NN1 types_NN2 based_VVN on_II combinations_NN2 of_IO parent_NN1 education_NN1 ,_, income_NN1 ,_, family_NN1 structure_NN1 ,_, and_CC mother_NN1 's_GE nativity_NN1 ._. 
Similarly_RR ,_, three_MC distinct_JJ neighborhood_NN1 types_NN2 were_VBDR identified_VVN based_VVN on_II distributions_NN2 of_IO families_NN2 living_VVG in_II poverty_NN1 ,_, individuals_NN2 with_IW a_AT1 high_JJ school_NN1 or_CC higher_JJR education_NN1 ,_, and_CC Hispanics_NN2 ._. 
Multilevel_VV0 modeling_NN1 was_VBDZ used_VVN to_TO determine_VVI the_AT main_JJ and_CC interactive_JJ effects_NN2 of_IO family_NN1 and_CC neighborhood_NN1 types_NN2 on_II parent_NN1 and_CC child_NN1 adjustment_NN1 ._. 
Not_XX surprisingly_RR ,_, family_NN1 type_NN1 was_VBDZ a_AT1 better_JJR direct_JJ predictor_NN1 of_IO adjustment_NN1 ._. 
The_AT value_NN1 of_IO including_VVG neighborhood_NN1 quality_NN1 in_II studies_NN2 of_IO adjustment_NN1 is_VBZ the_AT possibility_NN1 of_IO adding_VVG to_II the_AT variance_NN1 explained_VVN by_II models_NN2 using_VVG information_NN1 about_II more_RGR proximal_JJ environments_NN2 (_( Leventhal_NP1 &;_NULL Brooks-Gunn_NP1 ,_, 2000_MC )_) ._. 
Neighborhoods_NN2 are_VBR distal_JJ influences_NN2 while_CS the_AT family_NN1 is_VBZ both_RR more_RGR proximal_JJ to_II the_AT individual_NN1 and_CC the_AT primary_JJ developmental_JJ context_NN1 for_IF children_NN2 (_( Roosa_NP1 et_RA21 al._RA22 ,_, 2003_MC )_) ._. 
Moreover_RR ,_, for_IF ADHD_NP1 ,_, neighborhood_NN1 effects_NN2 were_VBDR dependent_JJ on_II the_AT characteristics_NN2 of_IO resident_JJ families_NN2 ,_, or_CC vice_RR21 versa_RR22 ._. 
Neighborhood_NN1 type_NN1 had_VHD a_AT1 direct_JJ effect_NN1 only_RR on_II mother_NN1 's_GE depression_NN1 ._. 
Interestingly_RR ,_, Mexican_JJ American_JJ mothers_NN2 in_II Middle_JJ SES_NP2 neighborhoods_NN2 reported_VVD greater_JJR depression_NN1 than_CSN those_DD2 in_II Upper_JJ SES_NP2 neighborhoods_NN2 ;_; mothers_NN2 from_II Lower_JJR SES_NP2 neighborhoods_NN2 had_VHD scores_NN2 between_II these_DD2 groups_NN2 ._. 
Mothers_NN2 in_II Upper_JJ SES_NP2 neighborhoods_NN2 likely_RR had_VHN resources_NN2 that_CST made_VVD meeting_VVG family_NN1 needs_VVZ easy_JJ while_CS experiencing_VVG few_DA2 contextual_JJ stressors_NN2 ._. 
Lower_JJR SES_NP2 neighborhood_NN1 mothers_NN2 likely_RR experienced_VVN many_DA2 contextual_JJ stressors_NN2 but_CCB may_VM have_VHI received_VVN sufficient_JJ support_NN1 from_II neighbors_NN2 coping_VVG with_IW similar_JJ stressors_NN2 (_( Suarez-Orozco_NP1 &;_NULL Suarez-Orozco_NP1 ,_, 2001_MC )_) ._. 
Social_JJ bonds_NN2 with_IW neighbors_NN2 similar_JJ to_II themselves_PPX2 may_VM have_VHI provided_VVN some_DD protection_NN1 for_IF these_DD2 mothers_NN2 ._. 
On_II the_AT other_JJ hand_NN1 ,_, mothers_NN2 in_II Middle_JJ SES_NP2 neighborhoods_NN2 may_VM have_VHI struggled_VVN to_TO meet_VVI the_AT social_JJ and_CC economic_JJ demands_NN2 of_IO a_AT1 middle_JJ class_NN1 lifestyle_NN1 while_CS being_VBG socially_RR isolated_VVN because_II21 of_II22 the_AT norm_NN1 for_IF independence_NN1 in_II such_DA neighborhoods_NN2 ._. 
Furthermore_RR ,_, Middle_JJ SES_NP2 neighborhoods_NN2 were_VBDR the_AT most_RGT ethnically_RR integrated_VVN ,_, perhaps_RR adding_VVG to_II social_JJ isolation_NN1 or_CC reduced_VVD social_JJ support_NN1 among_II neighbors_NN2 ._. 
These_DD2 are_VBR hypotheses_NN2 to_TO be_VBI tested_VVN in_II future_JJ studies_NN2 ._. 
Results_NN2 of_IO multilevel_NN1 analyses_NN2 demonstrated_VVD the_AT value_NN1 of_IO using_VVG a_AT1 family-neighborhood_JJ fit_JJ model_NN1 to_TO understand_VVI variations_NN2 in_II ADHD_NP1 in_II Mexican_JJ Americans_NN2 ;_; children_NN2 's_GE levels_NN2 of_IO ADHD_NN1 symptoms_NN2 depended_VVN on_II the_AT combination_NN1 of_IO family_NN1 and_CC neighborhood_NN1 types_NN2 for_IF several_DA2 groups_NN2 ._. 
For_REX21 instance_REX22 ,_, Middle_JJ Class_NN1 --_NN1 Later_JJR Generation_NN1 children_NN2 were_VBDR at_II greater_JJR risk_NN1 for_IF ADHD_NN1 problems_NN2 when_CS their_APPGE families_NN2 lived_VVN in_II Middle_JJ SES_NP2 neighborhoods_NN2 than_CSN when_CS they_PPHS2 lived_VVD in_II Upper_JJ SES_NP2 neighborhoods_NN2 (_( there_EX were_VBDR too_RG few_DA2 of_IO these_DD2 families_NN2 in_II Lower_JJR SES_NP2 neighborhoods_NN2 to_II reliable_JJ comparisons_NN2 )_) ._. 
The_AT privileged_JJ status_NN1 of_IO these_DD2 children_NN2 (_( i.e._REX ,_, high_JJ parents_NN2 '_GE income_NN1 and_CC education_NN1 )_) may_VM have_VHI made_VVN it_PPH1 difficult_JJ for_IF them_PPHO2 to_TO fit_VVI in_RP with_IW children_NN2 in_II neighborhoods_NN2 where_CS relatively_RR few_DA2 parents_NN2 had_VHD a_AT1 high_JJ school_NN1 level_NN1 education_NN1 ._. 
In_RR21 addition_RR22 ,_, because_II21 of_II22 their_APPGE later-generation_JJ status_NN1 ,_, few_DA2 of_IO these_DD2 children_NN2 spoke_VVD Spanish_JJ making_VVG it_PPH1 difficult_JJ for_IF them_PPHO2 to_TO communicate_VVI with_IW many_DA2 of_IO the_AT adults_NN2 and_CC at_RR21 least_RR22 some_DD of_IO their_APPGE peers_NN2 in_II Middle_JJ SES_NP2 neighborhoods_NN2 ._. 
On_II the_AT other_JJ hand_NN1 ,_, children_NN2 in_II Economically_RR Distressed_JJ families_NN2 reported_VVD fewer_DAR adaptation_NN1 problems_NN2 if_CS they_PPHS2 lived_VVD in_II Lower_JJR SES_NP2 neighborhoods_NN2 ._. 
Despite_II the_AT high_JJ number_NN1 of_IO single_JJ parents_NN2 in_II this_DD1 group_NN1 ,_, Lower_JJR SES_NP2 neighborhoods_NN2 probably_RR provided_CS these_DD2 families_NN2 in_II which_DDQ most_DAT mothers_NN2 were_VBDR born_VVN in_II Mexico_NP1 with_IW more_DAR opportunities_NN2 for_IF social_JJ interaction_NN1 and_CC access_NN1 to_II social_JJ support_NN1 than_CSN they_PPHS2 would_VM find_VVI in_II other_JJ neighborhood_NN1 types_NN2 ._. 
Relatively_RR high_JJ levels_NN2 of_IO similarity_NN1 with_IW their_APPGE neighbors_NN2 may_VM have_VHI made_VVN Lower_RRR SES_NP2 neighborhoods_NN2 relatively_RR comfortable_JJ for_IF these_DD2 families_NN2 (_( cf._VV0 :_: Georgiades_NN2 et_RA21 al._RA22 ,_, 2007_MC )_) ._. 
Further_RRR ,_, the_AT experiences_NN2 of_IO most_DAT mothers_NN2 in_II this_DD1 group_NN1 in_II Mexico_NP1 may_VM have_VHI prepared_VVN them_PPHO2 for_IF survival_NN1 in_II Lower_JJR SES_NP2 contexts_NN2 (_( Roosa_NP1 et_RA21 al._RA22 ,_, 2002_MC )_) ._. 
Although_CS one_PN1 might_VM expect_VVI a_AT1 protective_JJ effect_NN1 from_II living_VVG in_II a_AT1 less_RGR risky_JJ neighborhood_NN1 ,_, these_DD2 families_NN2 had_VHD very_RG low_JJ incomes_NN2 and_CC may_VM have_VHI struggled_VVN economically_RR and_CC socially_RR in_II Middle_JJ SES_NP2 neighborhoods_NN2 ._. 
In_RR21 addition_RR22 ,_, many_DA2 of_IO the_AT mothers_NN2 in_II these_DD2 families_NN2 were_VBDR Spanish_JJ speakers_NN2 ,_, which_DDQ would_VM make_VVI them_PPHO2 more_RRR isolated_VVN in_II Middle_JJ SES_NP2 neighborhoods_NN2 ._. 
Overall_RR ,_, the_AT use_NN1 of_IO family_NN1 and_CC neighborhood_NN1 typologies_NN2 and_CC a_AT1 family-neighborhood_JJ fit_JJ model_NN1 provided_CS useful_JJ insights_NN2 into_II the_AT diversity_NN1 in_II mental_JJ health_NN1 among_II Mexican_JJ Americans_NN2 ._. 
The_AT family-environment_JJ fit_JJ model_NN1 may_VM be_VBI particularly_RR helpful_JJ in_II studying_VVG adjustment_NN1 among_II populations_NN2 with_IW large_JJ portions_NN2 of_IO immigrants_NN2 because_II21 of_II22 the_AT challenges_NN2 they_PPHS2 face_VV0 adapting_VVG to_II what_DDQ are_VBR often_RR dramatically_RR different_JJ living_JJ circumstances_NN2 than_CSN they_PPHS2 experienced_VVD in_II their_APPGE home_NN1 countries_NN2 ._. 
Obviously_RR ,_, more_DAR study_NN1 is_VBZ needed_VVN to_TO help_VVI explain_VVI the_AT specifics_NN2 of_IO fit/misfit_NN1 found_VVN in_II this_DD1 study_NN1 ._. 
In_RR21 addition_RR22 ,_, the_AT family-environment_JJ fit_JJ model_NN1 should_VM be_VBI tested_VVN longitudinally_RR to_TO help_VVI determine_VVI causality_NN1 ._. 
Still_RR ,_, the_AT results_NN2 of_IO this_DD1 study_NN1 provide_VV0 a_AT1 beginning_NN1 point_NN1 for_IF developing_JJ interventions_NN2 for_IF different_JJ Mexican_JJ American_JJ subgroups_NN2 based_VVN on_II both_RR family_NN1 and_CC neighborhood_NN1 characteristics_NN2 ._. 
