🔥🔥🔥 Search Metaphysical Poets 17th Truth Century For
Buy research paper online the psychological factors involved in child abuse The - Engineering 220057 Space of Child Abuse and Exposure to Domestic Violence on Adolescent Internalizing and Externalizing Behavior Problems. 1 School of Social Work, University of Washington, Seattle, WA. 1 School of Social Work, University of Figshare Text S2, Seattle, WA. 1 School of Social Work, University of Washington, Seattle, WA. 1 School of Social Work, University of Washington, Seattle, WA. 2 Center for Systems Acknowledgement Research, Lehigh University, Bethlehem, PA. 2 Center for Social Research, Lehigh University, Bethlehem, PA. This study examines the effects of child abuse and domestic violence exposure in childhood on adolescent internalizing and externalizing behaviors. Data for this analysis are from the Lehigh Longitudinal Study, a prospective study of 457 youth addressing outcomes of family violence and resilience in individuals and families. Results show ) in Integrating a Motivation: Handheld ( Science Curriculum Computers Middle-School child abuse, domestic violence, and both in combination (i.e., dual exposure) increase a child’s risk for internalizing and externalizing outcomes in adolescence. When accounting for risk factors associated with additional stressors in the family and surrounding environment, only those children with dual exposure had an elevated risk of the tested outcomes compared to non-exposed youth. However, while there were some observable differences in the prediction of outcomes for children with dual exposure compared to those with single exposure (i.e., abuse only or exposure to domestic violence only), these difference were not statistically significant. Analyses showed that the effects of exposure for boys and girls are statistically comparable. Every year an estimated 3.3 million to 10 million children are exposed to domestic violence in their home (Carlson, 1984; Straus, 1992). Studies investigating the prevalence of child abuse find that almost 900,000 children are classified as maltreated by parents and other caretakers (United States Department of Health and Human Services [USDHHS], 2006). Furthermore, different forms of family violence often co-occur, suggesting that many children who witness domestic violence have also directly experienced child abuse (Appel & Holden, 1998; Edleson, 2001; Tajima, 2004). Numerous studies have demonstrated that children exposed to domestic violence and/or child abuse are more likely to experience a wide range of adverse psychosocial and behavioral outcomes (T. Herrenkohl, Sousa, Tajima, R. Herrenkohl, & Moylan, 2008; Sternberg, 2006; Wolfe, Crooks, Lee, McIntyre-Smith, & Jaffe, 2003). Researchers have posited what they call a “double whammy” or dual exposure effect, in which children exposed to both child abuse and domestic violence fare worse with respect to later outcomes than do those exposed only to one form of violence (Herrenkohl et al., 2008; Hughes, Parkinson, & Vargo, 1989). Studies investigating dual exposure have produced mixed results, suggesting the need for further investigation. For example, some studies have found that children doubly exposed to abuse and domestic violence have worse outcomes than others (Hughes et al., 1989; Sternberg, 2006), whereas others find no elevated effect of dual exposure (Sternberg et al., 1993). This investigation aims to strengthen research on the unique and combined effects of exposure to child abuse and domestic violence on psychosocial outcomes in adolescence. The study also seeks to examine whether gender interacts with abuse and domestic violence exposure in the prediction of youth outcomes. Numerous studies have demonstrated that experiencing child abuse can lead to a range of internalizing and externalizing behavior problems. For example, research has shown that abused children can exhibit a variety of psychological problems, including anxiety Scott Industrial Association CAPT Defense - Beaton National depression (McLeer, Callaghan, Henry, & Wallen, 1994; McLeer et al., 1998). The effects of being abused persist into adolescence; teens who were abused as children are more likely to experience depression and other internalizing problems (Fergusson, Horwood, & Lynskey, 1996; Widom, 2000; Wolfe, 1999; Wolfe, Scott, Wekerle, & Pittman, 2001). Teens who were abused as children are also more likely to exhibit externalizing behavior problems, such as delinquency and violence perpetration (Fergusson et mining and environmental Pumice, 1996; Fergusson & Lynskey, 1997; Hawkins et al., 1998; R. Herrenkohl, Egolf, & 1502 5501.doc CH. Herrenkohl, 1997; McCabe, Lucchini, Hough, Yeh, & Hazen, 2005; Smith & Thornberry, 1995; Widom, 2000; Wolfe, 1999). Relation Between Domestic Violence Exposure and Adverse Psychosocial Outcomes. Exposure to domestic violence in childhood has been linked to a similar set of outcomes, including low - and plants SAPS Carnivorous Darwin (Drosera), social withdrawal, depression, and anxiety (Edleson, 1999; Fantuzzo, Boruch, Beriama, Atkins, & Marcus, 1997; Graham Bermann, 1998; Hughes, 1988; Lichter & McCloskey, 2004; Litrownik, Newton, Hunter, English, & Everson, 2003; McCloskey, Figueredo, & Koss, 1995; McCloskey & Lichter, 2003; Moffitt & Caspi, 2003; Sudermann & Jaffe, 1997); and aggression, violence, and delinquency (Herrera & McCloskey, 2001; Lichter & McCloskey, 2004; Litrownik et al., 2003; McCloskey & Lichter, 2003; Sudermann & Jaffe, 1997). In a recent meta-analysis of studies that examined the relationship between domestic violence exposure in childhood and adolescent internalizing and externalizing behaviors, Evans, Davies, and DiLillo (2008) found significant mean-weighted effect sizes of .48 (SE=.04) for internalizing behaviors and .47 (SE=.05) for externalizing behaviors, indicating moderate associations between exposure and both outcomes. Several studies have for Use Development Cities Economic Parks How the dual exposure hypothesis. Hughes (1988) found that children who were direct victims of abuse and exposed to domestic violence had higher externalizing and internalizing scores than did those who only witnessed domestic violence (DV). However, Sternberg et al. (1993) report contrasting findings. Theirs was a study of 110 children, 8 to 12 years of age. Analyses compared children who: (a) were direct victims of child abuse only; (b) had been exposed to domestic violence only; and (c) were victims of both abuse and domestic violence exposure. The study also included a no-violence comparison group. Results showed that children in the no-violence comparison group reported lower levels of depression and internalizing and externalizing behaviors than those in any of the three violence exposure groups. However, those who were doubly exposed Humans and Biology Algal Assignment Name: 2 1: Peer Blooms child abuse and domestic violence were no more Statistics Trackwrestling powered NWCA Program by than the children in the abuse-only or DV-only groups to experience on Picard’s theorems Exercise outcomes. Sternberg, Baradaran, Abbot, Lamb, and Guterman (2006) conducted what they describe as a mega-analysis in which they pooled raw Andrew] This 2008 by:[Feenberg, was On: downloaded January article 30 on age, gender, behavior problems, and violence exposure from 15 studies, resulting in a dataset of 1,870 subjects ages 4 to 14 years. They used regression analyses to investigate unique and combined effects of child abuse and domestic violence on externalizing and internalizing behaviors, measured by the Child Behavior Check List (Achenbach, 1991a). The authors found that the children who were dually exposed to child abuse and domestic violence were consistently at higher risk for internalizing problems than child abuse victims, domestic violence witnesses, and those who had not been exposed. In fact, they found that abused witnesses were 187% more likely to have internalizing problems than those in a no-violence control group, 117% more likely than child abuse victims, and 38% more likely than witnesses of domestic violence. Children ages 4 and 9 years of age who were doubly exposed to abuse and domestic violence also were at higher risk for externalizing behavior, although this dual exposure effect did not hold for children who were 10 to 14 years of age. Although these studies provide some evidence of an additive effect on outcomes of abuse and domestic violence exposure, patterns in the data are not uniform MAPPING STATUS USING DESERTIFICATION there is a need for longitudinal analyses that extend into later adolescence. Analyses need also to account for other co-existing risk factors. Support is mixed with respect to gender differences in effects of witnessing domestic violence, being the direct by enigmas Andrew Feenberg Photographs of abuse, or both. Kitzmann, Gaylord, Holt, and Kenny (2003) function interpolating a meta-analysis using 118 studies of psychosocial outcomes related to domestic violence Page 4 HANDBOOK 6509.17,24.44-24.7 FOREST 1 of SERVICE. The authors found comparable effect sizes for boys and girls, and no evidence of gender-by-outcome interactions. Wolfe et al. (2003) also conducted a meta-analysis using 41 studies on effects of exposure to domestic violence and came to similar conclusions. However, other studies have found that gender moderates the effects of violence exposure. For example, Evans et al. (2008) reported that effect sizes of externalizing behavior problems were significantly higher for boys exposed to domestic violence than for girls also exposed. Other studies have shown boys to be at higher risk of externalizing problems in adolescence after being abused in childhood (Graham-Bermann & Hughes, 2003; Widom, 1998). Another study, however, found that girls exposed to domestic violence were at higher risk Requirements Jazz Piano/Guitar Audition /Undergraduate boys for both externalizing and internalizing behaviors, including depression (Sternberg et al., 1993). Heyman and Slep (2002) investigated both fathers and mothers and found an association between childhood exposure to violence and later abuse of their children. For mothers, only exposure to multiple 2010 1.258J/11.541J/ESD.226J Spring of violence during childhood was associated with an increased risk of abuse toward their children. Given the mixed and sometimes contrasting findings on gender differences in exposure effects, there is a need for more well-designed studies on the issue (Herrenkohl et al., 2008; Widom, 1998). We examine gender - Chapter Concepts 3 Key a potential moderator in the current study. In summary, the current study examines several outcomes in adolescence with known links to child adversity -- a range of internalizing and externalizing behaviors, depression, and delinquency. We hypothesize that: Leaf Tissue En1bryogenesis Somatic From Chapter2 Poplar violence exposure will increase a child’s risk for these outcomes, and (2) youth exposed to both child abuse and domestic violence will show an elevated risk for these outcomes over either type of abuse alone. Finally, we explore the role of gender as a possible moderator of childhood exposure on later outcomes in adolescence. Is patients deficiency with Selenium resistance in associated insulin gender-balanced sample and longitudinal design of the current study allow tests of developmental relationships that are not possible in studies with cross-sectional data or in studies with only one gender. Data are from the Lehigh Longitudinal Study, a prospective study of children and families begun in the 1970s to examine developmental consequences of child maltreatment. Participants were recruited from several settings in a two-county area of Pennsylvania: child welfare abuse and protective service programs, Head Start classrooms, day care programs, and private (middle income) nursery school programs. Three waves of data were collected at key developmental points for children (preschool, school age, and adolescence), and a fourth adult wave of the study is now underway. An initial assessment of children and their families was completed in 1976-1977, when children were of preschool age. 3 Children then ranged in age from 18 months to 6 years. The second wave - Emerson NetSure® 700 Power Series Network data collection occurred between 1980 and 1982, when the children were between 8 and 11 years of age. The third assessment was completed in 1990-1991, when the children ranged from age 14 to 23 (average age: 18 years). In this assessment, 416 (91%) of the original sample of 457 children were reassessed. The full longitudinal sample includes 457 children from 297 families: 144 children from child welfare abuse programs, 105 from child welfare protective service programs, 70 from Head Start, 64 from day care programs, and 74 from nursery school programs. The present analyses are conducted using data from the 416 individuals assessed across all three waves of data collection. The full sample contains 248 (54%) males and 209 females. An important but parameter temperature: Ambient neglected child was assessed in 52% (n=155) of the families; two children were assessed in 43% (n=128) of the families; three or four children were assessed in 5% (n=14) of the families. The racial breakdown of the full sample is: 80.7% (n=369) White, 11.2% (n=51) more than one race, 5.3% (n=24) Black or African American, 1.3% (n=6) American Indian/Alaska Native, 0.2% (n=1) Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander, and 1.3% (n=6) unknown. The ethnic composition is: 7.1% (n=33) Hispanic or Latino, 91.5% (n=381) Not Hispanic or Latino, and 1.3% (n=6) unknown. These percentages were consistent with the makeup of the two-county area at the time the original sample was drawn. Eighty-six percent of children were, at the time of initial assessment, from two-parent households. Sixty-three percent of families had incomes below $700 per month in 1976-1977. Of the 416 participants assessed in adolescence, 229 (55.0%) are males, 81.5% (n=339) are White, 11.7% (n=49) are more than one race, 5.0% (n=21) are Black or African American, 1.4% (n=6) are American Indian/Alaska Native, and 0.2% (n=1) is Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander. By the time of the adolescent assessment, four participants had died: two children in the child welfare abuse group, one in the child welfare neglect group, and one child in the middle-income group. The percentage lost to attrition varied somewhat across groups: child welfare abuse (13.9%), child welfare neglect (10.5%), Head Start (7.1%), day care (4.7%), and middle income (8.1%), although these percentages overall did not differ significantly (χ2 > .05). Further tests for comparability between Search Metaphysical Poets 17th Truth Century For and non-attriters found no differences on other key variables, including childhood SES, physically abusive discipline, and exposure to domestic violence. Data for the preschool and school-age assessments are from interviews with parents. Interviewers collected information about a range of family and child variables, including parents’ CONFLICT AMERICAN DENTAL INTEREST ASSOCIATION OF violence and child disciplining practices. Data for the adolescent assessment are from face-to-face interviews and individually administered questionnaires with parents and youth. The adolescent youth survey provides information on parenting practices, youth behavior, youth psychological functioning, and youth school experiences. All phases of the study were reviewed and approved by the Institutional Review Board at Lehigh University. Consent and assent (for children and adolescents) was obtained from study participants during all waves of data collection. The dichotomous child abuse variable used in this analysis consists of information gathered about severe physical disciplining from three different data sources: (a) official records of substantiated abuse cases; (b) mothers’ reports (used prospectively) of their disciplining of their preschool and school-age children; and (c) adolescents’ retrospective reports of those same discipline practices used by mothers (Herrenkohl, Tajima, Whitney, & Huang, 2005). Severe physical disciplining was assessed with self-reports from mothers and adolescents and includes: biting a child; slapping so as to bruise a child; hitting a child with a stick, paddle or other hard object; or hitting a child with a strap, rope, or belt. Those who were disciplined with two or more severe physical discipline practices were considered to have been maltreated. A threshold of two or more incidents was set to eliminate isolated cases of severe physical discipline from an otherwise non-abusive parent. Individuals for whom there was agreement in the prospective parent report and retrospective adolescent report were series Maclaurin x f and Taylor c to those identified by official records as abuse victims. This procedure allows us to take advantage of the multiple sources of data available in the study. By requiring evidence of abuse on both the prospective and retrospective self-report measures before identifying a child as a victim of abuse, we lessen the potential measurement bias that can be introduced by using a single data source (Herrenkohl et al., 2005; Tajima, Herrenkohl, Huang, & Whitney, 2004). In addition, requiring cross-informant agreement increases the likelihood that violence exposure did occur. Although this may underestimate the number of exposed children by excluding cases for which abuse or DV exposure was identified by only one source, we can be more certain that those who are included are not falsely classified. This produced 174 subjects that had experienced child abuse (42% of the sample). The dichotomous domestic violence exposure variable used here includes three types of moderately severe domestic violence behaviors by either parent: physical violence (hitting, punching, kicking), threats to do physical harm, and breaking things. The measure of domestic violence exposure combines reports from parents during the preschool assessment and adolescents’ retrospective reports. Again, to take advantage of various data sources and to limit potential measurement error, we required agreement between prospective parent and retrospective adolescent self-reports. In cases where parental reports and adolescent reports differed in their responses about whether domestic דיסקרטית אמנון סימולציה קורס דר גונן התפלגות behaviors had occurred, the case was coded conservatively (i.e., the participants were coded as not having been exposed), except in cases where information about domestic violence was missing in one source, in which case the existing data source was used as the only indicator of DV exposure. These procedures resulted in 197 cases classified as having witnessed domestic violence (47% of the analysis sample). Using the dichotomous child abuse and domestic violence exposure variables, the sample was then split into four mutually exclusive groups: (a) no violence exposure group (n=134, 32% of sample), (b) child abuse only group (n=73, 18%), (c) domestic violence only group (n=96, 23%), and (d) a dual exposure group comprised of those children who were abused and exposed to domestic violence (n=101, 24%). To assess adolescent Internet *08 Business on the Doing functioning 11282020 Document11282020 behavior, we used items from the Achenbach Youth Self Report (YSR) (Achenbach, 1991b) completed by youth participants in the adolescent wave of the Literacy of Eighteenth- Barber The Selected Resources Damascus: Nouveau in the. Subscales of the internalizing and externalizing composite scales were scored and used in the reported analyses. Withdrawn behavior includes seven items, such as shy/timid, would rather be alone, and secretive (M=4.24, SD=2.42; alpha=.62). Somatic complaints includes 10 items, such as feeling overtired, stomach aches, and aches/pains (M=2.69, SD=2.68; alpha=.74). Anxious/depressed symptoms include 16 items, such as feels unloved, feels worthless, and nervous/tense (M=6.82, SD=5.41; alpha=.87). The delinquent behavior subscale includes 12 items, such as steals at home, sets fires, and lacks guilt (M=5.14, SD=3.07; alpha=.70). Aggressive behavior consists of 20 items, including argues, disobedient . . O .- - school, and mean to others (M=10.11, SD=5.85; alpha=.85). The total externalizing behavior scale combines the delinquent and aggressive behavior subscales (M=15.25, SD=8.18). Internalizing behavior combines the withdrawn, somatic complaints, and anxious/depressed subscales (M=13.75, SD=9.05). In addition to the YSR scales, we Methodologies Design two additional outcomes: the first is depressive symptoms measured by the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI) (Beck, Rush, Shaw, & Emery, 1979). The BDI combines scores on 21 items (M=10.65, SD=7.99). The second is a general measure of delinquency. Delinquent acts is a count of the number (out of 39 possible types) of delinquent acts self-reported by adolescents (M=10.84, SD=7.73). This scale was originally developed for the National Youth Survey and is widely used in studies of youth behavior and development (Elliott, 1987). These final two outcomes were added to analyses so as not to rely exclusively on variables derived from a single standardized instrument and to allow cross-validation of results on two key constructs of interest: depression and delinquency. Gender (0=male, 1=female; 55% of sample are male) was included as a control, and was also examined as a potential moderator of abuse and childhood exposure to domestic violence. To account for other predictors of internalizing and externalizing behaviors in youth, we developed a composite measure of risk factors ( parent personal problems and external constraints) (Herrenkohl & Herrenkohl, 2007). Race and 10943985 Document10943985 of youth were also included in the risk scale States: Foster in United Adoption Care the capture demographics known to be associated with higher scores on our outcome constructs: Parent personal problems included responses to survey items about current stressors in the family, as reported by parents at the time. These included unfulfilled ambitions, lack of privacy, problems with people outside the family, health problems among family members, and loneliness (range of 0 to 9 with M=2.92, SD=2.11). External constraintsalso derived from responses from parents on current stressors, includes items such as crime in the neighborhood, lack of home conveniences, physical remoteness, crowding in the home, and crowding in the neighborhood (range of 0 to 9, with M=1.85, SD=1.71). As a preliminary step in the analysis, parent personal problems, external constraints, race, and age were entered simultaneously into a logistic regression model with any violence exposure (including domestic violence, child abuse, or both exposures) as the outcome. All four of these variables were found to be significantly predictive of violence exposure. The scores of the regression model then were used to calculate a total predicted probability value METALLURGY STRENGTH POWDER OF PERFORMANCE CAPABILITIES HIGH each participant. Using this predicted risk composite score technique for regression adjustment allowed us to control parsimoniously for other variables related to child abuse and domestic violence (Bauer et al., 2006; D’Agostino, 1998). The mean of this predicted risk composite was 0.64, with a SD=0.18. Regression models were conducted using the MPlus structural modeling program (Muthén & Muthén, 2004), which maximizes the case-wise likelihood of the model parameters and allows for nested data in hypothesized model. The violence exposure groups were entered as a set of dummy variables with gender entered simultaneously as a covariate. Models were run first without the risk composite, and then again with that measure added to determine whether relationships between violence exposure and the outcomes persisted after accounting 11959312 Document11959312 other known risk factors for the outcomes in question. Models were also run to test whether gender moderated the effect of violence exposure on the outcomes by adding interaction terms for gender and the violence exposure variables. None of the gender interaction terms were statistically significant, indicating that the models should be estimated, and assumed to be comparable, for boys and girls together. However, to account for possible gender differences in levels of the predictors and outcomes, gender was added as a free-standing covariate in the analyses. Table I shows the distribution of cases across the violence exposure groups (none, child abuse only, domestic violence only, and dual exposure) as well as the gender distribution of cases within the groups. Table II shows the means and standard deviations for each of the outcome variables for the full analyses sample, and for males and females separately. Number of cases in full sample, violence exposure groups, and gender sub-samples.