Questions related to Child Development
Is the difference in variations of specific ERP wavelengths of craniosynostosis patients with normally developed infants would notify a pathology or an expert with clinical experience is required to perform a more accurate comparison?
What child social development support programmes, child psychological support programmes are being developed in relation to the increasing scale of psychological problems in children, which have significantly worsened since March 2020, i.e. since the lockdowns, national quarantines, universal e-learning, social distancing in public places, etc., introduced during the coronavirus (Covid-19) pandemic?
At the beginning of May 2023, the World Health Organisation lifted the state of global epidemiological emergency associated with Covid-19. In Poland, the state of heightened epidemiological emergency associated with Covid-19 is not due to be lifted until the end of June 2023. This is likely to increase the scale of ongoing research into the various secondary effects of the Covid-19 pandemic, both the post-pandemic, post-vaccine health effects, then also the social and economic effects, including, for example, on the issue of rising inflation from 2021 generated by the introduction of a large amount of additional money into the economy during the Covid-19 pandemic, which was mainly intended to limit the scale of the increase in unemployment caused by the introduced lockdowns. In Poland, the PIS government is mainly responsible for the deterioration of children's mental state, which unreflectively and without applied research and public consultation introduced large-scale lockdowns imposed on selected sectors of the economy, national quarantines, universal e-learning, social distancing in public places, etc. ... and even a ban on entering forests during part of the period of wave 1 of the pandemic.
From mid-2022 onwards, more and more comparative studies began to appear, which compared internationally the question of the correlation between the rate of development of the pandemic, the number of deaths categorised as caused by the severe Covid-19 disease state and the occurrence of co-morbidities, usually in more than 90 per cent of cases, and the so-called 'anti-pandemic safety instruments' introduced to varying degrees in individual countries. The results of the study did not confirm the findings of the study, which was based on the results of the research carried out by the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC). The results of the research carried out did not support the thesis regarding the validity of the
of the lockdowns introduced during the coronavirus (Covid-19) pandemic as an instrument to significantly reduce the level of mortality caused solely by the severe Covid-19 condition, exclusively, i.e. by subtracting the factor of co-morbidities. In some countries, the generating factors of specific comorbidities were key influential determinants shaping mortality levels. For example, in Poland, where, due to the government's neglect and deliberate slowing down and blocking of the development of renewable energy sources in recent years, more than three quarters of energy is still produced by the technologically backward dirty power industry based on burning hard coal and lignite, which generates the worst air quality in cities during heating periods compared to Europe and the world. This poor air quality, determined by high levels of particulate matter (PM 2.5, PM 10, etc.), is the source of premature deaths, estimated at around 50 000 people, i.e. deaths caused by respiratory and other diseases resulting from high levels of air pollution. Such diseases are examples of diseases coexisting with Covid-19, which were compounding factors in the level of mortality qualified as caused by these diseases in combination with Covid-19 during the pandemic. In the government-led pandemic risk management process, different structures were adopted to prioritise safety on the one hand for health and on the other hand also for socio-economic safety. Different solutions were adopted in the countries in terms of the applied anti-pandemic safety and anti-crisis instruments with regard to the economy. Consequently, the effects of these measures were also not the same. The economic impact of the coronavirus pandemic (Covid-19) and the applied anti-pandemic instruments also varied significantly between the various different industries and sectors of the economy.
These systemic anti-pandemic measures mainly benefited the technology sectors, companies operating on the Internet, businesses developing e-commerce, courier companies, state-owned companies receiving additional government contracts for the production of anti-pandemic assortments, e.g. hand disinfectant fluids, production of protective masks, etc. On the other hand, there were many more companies and enterprises, mainly operating in the service sectors, which were subject to lockdowns and suffered severe financial losses, some going out of business because of them, which in macroeconomic terms generated a deep recession of the economy during the 1st wave of the pandemic. However, as it later turned out, there were many more problems caused by such anti-pandemic socio-economic policies. Among these various secondary effects of the negative and particularly socially significant problems generated by the misguided antipandemic socio-economic policy, one stands out the increasing scale of psychological problems in children, which have significantly worsened since March 2020, i.e. since the lockdowns introduced during the coronavirus (Covid-19) pandemic, national quarantines, universal e-learning, social distancing in public places, etc., and have been exacerbated by the controversial pseudo-reforms applied to the education system over the past few years. In Poland, this problem is very serious. This is confirmed, inter alia, by the data on the growing scale of child suicides in the period from 2020 to 2022. Lockdowns, national quarantines, universal e-learning, social distancing in public places, etc., introduced and applied on a large scale during the coronavirus (Covid-19) pandemic in Poland, have caused disorders in the social development of children and adolescents. In view of this, it is essential to create and develop programmes to support the social development of children, programmes of psychological assistance for children, which should prevent the growing scale of psychological problems in children.
In view of the above, I address the following question to the Honourable Community of scientists and researchers:
What programmes of support for children's social development, programmes of psychological assistance for children are being developed in connection with the increasing scale of problems of a psychological nature in children, which have significantly worsened since March 2020, i.e. since the lockdowns introduced during the coronavirus pandemic (Covid-19), national quarantines, universal e-learning, social distancing in public places, etc.?
What child development support programmes, child welfare programmes are being developed in relation to the increasing scale of mental health problems in children?
And what is your opinion on this topic?
What is your opinion on this subject?
I invite you all to discuss,
Thank you very much,
Half a century ago R.J.Havighurst published a book on developmental tasks. Are they still valid? What do we have to learn as humans during certain stages of development? Do the stages differ in lasting now? Which are shorter, which are longer? What we do not have to learn any more? Is there something new we should learn?
Project Title: Exploring the properties of the Accessible AQ in children.
I am currently recruiting participants to take part in my final year dissertation research project. I am investigating the properties of an accessible version of an autism screening tool (the Autism Quotient) when used with children.
The study has received ethical approval from Northumbria University (Ref:44763) and all data will be kept secure and anonymous.
We are looking for participants that:
- • are aged 18 years or over;
- • are able to give informed consent;
- • have a child aged between 6 and 17;
- • Your child does not have to have a diagnosis of autism to take part.
The study will involve:
- • Completing a few questions asking for demographic information about you and your child, such as age and gender.
- • Completion of two questionnaires about your child. The first is a screening tool (the AQ) that measures autistic like traits, such as preferring set routines. These traits can be found among the general population to different degrees. The second is a screening tool for learning disability. These will take approximately 10 minutes to complete.
- • Your child will be asked to complete two short questionnaires that are ‘easy read’ versions of the AQ.
If you have any further questions regarding the study, please contact firstname.lastname@example.org
To find out more information about the study and to take part, please go to: https://nupsych.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_8zYLleeCRtFvKWG
Hello research community,
Wondering if anyone has any insights on whether the minimal group paradigm is an appropriate method to use with children ages 4-9? Specifically, the study proposes that children play a competitive game against other children, and in between rounds allocate each other stickers and write messages to other players. At the end, it is revealed that the other players didn't really exist. My questions are:
- Can 4y/o even tell that they are playing against another player when the task is playing computer game? Will they really feel like they are competing against another player? Or is this too abstract?
- What are the implications of deceptive experience with research at such a young age?
Any methods papers specific to using this method with age group would be most appreciated.
Our lab is conducting a research project about Asian-American families. We are investigating Asian-American families' well-being during the COVID-19 pandemic, specifically, their experience of racial discrimination, their parent-child relationships, and their children's development. So far we manage to contact churches, organizations, and school communities, but we still need more Philippine and Korean teenagers (12-18 years old) and parents to participate. Any suggestions to help us recruit? I appreciate your help.
"Behavioral 'science'" offers close to nothing for Artificial General Intelligence (& I believe eventually any good influences might well be FROM AGI to Psychology). One quite possible example:
My guidance for behavior science, even if not verified OR falsified by Cognitive Psychology "folks" (because they are stuck in non-rationally-justified RUTS), could just be "aped" (that is, guessed at) and improve AGI (and progressively more and more, even by trial-and-error). THEN, instead of AGI looking to Psychology, rather, as in the past with ACT* (information processing science), Psychology could learn a LOT from AGI .
My way for better Psychology is self-guiding emergent ways (self generative processes -- which are some quite possibly clear things (with KEY overt manifestations, that unfold with ontogeny -- initially perceptual/attentional phenomenon). I would look for such for Psychology as a Cognitive Developmental Psychology person, but I am old and retired.
It seems obvious to me that this is exactly what Artificial General Intelligence NEEDS -- one clear thing: self generative processes with AGI ontogeny (emergent, unfolding processes at proper points). Intelligent things show creative self-guidance ...
There are a few theories on child development. I have always been interested in the teaching of Piaget but recently I thought alot about this subject since I became a father. My question is, which theory do you think best describes the development of a child and the developmental stages it goes trough. Your thoughts?
Best wishes Henrik
When you set up an experiment, with "defined" "stimuli", these are the stimuli in YOUR imagination and/or YOUR model.
BUT: very often it is a matter of representation (from long-term memory) of the circumstance(s)/setting(s), AND the stimuli can only be understood in THAT context -- the context of the content of developed representation of such circumstances/settings (think, for example, of problem-solving). The Subject, in most significant settings, has her/his representation of such circumstances/situations/settings. THAT actually more than helps to properly define the stimuli , for such is often the MAIN THING for defining (recall that it is the Subject (surrounding behavior patterns) very often _THAT_ MUST, in science, be what allows any empirical or true definition of stimuli).
All this is outlined by, and fully consistent with, Ethogram Theory (see my Profile and, from there, read A LOT-- I do provide guidance on readings order). The Theory itself is internally , and likely externally, consistent and it is strictly empirical (in the grounding/foundation of ALL concepts -- i.e. ALL clearly linked to directly observable overt behavior PATTERNS); and thus, given all those characteristics, there are hypotheses that are clearly verifiable/falsifiable .
Is there reason to believe that data, available or possible, from eye tracking is far greater than what is utilized? YES ! :
Computer scientists tell us that ANY similar or exact patterning of visual perception or attention, with _ANY_ overt manifestations, can be captured. Unquestionably much develops from input through the eyes (the MAJOR example: ontogeny); plus, behavior IS PATTERNED (as would be true for any significant biologically-based functioning (and ALL behavior is)). AND, ALL such could/can be found/identified using eye tracking and computer assisted analysis. ANY/ALL. Thus, it would be useful for psychology to capture any/all such. (It would be more constructive to start with analysis including most-all subtle behavior patterns; that avoids at least most unfounded a priori assumptions (actually: presumptions).)
Unlike modern assumptions, little is likely just random; and YET ALSO, for-sure, little is just statistical. (Nature doesn't play dice.)
True, this is self-serving (for me, for my definitely empirical theory) BUT IT IS ALSO TRUE.
Can you realize "top-down" and "bottom-up" ARE [ or certainly can, if not MUST, be ] THE SAME THINGS at important junctures IN ONTOGENY (child development)?
This Question is NOT addressing YOU (the "self"), your social relations and activities, NOR your language. This question is about the biological processes SHOWN IN BEHAVIOR PATTERNS _PER_ _SE_ of the organism (aka "just 'behavior' "), DURING ONTOGENY, and beginning in overt and observable ways. As words are tools, to express certain things, sometimes (and even and especially at some critical times) the words used will seem contradictory or an oxymoron ,(e.g. it is hard to truly well-imagine a case of perception beginning thought). This cannot be viewed as a real problem. SO: at important key 'shift' points in development, what we CONCEPTUALIZE as "top-down", may have their actual key inception in what, in the highly [overt] behavior-related processes, may fundamentally have to be seen as "BOTTOM-UP". Major (if not THE major) shifts in behavior PATTERNS during cognitive development (of emerging seemingly qualitatively different stages/levels) may certainly have their inceptions in BASIC perceptual shifts (actually seeing new things or some things in a significantly new framing perspective AS new (or, in other words, the latter: "as seen anew")). [(THIS is seen as possible, if not necessary, if only by the reasoning processes of EXCLUSION -- if you are an empiricist/scientist.)]
With this perspective: the UN-defined bases of cognitive stages (equilibrium type 2, the balance between the stages and the point allowing for the stage shifts) is both more simple AND more researchable (with eye tracking) than anything conceived in academia heretofore. In short, this perspective is much more strictly empircial AND TESTABLE. [ Piaget clearly, yet ultimately, ONLY ever said one thing about such stage shifts: that they were "due to maturation" -- Piaget realized this was the most serious deficiency in his theory to the end of his days (explaining why his LAST BOOK was on Equilibration). Piaget was big on "formal logic", which inherently, as applied, results in embracing limited content -- for THAT (as applied) is OF our normative conceptual system, not of independent, actual real biological systems).]
To get more perspective of my view and approach, _start_ at: https://www.researchgate.net/post/Why_an_ethological-developmental_theory_of_cognitive_processes_and_of_cognition and READ all the Answers (follow-ups) and "go from there".
In the assessment of the normal child, several developmental scales (such as DDST II) are used to identify if the child is developing normal milestones. The aim is early identification and management for any developmental abnormality.
Currently many children indulge in the smartphones than ever before. While this is not recommended by pediatricians, but it is becoming a fact that many children experience electronics and smartphone devices use since early childhood.
How to incorporate smartphone use into the assessment of young children?
If we cannot come to actually see ourselves as a species among other similarly biological-behavioral species, can we really accomplish anything? I say NO -- not anything significant involving ourselves AS A TOPIC OR AGENT. And, I am talking about seeing our OVERT behavior patterns and overt observable foundational behavior PATTERNS, as BIOLOGICAL FUNCTIONING -- this is to say: behavior PATTERNS , [ that is " 'just' behaviors" (in common parlance) ] , AS biological patterning ITSELF PER SE. Though already many realize this must be true, with behavior having to be a true aspect of biological/organismic functioning even onto itself, YET BECAUSE we DO NOT KNOW HOW TO SEE THIS, we are "sunk". Only recently have I come to realize how important my guide to Psychological (behavioral) science is.
If we cannot reach this better point (indicated), we will not see anything involving our responsibilities in any complete or sustained way AS IT REALLY IS: Needless questions and needless superstitions will necessarily and irreparably confuse us. AND: We may not know this because, very largely unbeknownst to us, Psychology as a science has not yet started -- though in ways this is easy to see if you look for any true and meaningful talk of strict empirically-established behavior PATTERNS (actual discovered-through-key-observations-REAL, actual OVERT PATTERNS (and patterning of patterns, etc)). AGAIN, only recently have I come to realize how important my guide to Psychological (behavioral) science is; I used to say "let's worry about climate change foremost", but now I realize that US thinking about most anything very important well (or behaving in any significant continuously disciplined manner) IS VERY, VERY LIKELY CONTINGENT ON US BEING ABLE TO PUT OURSELVES IN PROPER PERSPECTIVE AND CONTEXT; without true knowledge of true foundations we are terribly weak-of-mind (the nature of the problems here just indicated).
[ In line with the views above, I have sought to UN-FOLLOW many poor and useless Questions -- ones that, nonetheless, go on and on (even for years). I do not wish to in any way encourage these. ]
I would very much like to know what exactly is measured by the ADHD Stigma Questionnaire (ASQ). I find it very confusing.
Some research says the ASQ measures the perceptions of the perceived public stigma of ADHD (Kellison, Bussing, Bell, & Garvan, 2010). I don't quite understand what this means but I suppose it means the ASQ measures how aware respondents are about the public stigma that exists about people with ADHD. So I guess it doesn't measure their own (personal) stigma about people with ADHD. I guess this implicates that more knowledge and awareness on the public stigma surrounding ADHD, leads to higher scores on the ASQ. This is also what I've found in Bell, Long, Garvan, and Bussing (2011). They describe how the ASQ is used among teachers and how it measures the teachers' perceptions of how their students with ADHD experience stigma, and how it does not measure the teachers' own stigmatizing beliefs about their students with ADHD.
But, when I read other work (Jung, Jang, & Park, 2018) I see that they say the ASQ measures the personal stigma of the respondents surrounding ADHD. I also read this in Langlois (2020) where the researcher says that higher levels of knowledge about ADHD, are expected to lead to lower scores on the ASQ. Suggesting that it measures their own stigmatizing beliefs?
So I'm kinda lost... Who can help?
Thank you in advance!
I would like to know if there are studies that investigated how long primary-school children are able to concentrate on a listening task. Are there official recommendations for a maximum task length?
I am on the research for studies that investigate speaker normalization in children. For example, I wonder whether children around the age of six years can already normalize acoustic differences between speakers as well as adults. Any suggestions for literature on this topic?
Looking forward to reading your suggestions.
Dear all ,
I am working as the consultant for Save Children International to develop and pilot a process named " Child Centered Social accountability" in Vietnam. Does anyone know where I can get the references or any sources that I can download it?
Thanks and much appreciated
Adverse consequences to school closures due to the pandemic are known to everyone. Those underprivileged learners with limited parental assistance and/or fewer opportunities to access technology beyond school are most at risk.
Which software may be user-friendly and educationally appropriate for early-primary school children which combining movement and sound can be used by digital (e.g. tablets) or non-digital technologies (e.g. desktops)?
Lead is most dangerous to children, especially those under six. According to CDC nearly one half of a million children living in the United States have levels of lead in their blood that exceed ten micrograms of lead per deciliter of blood, a level at which adverse health effects are known to occur. Lead poisoning can affect virtually every body system; it can damage a child’s central nervous system, kidneys, and reproductive system. Why lead is most dangerous to children? and how can we prevent it?
I study contextual factors (including cultural factors) that determine the socio-emotional development of children aged 10 and 15 years. This study is part of the SSES international study - The Study on Social and Emotional Skills. Are there any similar studies on russian samples?
I want to study child trauma, with the end goal of not only working with traumatized kids but also teaching others how to respond to, recognize and 'handle' traumatized kids (e.g. cops, teachers, staffers at psych hospitals etc...). If that's the end goal, where should I start? What sort of literature is considered to be a staple in this field?
Yes, less reading, if students of Psychology simply require that ALL that they bother to read/read-about in this "discipline" should be that where behaviors are discussed clearly, and in clear terms OF BEHAVIOR PATTERNS -- and basically just THAT (such patternings) BEING [ substantially ] ALL. (History will show that the rest -- unless you are an advertiser, or maybe a "social psychologist" -- will go down the toilet.)
P.S. "Models" not integrally based-on and/or directly facilitating the seeing-of the ACTUAL BEHAVIOR PATTERNS DO "NOT COUNT". "Mechanisms" not integrally of a biological (and behavior patterned) nature DO "NOT COUNT". You may skip those.
In the final chapters of the global review of all parenting practices titled "The Anthropology of Childhood: Cherubs, Chattel, Changelings" the anthropologist David F. Lancy lists a set of core differences between all modern and all traditional parenting practices.
I'm neither anthropologist nor family psychologist; so, I have a question for professionals in these fields (just out of curiosity, not for research).
Is it possible to consider the following list of compared particularities of parenting practices as a comprehensive set of components for building personal parenting style adapted to different circumstances of living in different parts of the second world where traditional and modern cultures are merged in all possible combinations? Or maybe this list does not cover some particularities of child psychology and some particularities of parents-children/society-children relationships?
Here is the list extracted from that book of David F. Lancy. It is summarized and rewritten with my own words to highlight the sense of my question in a better way. (Items that are specific for extremely traditional third world societies were not included because they do not relate to my question.) Speaking figuratively, with this list I'm trying to "formalize" and "digitize" the term "parenting style". Each item of the list may be expressed with some number as you can understand. And I would like to understand whether such "digitizing" approach is reasonable or not.
1. Priority of child's wellbeing in comparison to priority of wellbeing of other family members.
2. Amount of value assigned to newborns.
3. Age when child is considered as a a thinking human.
4. Amount of protection placed on children against the adult world.
5. Fertility rate.
6. Family structure.
7. Amount of unique home environment created especially for children.
8. Age when mothers stop nurturing children actively.
9. Age when intellectual stimulation of children is started.
10. Amount of children's participation in household duties and caring of younger siblings.
11. Amount of grandparents' involvement in childcare.
12. Amount of father' involvement in childcare.
13. Intensity of toddler rejection.
14. Amount of using services of professional child-caretakers.
15. Amount of relying on scientific works in the process of parenting.
16. Amount of reliance on formal schooling in passing knowledge and cultural values.
17. Amount of efforts applied to socializing children through conversations and amount of interfering with children's autonomy. 18. Amount of toys purchased for children.
19. Amount of adult interfering and guidance in children's play.
20. Amount of tolerating the aggressive behavior of children.
21. The level of strictness of gender roles applied to children.
22. Amount of value given to children's play.
23. The balance level for children between being recipients of care and being active part of the family/community.
24. Presence and level of adolescent-parent conflict and "typical" adolescent problems; length of the adolescent period.
25. Amount of teaching provided from parents to children.
26. Interpreting "happiness" as a normal condition of children.
27. The balance level for children between "learning by doing" and "learning by listening lectures".
We have obtained a reliable statistical result using data from child speech. The result is a bit surpising and the used data cannot explain ithe reasons for it.
It came out that in the very initial period of language production, from 9 to 62 months (we have treated data for English taken from CHILDES data repository), the vocabulary of girls and boys (a very big sample) develops quite differently for several categories. In fact the differences displayed match the image of “men-hunters” and “women-gatherers”. The sample is from the last 5 decades, US children.
Please, give some suggestions how can these differences be explained?
It could be due to ... everything – it could be due to innate genetically determined affinities, it could be because of social factors and differences in the interaction with boys and with girls, it could be because infants “know” their gender and imitate the other representatives of the same gender... Or anything else and all of them. Perhaps some sources concerning all these can provide a reliable path of reasoning.
Thank you in advance!
For one reason, and maybe a more direct one, it has to do with issues of the nature of visual working memory and visual long-term memory (very important, general issues). For a great Article on this, see:
Now, in order to use my writing to best effect, let me basically quote a letter to the author (quoting myself):
First, the letter's Title: " [From where] do some top-level discriminations (familiar/recollection) [come]"; now continuing:
"Dear Professor Mark W. Schurgin
I am a "top down" guy (the most top-down there is) and a complete empiricist and guy that defines Psychology (or at least his Psychology) in terms of behavior patterning and environmental/circumstances aspects ONLY -- i.e. these environmental.../behavior patterns aspects IS ALL . I am a neo-Piagetian and believe that, with new technologies (e.g. eye-tracking and ancillary machine processing), we can literally discover the concrete bases (i.e. directly observable overt behavior patterns in situ), AT LEAST at the inception of each KEY new set of significant behavior patterns related to major cognition and major cognitive processes developments. I believe thus we can actually identify the bases of qualitative shifts in levels/stages [(i.e completing Piaget's theory (basically, his Equilibration TYPE 2 -- the "balance" between stages) by finding the primary bases of stage/levels qualitative changes -- and all most empirically: in the end, I provide PIVOTAL concrete testable (verifiable/falsifiable) specific hypotheses TO PROVIDE THE real FOUNDATION of THIS NEW THEORY)]. To put it in other words, the Ethogram Theory tells and shows a way to find the concrete grounding (foundations) of abstraction and abstract thought itself -- these major cognition and cognitive processing phenomenon.
This, indeed, would be one "place" (quite literally) where some major bases of familiarity and recollection BEGIN. To come to an understanding of my view/approach, a rather substantial amount of reading is involved and necessary ( a LOT of it with respect to its foundational differences with some modern baseless assumptions (replaced in EThogram Theory) and to, correspondingly, contrast it with modern approaches to research; the rest of the writing is to as clearly as possible contextualize where/how these KEY changes occur IN BEHAVIOR PATTERNS ... (the nature of and development of the Memories are also always involved) AND I OUTLINE THE NEAR-SPECIFIC NATURE OF TESTABLE HYPOTHESES (which finally comes up in my writings, where I most-clearly "channel" biology). 800 pages: Two hundred of the pages come from the original 1985 treatise AND from two other major old papers AND, then, the other 600 pages are recent essays written in the last 2-3 years (necessary to put the Theory in context, as indicated, and then to get to rather specific hypotheses).
Anyway, here is how to get to my writings: [(someone's reading, understanding, and "belief in" this system may be essential for real progress in Psychology, and it finally becoming a true science (as empirical as any); it is "at your feet" and just a several select others, I place this Theory and all the related writings for a chance of beginning the seeking of much more clarity and of major advances in Psychology; THAT IS IMPORTANT)] :
See, AND READ:
(see the Project Log of this Project to see many important Updates)
Sincerely, with great respect, Brad Jesness
P.S. The main reason for this P.S. is to direct you to the final 100 pages of recent essays (not among the 512 pages you already have been directed to); these are very worthwhile essays composed after the 512 pages: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/331907621_paradigmShiftFinalpdf "
(end quoted of myself)
Do you now understand some major reasons WHY Psychology should CARE about Ethogram Theory?
We have collected retrospective data on different forms of childhood abuse adult patients, as well as current physical and mental impairment.
The questionnaire on childhood abuse included a time-frame for each question allowing patients to state at which age the abuse took place; the time-frame included 18 boxes for the first 18 years of their life. This way we know for example that a patient got physically abused at the age of 6, 7 and 8 years, and then again at the age of 16 and 18 years.
Our main research question at the moment is, whether the type of abuse or the timing (i.e. at which age the abuse took place) is a better predictor for adult mental and physical health.
We have entered the time frames for each question as 18 dichotomous variables (yes vs. no) for each patients.
The dependent variables (mental and physical health) are coded as nominal (disease present: yes vs. no), as well as metric (e.g. depressive symptoms) variables.
Can anyone recommend a good statistical procedure to approach our question with this kind of data?
Thank you all for your input!!
I am looking for spss ideas to test whether there is a relationship between personality and how high someone scores in suggestibility?
There are many essays and blogs supporting the idea that art education and involvement of children would generate a wide variaty of benefits for them. And , intuitively, this outcome is obvious. Nevertheless, I have not found academic studies documenting this phenomenon. Do you know any?
I am thinking of Psychology researchers and theorists. Is it their duty to science to investigate the possibilities of important new tools and possible discoveries that involve empiricism at its best: attempting direct observation of possible/likely important overt behaviors, heretofore not seen?
For example, IN PARTICULAR:
Currently designing a product for the kids of age 3-4, taking into consideration the interaction of the user i.e. interaction would be both physical and cognitive as the child has to do a craft based activity over a play house; there are very few contents available that would give an insight on the physic of the child. I want to make the play house such that it is cheap, safe, provide adequate space for their creative explorations and be durable.
Hello RG community,
I was wondering if there is a test to assess children' working memory in a group setting (class room). The sample is composed by 3rd-to-5th grade italian children.
Thank you in advance for your help,
I am making an assignment for introductory, 101-level Child and Adolescent Development class. Assignment requires reading a literature review on a topic related to child and adolescent development - really any general concept (range can be from effects of breastfeeding to early literacy interventions to effects of corporal punishment), has to be very recent and easy-read (not complex metaanalysis that might be too confusing for freshman level). Did any of you recently read (or wrote and had published) one?
In doing research and writing on violent crime, the single-parent family has proven to contribute to drugs, drop outs, emotional problems and violent behavior. In low-income neighborhoods the absentee father has has a detrimental affect on the healthy child development pointing to the complimentary nature of man that is missing from the family equation.
Challenging behaviours in this context does not refer to psychotic disorders.
We are conducting a meta-analysis of experimental studies looking at the impact of media form (e.g., pace) on executive function (tested post and/or pre media exposure) in children. There seems to be a limited number of studies, at present we have only identified those in the list below, if you know of any studies (including unpublished studies from your own lab) please get in touch.
Anderson, D. R., Levin, S. R., & Lorch, E. P. (1977). The effects of TV program pacing on the behavior of preschool children. Educational Technology Research and Development, 25, 159-166.
Cooper, N. R., Uller, C., Pettifer, J., & Stolc, F. (2009). Conditioning attentional skills: examining the effects of the pace of television editing on children’s attention. Acta Paediatrica, 98, 1651-1655.
Geist, E. A., & Gibson, M. (2000). The effect of network and public television programs on four and five year olds ability to attend to educational tasks. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 27, 250-261.
Kostyrka‐Allchorne, K., Cooper, N. R., Gossmann, A. M., Barber, K. J., & Simpson, A. (2017). Differential effects of film on preschool children's behaviour dependent on editing pace. Acta Paediatrica, 106, 831-836.
Lillard, A. S., Drell, M. B., Richey, E. M., Boguszewski, K., & Smith, E. D. (2015). Further examination of the immediate impact of television on children’s executive function. Developmental Psychology, 51, 792-805.
Lillard, A. S., & Peterson, J. (2011). The immediate impact of different types of television on young children's executive function. Pediatrics, 128, 644-649.
I want to measure the psychological wellbeing of children under child labor, so if there is any please share me. Thank you in advance!!
Looking for post-doctoral opportunity in developmental psychology, cognitive psychology, child development, learning disability.
I need district level data of Aganwadis and other such bodies that are responsible for the implementation of ICDS (Integrated Child Development Services).
What mind-blowing scientific articles on the topics of pregnancy, parenting, and child development have you read for the latest 5 years?
I want to present you with a possible particular concrete example (instance) of a perceptual shift, i.e. the inception of a stage shift (in 'seeing' and [at first, very vaguely,] in some sense IN cognition), showing all the 4 phases of a perceptual shift for the overall process of the beginning of a qualitative stage shift part of the development of cognition -- before purely associative learning "holds sway" by itself again.
This hypothetical example comes from the ape (gorilla) social "world", from which our abilities to have progressively developing levels of concepts and thinking likely first evolved. Well, HERE IS IS:
Think of an child ape, not an infant but perhaps a mid-age-child individual. He has from his previous development a conceptual idea of the dominant (adult) male gorilla (and his behavior patterns, relating to this).
But, then he "notices" that this dominant male, at times rushes towards other adults, to seemingly show other ways to express his dominance (or other aspects of that dominance) which he has not shown before (or which the young ape has not clearly seen, noticed, or processed before).
This is the kind of thing indicating [with him, this child] innate guidance, given he has good, refined earlier knowledge: AT FIRST BEING some gap in the child ape's conceptual understanding of the OVERALL structure of this adult dominance behavior. That "gap", (phase 1) of the now first-emerging of a NEW perceptual shift, may show itself in a situation (or early situations) as just something involving automatically vaguely orienting TOWARD the key situation and behaviors (and would be shown behaviorally simply in prolonged gaze when/after this dominance phenomenon shows itself).
Soon (perhaps VERY SOON) he will better see such dominance events WHEN THEY OCCUR (because of the specific "gap" existing in his understanding); this second phase (of the perceptual shift) will show clearly: orienting to the aspects of this new-to-understand type of dominance expression (still, for the most part, not conscious).
In the third phase of the shift, he will reliably have seen regularities as he continues good orientation needed to observe things associated with this dominance event. HERE he can be said to be expressly and explicitly and consciously ATTENDING to occurrences of this event.
Finally (in the fourth phase of the shift) he will integrate the essentials into memory: facts-for-occurrence, key aspects of this dominant male's behavior (with respect to dominance behavior patterns), and key aspects of the spacial and temporal aspects ("in the world"), associated with these dominance behaviors pattern's key content in visual-spacial memory (which he will be able to play back in his mind, when NOT present in the situation where the adult male dominance behavior occurs; i.e. he can "reflect"). BUT, TO DO ALL THIS:
This fourth phase shows the development of some fact/declarative memory (basically the main static features of the dominance act and their relationships to each other, defined) -- this is the declarative/"semantic" aspect of long-term memory he has developed and is developing. Also, some procedural knowledge develops (at the same time) about how to act in response to this dominance expression (especially if his has something "to do" with he, himself): this thoroughly developed, active and automatized response (or set of responses) is the procedural aspect of long-term memory he has gained: this aspect, known as procedural memory.
Also, in the fourth phase FOR THE MOST PART, he has a record-of-incident (episode) memory which is most prominently in the visual-spacial memory which is, in an indirect way, the actual thing he is able to play back key portions of in his mind, just as he sits and thinks about this dominance phenomenon -- given the EPISODIC BUFFER. (Other key aspects [mentioned above] of long-term Memories are also determining the nature of the BUFFER and are "there". ) So, the ability to do this out-of the situation reflection, just described above, relies on (and is delimited by) the content that will be a notable part of his EPISODIC BUFFER, doing some major contextualization of his working memory (entering into it) where further, now more-simple associative learning may now continue to occur, until all the Memories (each and together) are thoroughly refined.
He no doubt will also, through cued thinking (and likely some observation) relate this aspect of his concept of dominance to other aspects at the same conceptual level (and to/with earlier conceptual levels) that are related to shows of dominance. When ALL this (all of the 4 phases and associative learning needed for refinements and concept integration) has occurred (perhaps taking a year), he will be ready to notice other greater patterns BY HAVING a new perceptual shift (that, too, with 4 similar phases) -- these are the core foundational happenings in ontogeny (aka THE proximate directly observable causes of the development of behavior patterns via perceptual shifts) and that which AGAIN allows qualitative NEW learning new ways (using a qualitatively different kind of learning, and also using well-refined aspects from earlier stages): to AGAIN further develop his representation system(s)( aka concept structure), this being related to all major aspects of the Memories and likely mostly connected with through visual-spacial memories, and all the other Memories connected to that AND USED (in the final step of cognizance) BY THE EPISODIC BUFFER; then working memory can work on new "things".
[ Full explication and justification for this approach (and the implications of this approach) can be found via :
A new Yahoo Group: "A Human Ethogram": https://uk.groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/humanethogram/info
Towards A Human Ethogram:
This group is about approaches that are 100% empirically-based & these approaches must deal with the individual human,& only that, as its subject matter. It is to be (eventually) a way to outline ALL the major innately-guided behavioral developments that result in an adult human (this should include revealing significant innate guidance with the development of all significant human behavior patterns); it is thought that this must be a developmental approach (tracking ontogeny). For clear practical reasons & reasons related to the centrality of some systems of behavior, a proposed approach may begin with the study of the development of just a major pervasive subset of behavior patterns -- any major related system(s) of behavior. The approaches to an ethogram presented may well not cover ALL an ethogram is supposed to cover, but should make clear how to study major aspects of a human behavioral system(s) & its development. One example of such an approach could be a cognitive-developmental approach. Again, ALL must be clearly empirically founded or grounded in all respects, AND with clear testable hypotheses. All descriptions of behavior and concepts MUST have a clear relationship to some directly observable behavior patterns & the corresponding environmental aspects -- with some directly observable proximate causes in BOTH for (involved in yielding) behavioral change.
Full plans for ESTABLISHING a new human science, not limited to very short inadequate unclear unreliable peer-reviewed studies
Keywords: ethology,human ethology,classical ethology,human development,child development,ontogeny,observational research,developmental psychology,theory,human development theory,personality theory,innate action patterns,fixed action patterns,developmental stages,learning,adaptation,behavior patterns,proximate causes,cognition,cognitive development,emotions,emotional development,behavior patterns,environmental factors,behavior change
This might be a good way to find out who else is seeking this kind of thing, instead of spending all my efforts letting people know about my part in establishing a significant PORTION of a human ethogram. I don't know if there are a lot of other ideas, but surely there may be some and maybe I should stop acting like I think there are no others. I do think my proposal for a cognitive-developmental portion of an ethogram is good and should be considered (read and studied closely); but other people might be doing similar things with respect to other behavioral system OR may have good input for me.
[ To summarize several of the basic problems with the 'moderation' of this Yahoo Group: The moderator believes it has been determined that a human ethogram cannot be done (is not possible). (And, he cites the view of a 1989 committee, as great support for this (HIS) position.) NOR, in his firm (set) view is an ethogram needed for coming to ANY OR ALL the understandings we need. (And, IF an ethogram were to be done, he insists it address all significant human behaviors at once "BY DEFINITION", as you will read about again in coming paragraphs -- ignoring very cogent and rather indisputable arguments to the contrary.)
He also insists on strict dualisms BETWEEN classes of major behaviors that DO involve or require innate patterning (and this, in his view, is mainly motor behaviors, motor behavior patterns) AND OTHER very significant behavior patterns/ behavioral systems that he says DON'T -- all this when all reasonable biological scientists would say some significant innate guidance is involved in the development of ALL major systems of adaptation.
PLUS, this moderator insists on NOT discussing what (in his view) need no more be discussed (INCLUDING AN ETHOGRAM), and insists that issues regarding an ethogram (both its definition and how it would have to be done) have already been resolved and warrant no further discussion. He quickly enforces, i.e. CENSORS, expression of views contrary to these. Plus, moreover, his view of what 'THOUGHT' is and what can be considered 'BEHAVIOR' is basically extreme Skinnerian AND he is absolutely insistent on his views here ALSO. Finally: He seems to respect nothing other than the short writings found in peer-reviewed journals -- only such authorities can present all worthy arguments and conclusions about all matters of argument. On all these latter matters he not only insists over and over but, AGAIN, HE WILL CENSOR. ]
What follows may offer more detail about what this 'moderator' accepts and what he doesn't (and what he does not accept is soon CENSORED AND NOT POSTED TO THE HUMAN ETHOLOGY YAHOO GROUP OR MAILING-LIST). :
Basically, he demands that anything that is to be considered an ethogram address ALL the species-typical behaviors of an organism (here the human) ALL AT ONCE, because that is the definition of an ethogram. He would not publish my rebuttal, which says one must start with the discovery of the development of a central ("containing") behavior system (cognitive development) FIRST, to get that major pervasive system understood first, before adding in basically associated or subsidiary systems (like emotions and language). Here is the "moderator's" assessment (NOT based on well-founded assumptions of any sort OR on fact): Quoting:
Jay R. Feierman [NEW]:
(writing to me, and NOT publishing my view. And, see my rebuttal to his rejection of my view (also NOT allowed on the 'list' by him) . ) -- and my exception to the rejection of THAT, below) [ ( Fortunately, my view/perspective expressed is at length here on RG (and elsewhere) ] :
(His objection is just the standard, memorized meaningless junk.): (now quoting Feierman) :
"The cognitive-development behavioral system as it unfolds and develops in ontogeny is important. However, it is not an ethogram, which has a very specific meaning. An ethogram is a catalog of all of the fixed action patterns of a species organized into functional groups. Most but not all of the fixed action patterns are going to be parts of coordinated motor pattern (aka fixed action pattern) instincts. This can be done but it would be very time consuming and difficult, which is why I turned down the offer to do it in the 1980s. Even I. Eibl-Ebesfeldt, who is the father of human ethology, never undertook to do this. ** The reason why it would be so difficult is contrary to all other mammals (with the higher primates partially excepted), humans have many other behaviors that are not fixed action patterns that are innervated by a different part of the nervous system. So for example, a functional category like mother-infant care, can be easily a category in the ethogram of a canine. However, it is not so easy to make an ethogram of mother-infant care for humans. I currently have a collection of Eibl's tribal films of mothers interacting with infants in many different tribal societies. There are behaviors in common but some of the instinctual behaviors are mixed with "voluntary" behaviors that are mediated by another part of the nervous system. It is a lot easier to make an ethogram of the infant's feeding behavior than the mothers' infant care behaviors. "
(end of my quote of him) (This quotation has MANY MANY VERY QUESTIONABLE, but typical, assertions: example: most behaviors with innate action patterns are motor systems; the others are just too variable to involve innate guidance; and, note the complete dualism between innate action patterns and "many other behaviors" -- defying biology, and THUS DEFYING SCIENCE, ITSELF.)
My response to this was (in large part):
Dear Jay Feierman,
You cannot chose for the definition of something (here an ethogram) SOMETHING THAT CANNOT EXIST -- at least the one you 'define' cannot exist, for some time and after a lot of peoples' efforts [(it is not simply something you can, in any way-of-discovery, just 'define' and begin with)]. Thus, to start an ethogram, and appropriately be working for it to be all we want, WHAT I OFFER IS ALL THAT CAN BE OFFERED (and I explain that -- in 500 publicly available [(and published as much as possible)] pages -- if you would only "do me the honor" of reading); my human ethogram is thereby ALL THAT CAN BE CONSIDERED, AT FIRST, AS _THE_ HUMAN ETHOGRAM. THAT'S A LONG SHOT BETTER THAN WHAT YOU OFFER: hopelessness. And, you should strive to offer something better than what is hopeless.
Apparently, you indeed fail to read me (any of my writing). Even in 1989 I knew and informed I. Eibl-Eibesfeldt (my friend and associate) what more was needed in his Human Ethogram book to begin the ethogram that I DID begin. (Did you even bother to read the review, which I posted here??) I can tell you that if you do not "slow down" and really try to "smell the roses", neither of us will learn anything from each other. (AND, I WILL REMAIN not only the first and only author [of the first] [partial] human ethogram, but the only ethologist fully using the terms of, and inductive approach of, classical ethology (or at least the ONLY one doing so with human behavior).
Everything else you say in your response other than what I just addressed, is thus irrelevant (completely). You have to be real. As soon as you think in terms of definitions that simply have been "agreed upon" (perhaps, with a little conjuring on your own), you ARE OFF-TRACK. ALL IS FROM THE _SUBJECT_ ; the Subject defines all . If it starts that way and stays that way, you are building the ethogram (a more complete one) -- that is precisely what I am proposing. You should at least try to empirically describe one before "flushing" mine; you will not be able to do better.
Your response is extremely disappointing and makes outrageous impossible requirements. Your only way to argue against this last statement, IS to directly argue against it: this would involve showing/describing a clearly workable, usable COMPLETELY EMPIRICAL alternative [(like the one you ask for)].
Your definitions are foolish (pardon the word, but it only seems apt). For some good therapy: TRY JUST DESCRIPTION, and of only behavior patterns and environmental aspects _and_ associative/discriminatory learning (and with major developments involving all these things at the very same time) -- involved in ALL major behavioral developments, i.e. ontogeny.
(end of me quoting myself).
Well, if you are in this group (on the mailing list), you will not see me or hear from me any more, because he threw me off for being too "speculative" and seeming like I am describing things that could not be tested. BUT, the truth is, my view is very much less speculative that most of psychology (with its more poorly founded and baseless assumptions; and, with ethology being similar these days). AND though I did not (in this particular post) indicate the more particular nature of hypotheses and how they could/would be discovered true (and tested and verifiable or not), I do describe this in other posts. CLEARLY MY SYSTEM IS IN EMPIRICAL TERMS AND TESTABLE and is less speculative that his write-up of what an ethogram would be like and must be like.
YET: He went on in other responses (I also did not get to rebut) to say my views are untestable (that is FALSE) and just "speculation" (that is FALSE). Again, my view can be considered LESS speculative than the standard view (and more biologically consistent) and I most certainly have clearly and empirically described the phenomenon at the inception of major cognitive developments, as perceptual shifts, and I have indicated how these could clearly be discovered with new eye-tracking technology.
TRUTH IS, IF YOU DO NOT SUPPORT THE PRESUMPTIONS AND 'DEFINITIONS' OF THE EXISTING SYSTEMS (mostly all memorized junk), YOU WILL BE THROWN OUT OF SUCH A GROUP, actually JUST FOR THOSE REASONS ONLY. Not for any empirical or science reasons.
If you would like to ask this "moderator" why he is so off-base, feel free to do so: email@example.com . Maybe if you are on this list you might ask him to better explain why I CAN'T BE ON IT.
** FOOTNOTE: A human ethogram has not been done in over 35 years since it has been deemed impossible; yet my start for a human ethogram, which may be the only way to get one, does not even deserve to be heard, according to another "authority" of the "system".
NOTE: Much of the highlighting and a few explanatory phrases, added in brackets, were added by me.
It is CLEAR why there is a need for a HUMAN ETHOGRAM group. Read about one here: https://www.researchgate.net/post/For_a_new_real_empirical_science_of_human_behavior_clearly_the_biology_of_behavior_lets_move_towards_a_human_ethogram_Might_a_Yahoo_group_help
No one could really expect to outline (then research) ALL the species-typical behavior of the human (or any advanced animals, such as mammals and birds) AT ONCE. WE SIMPLY ARE NOT omniscient (and not capable of ever becoming or being so -- though, in time, perhaps TOGETHER we can approximate this state).
Thus, a good start for a human ethogram IS ITSELF the beginning of the human ethogram. Of course, you must have a correct start: Look for the always-involved capabilities which basically is a "containing system" for all other interesting things -- things less pervasive and less-flexibly-and-openly applied (by themselves) (like emotions and language). Yet it must be essential aspects of real particular human behavior.
I chose (for the first and ONLY human ethogram, in existence): the cognitive-development behavioral system AS IT UNFOLDS AND DEVELOPS in ontogeny; I posit such a study can be done grounding everything (at the root, in very key ways) in behavioral patterns and the environmental aspects involved. BUT, in addition, one must understand the nature of our types of memories , and how awesome amounts of perspective and context can be brought forward with that. YET, at the same time, the INCEPTION of anything (including new ways to represent and conceptualize and eventually think) will themselves have real (overt directly observable) environment aspects required at least at the beginning (inception) [ as well as some clear overt, directly observable behavior PATTERNS, acting at the inception ] -- THIS would be true of any SIGNIFICANT new DEVELOPING behavior patterns (including the inception of 'abstract" thought) : this is simply sensible empiricism, which MUCH BE ASSUMED AND SOMETHING A SCIENTIST SEES as necessarily "worth a try", because there simply is NO alternative for an empiricist.
The likely BEHAVIORAL PATTERNS INVOLVED (along with these environmental aspects, at the inception of significant new behavior PATTERNS) not only could simply be perceptual shifts (see first link below) BUT VERY LIKELY WOULD BE _AND_ now these very things are investigable (verifiable, provable, replicable) using the new eye-tracking technology (likely along with computer-assisted analysis). Now the citations: First what I see as the likely phenomenological nature OF these very perceptual shifts, which occur with each hierarchical and new stage/level of thinking:
[ (please IGNORE the incoherent Answers to this Question by Nathan Latvaitis -- an uneducated person with no publications (and not likely under any sort of good mental control) -- one who believes he can simply take on any topic with his mind, no education or discipline needed) ].
THEN: see the overall position, for the role of these perceptual shifts during child development, by reading the paper (Research Item) "A Human Ethogram ...: :
These two theories appear to cover much the same ground but emerge from different corners of social science. Social Psychology largely owns social identity theory and has a strong following among European scholars. In the US scholars of color writing on almost identical topics appear to focus nearly exclusively on theories that are specifically centered in racial or ethnic identity. Social identity is referred to but not centrally. How do we bring these two literatures together and can we explain why they have developed in parallel not integrated ways.
It is commonly stated that the prefrontal cortex typically is not fully functional until as late as age 24. If true, this must be an average figure.
If one considers young children that, due to circumstances, are required to act responsibly and independently, far beyond their chronological age, and how they continue through their adulthood to being very responsible and independent.
On the other hand, consider the child who has a "helicopter" mom or other overindulgent caregivers, and how everything is done for them so they often do not act responsibly or independent. This lack of character building then results in an adult who continues acting like a child who is undisciplined, unethical, and irresponsible.
Of course, a middle ground is needed for child development to result in an adult who is well-balanced.
Are my impressions supported by empirical evidence or well-founded theory? Is there a neuroscientific explanation re. the plasticity of the brain?
I mean no questionnaire and no EEG, fMRI and no other psychophysiological measure. I only know the REAR and REAR-I (Carthy et al. 2010).
If anyone has good research resources or expertise in this area that I can refer to or read, please send it my way. I am part of a determinants of health team providing support to another team regarding this topic.
Inclusion Criteria: children aged 0-6yrs, Canadian research, up to date (last 5 years), and peer reviewed.
I'm performing a research on parents' knowledge of media usage by their children in a preschool age in Poland. I'm interested in the factors, such as level of parent's education, social status, and its influence on the variety of media and time spent with media by children at home. The crucial question is how much time do they spend with media being aware of it and do their parents know how to show them the positive and negative aspects of media. Can you recommend me some research related to my interests and literature?
I have long been aware of the lack of support experienced by the many early childhood centres in developing their own ‘local’ curriculum. I want to describe what a ‘local’ curriculum should look like, in particular, how an assessment/evaluation system should be established to make an integral part of the curriculum.
Hello. I'm a doctoral student in the field of child development and family studies.
I have a question about LCGA solution.
I'm in the process writing a doctoral dissertation using Growth Mixture Modiling using LCGA.
The main purpose of my study is to examine maternal puerperal depression trajectories and classify groups according to their depression change tendency.
There are three time point information about maternal depression(at pregnancy, 1-year after the birth, and 2-year after the birth).
I could classified two groups according to the type of maternal depression tajctories, 'depression deepening group' and 'depression relieving group', using LCGA. Two group solution showed the best fitness of AIC, BIC, Entropy, and ALMR.
The problem is that my commitee members suggested that I should exclude 8 cases that could be classified in 3 class solution by LCGA. Their (8 cases) depression trajectory was low level maintenance tendency.
What do you think? Should I exclude 8 cases when I identify the differences between the two groups- depression deepening group and depressiojn relieving group?
I would appreciate your suggestions.
The topic of my research is : Effectiveness of intervention program on the Mathematical Word-Problem-Solving Performance of Students with Difficulties in Mathematical Problem Solving. Which method is most reliable for evaluation of such difficulties? I have in mind Sternberg's 2003 problem solving model. Could you suggest other reliable methods ?
I'm interested for the results of ISRD study related to children at risk for antisocial/criminal behavior. I would like to estimate the number of children at risk in Bosnia and Herzegovina on national sample, using the ISRD 3 data base. Also, I would like to measure risk intensity and predict probability of criminal behavior.
Thank you for any help you could provide!
There are a lot of researches of PYD that uses 5C's. I am looking for researches that has been conducted using overall PYD score.
Family court judges typically possess little useful information about child development. What research is being done to correct this? Are there examples of where such teaching has worked.
Is the claim that movement activities and sport can help the inclusion of challenged students in the class based on research? can anyone suggest specific readings and perspectives?
How can I predict the moderating effect of family income and educational background on the transition b/w Perceived psychological contract and violation?.
Transition b/w expressed anger and deviant anger .How can I predict the moderating effect of family income and educational background
How do you determine whether your sample size is large enough for a mediational analysis (using process)?
The objective is to investigate the expectations and maternal and paternal conceptions of development in the first year of the baby's life, emphasizing the sources of information sought and how they are valued by parents.
I have been considering the role of parents, and I'm wondering if there are dimensions or categories of parenting that predict developmental outcomes in addition to Baumrind's parenting styles (authoritarian, authoritative, permissive), Maccoby & Martin's associated dimensions (warmth vs. control, responsiveness vs. demandingness), and abuse/neglect? It seems that any I think of or find in my literature review are closely tied with parenting styles even if they're not identical (e.g., parental monitoring, discipline strategies). Does anyone know of any scales of aspects of parenting that are not highly correlated with parenting style? ~ Kevin