Childhood Issues and Disorders
Article 1
In the article “The Environment of Childhood Poverty”, Evans (2004) presents comprehensive insights into the plight of disadvantaged children. The author reveals that poor children experience several challenges related to socioeconomic inequalities. According to the author, disadvantaged children often experience chaos at home, economic and social instability, violence, and divorce from their parents. The article reveals that children from low-income families have less social support than those from economically advantaged homes. Overcrowding, pollution, and limited access to education resources are also associated with childhood poverty. The article is wide in scope as it describes problems disadvantaged children face in the context of social, psychological, and economic dimensions. The discussion and illustrations of the author are consistent with current research on childhood poverty. For example, Eckenrode, Smith, McCarthy, and Dineen (2014) also demonstrate that child maltreatment, such as neglect and abuse, affects poor children more than their economically privileged counterparts. Therefore other researchers agree with some assertions in the research article.
The arguments of the author on a wide range of childhood issues are reliable because they are validated by statistical data showing apparent socioeconomic inequalities that affect poor children. The purpose of the article is to demonstrate that poverty impacts negatively on the cognitive, socioeconomic, and physical wellbeing of children. This purpose is achieved through the author’s descriptive analysis of environmental conditions affecting poor children and their families. For instance, Evans (2004) effectively categorizes and distinguishes the physical, socioeconomic, and cognitive environments of underprivileged children to demonstrate how they affect their overall well-being. He also creates comparisons of relationships between the conditions of poor children in the context of associated effects on their well-being. The article is adequately illustrated. For example, the author uses graphs to illustrate differences among low, medium, and high-income children about disparities in education, health, and exposure to pollution. The use of a graphical representation of relevant data makes the author’s main arguments easy to follow. The author’s research contributes to knowledge of childhood disorders and issues that disproportionately affect low-income children. The article is valid because its preparation was supported by credible foundations, including the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development.
The author relied on secondary research data to support his arguments. This means that the biases of primary researchers would have affected the accuracy of the author’s interpretations. Evans (2004) overcomes methodological limitations in his article by citing reliable sources of information on the topic. He also limits his discussion to the environmental factors affecting the well-being of poor children to achieve the purpose of his research. However, the author failed to include theoretical frameworks on socioeconomic disparities in childhood in his discussion. The inclusion of theoretical explanations would have made his arguments more plausible. Regardless of the aforementioned challenges, the arguments of the author are aligned with existing ideas on the circumstances of underprivileged children. The author effectively reconciles current literature to present a coherent discussion on environmental factors affecting children from different social and economic backgrounds. The article is useful in informing further research on a wide range of childhood issues and associated effects on social work and healthcare practices.
Article 2
In their article “Resilience and Suicidality among Homeless Youth”, Cleverley and Kidd (2011) report primary research findings on the resilience of street-involved youth. The authors conducted surveys involving homeless youth to demonstrate that street-involved youth often exhibit poor mental health variables. The discussion in the article confirms arguments in the current literature which indicate that street-involved youth have common trajectories related to unstable, neglectful, and abusive family histories. They are also at a high risk of criminal involvement and victimization (Bender, Ferguson, Thompson, Komlo, & Pollio, 2010). The authors further indicate that street-involved youth are faced with high rates of mental and physical illnesses and mortality. Cleverley and Kidd (2011) effectively present a new point of view in their article by stating that there is a need to shift focus from examining the risks of street life to identifying interventions for addressing specific problems facing street-involved youth. The authors also demonstrate that it is important to determine the resilience of street-involved youth as it informs the design and implementation of effective intervention models and strategies.
The measures the researchers used are suicidal ideation, resilience, and self-esteem. These measures augment similar studies that indicate that the psychological stress of street life is directly related to suicide ideation tendencies and low esteem among the youth (Hudson et al., 2010). Notably, the measures used by the researchers are accurate and reliable because they applied standardized scales, such as the 25-item Conner-Davidson Resilience Scale and the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale. The researchers used descriptive statistics in data analysis. This allowed them to summarize their findings in an organized manner. In addition, the issue of validity was addressed in the research. For example, the researchers applied regression analysis to provide valid conclusions on the relationships between psychological stress, resilience, and suicidal ideation among street-involved youth. The authors indicate that young people who are resilient to the stressful life on the streets have a low risk of suicidal ideation. They agree with research evidence indicating that risk factors, such as distress, influence suicidal thoughts, protective mechanisms, and the self-esteem of street-involved youth (Edidin, Ganim, Hunter, & Karnik, 2012).
The research in the article has some limitations. For example, the authors involved only 59 street-involved youth in the primary research. The small sample size limits the generalization of the researchers’ findings and inferences to the general population of street-involved youth. Notably, the reliability of the author’s arguments is also limited by problems in sampling. Additionally, cross-sectional data from the research limited the ability of the researchers to develop convincing causal relationships between the main variables of their study. Regardless of the noted limitations, the findings reported in the article have positive implications for mental health practices targeting street-involved youth. The study in the article also has implications for future quantitative and qualitative investigations on the mental and physical health of street-involved youth. The authors objectively recommend more research on the application of a triangulated approach in mental health care meant to involve peers and workers in promoting the resilience of street-involved youth to the negative physical and psychological effects of street life.
Article 3
In the article titled “Childhood in Crisis? Perceptions of 7–11-Year-Olds on Being a Child and the Implications for Education's Well-Being Agenda”, Adams (2013) presents a comprehensive discussion on the perceptions of children on their experiences and well-being in childhood. The researcher used semi-structured group interviews involving school-going children to reveal the important role of schools in promoting the moral, social, psychological, emotional, cultural, and spiritual development of young people. The article provides vivid illustrations to demonstrate the specific roles schools play in nurturing children and promoting skills development. The research reported in the article was aimed at revealing the negative psychological effects of the media, poverty, and health disparities on the well-being of children and the role of schools in reversing the crises related to raising children within contemporary society. However, the research was limited to a population of economically deprived children in East England. In addition, the researcher focused on exploring the negative aspects of the experiences of children who participated in her study.
The use of group interviews led to the collection of adequate data on the experiences of target children populations to inform the discussions and conclusions of the researcher. However, group interviews limited the reliability of the researcher’s findings. This is because the responses of participating children may have been influenced by the answers of their peers. The researcher addressed the limitations of group interviews by providing participants with complementary methods of providing research data, such as expressing their thoughts and views on pieces of paper. Adams (2013) admits the danger of misinterpreting the verbal data provided by participating children. Despite of notable limitations of the study in the article, the author’s arguments are congruent with current research on the role of schools in promoting the overall well-being of young learners. Other researchers agree that play is an important aspect of the elementary curriculum as it is designed to promote the holistic development and well-being of young learners (Vostanis, Humphrey, Fitzgerald, Deighton, & Wolpert, 2013).
The author’s interpretations are effectively organized and presented clearly. This makes it possible for readers to determine the value of her research in the practice of psychology and the implementation of educational strategies targeting children. It is noteworthy that the research in the article has implications for future studies on the topic. Adams (2013) correctly indicates that future studies should address potential bias by focusing on both economically deprived and economically privileged children populations. Notably, the research presented in the article is likely to differ in other geographical locations due to the divergent socioeconomic experiences of children from different cultural and ethnic groups. Nonetheless, the conclusions of the author are useful in informing the well-being agenda of schools. For example, Adams (2013) indicates that educators play an important role in enhancing and facilitating the well-being agenda of schools. It is argued that the well-being objectives of schools should be informed by the views and perceptions of young learners (Vostanis et al., 2013). This argument is congruent with the discussion in the reviewed article.
Article 4
In their article titled “What Does it Mean to Be an Adult? Perceptions of Young Men in Residential Care”, Raymond and Heseltine (2008) reveal that interdependent adult relationships and independence or autonomy promote the transition of young people to adulthood. Their conclusions are credible because they were informed by primary research evidence. They conducted semi-structured interviews involving young men in residential homes who were preparing for the transition to adulthood. The authors indicate that young males in residential homes assume adult roles and responsibilities earlier than the general youth population. The researchers’ findings are supported by similar studies which show that young people in residential care acquire skills of autonomy earlier than their counterparts in normal family settings (Casey et al., 2010). The authors effectively applied theoretical frameworks, such as the theory of social construction to provide an in-depth analysis of the psychological and social process influencing transition into adulthood among young males in residential home environments. The integration of theory into the discussion reveals that the arguments of the authors are convincing and applicable in practice.
The primary themes discussed in the article are behavioral maturity, age, and responsibility. The authors present a well-organized discussion of relationships between the aforementioned themes to determine how young men in residential homes construct adulthood. However, the researchers interviewed only 9 participants. This means that the generalization of their findings to the general youth population is limited. For example, their findings do not apply to young females who are in transition to adulthood. Furthermore, the authors failed to involve young people from normal family settings in their research to draw meaningful comparisons with participants in residential homes. The discussion in the article is based on qualitative research findings. Therefore, there is a chance of bias in the researchers’ interpretation of qualitative data from their study. However, research findings in the article fill gaps in scientific evidence on the construction transition to adulthood among young men in residential home settings. These research gaps are identified by the authors. Notably, the researchers used open-ended questions to collect comprehensive data on the perceptions of participants on matters related to preparation and transition to adulthood. Therefore, their research is useful in understanding the psychological development processes of young men in residential homes.
The authors do not address sex-related similarities in how young people construct adulthood. Therefore, the article does not provide a full picture of adult identity in the larger ecological perspective. Despite this limitation, Raymond and Heseltine (2008) provide useful insights on the policy implications of their research. For example, they demonstrate the importance of integrating reality-based support and guidance in the residential care of young people. They also recommend that young people in residential care should be encouraged to acquire pro-social markers of adulthood, such as financial independence and employment. These markers promote their independence and transition into adulthood. Therefore, the article is useful in informing care practices in residential homes and the implementation of social support frameworks for young people who are in transition to adulthood.
References
Adams, K. (2013). Childhood in crisis? Perceptions of 7–11-year-olds on being a child and the implications for education's well-being agenda. Education 3-13, 41(5), 523-537.
Bender, K., Ferguson, K., Thompson, S., Komlo, C., & Pollio, D. (2010). Factors associated with trauma and posttraumatic stress disorder among homeless youth in three US cities: The importance of transience. Journal of traumatic stress, 23(1), 161-168.
Casey, K. J., Reid, R., Trout, A. L., Hurley, K. D., Chmelka, M. B., & Thompson, R. (2010, October). The transition status of youth departing residential care. In Child & Youth Care Forum (Vol. 39, No. 5, pp. 323-340). Springer US.
Cleverley, K., & Kidd, S. A. (2011). Resilience and suicidality among homeless youth. Journal of Adolescence,34(5), 1049-1054.
Eckenrode, J., Smith, E. G., McCarthy, M. E., & Dineen, M. (2014). Income inequality and child maltreatment in the United States. Pediatrics, 133(3), 454-461.
Edidin, J. P., Ganim, Z., Hunter, S. J., & Karnik, N. S. (2012). The mental and physical health of homeless youth: a literature review. Child Psychiatry & Human Development, 43(3), 354-375.
Evans, G. W. (2004). The environment of childhood poverty. American psychologist, 59(2), 77.
Hudson, A. L., Nyamathi, A., Greengold, B., Slagle, A., Koniak-Griffin, D., Khalilifard, F., & Getzoff, D. (2010).
Health-seeking challenges among homeless youth. Nursing research, 59(3), 212.
Raymond, I., & Heseltine, K. (2008, August). What does it mean to be an adult? Perceptions of young men in residential care. In Child & Youth Care Forum (Vol. 37, No. 4, pp. 197-208). Springer US.
Vostanis, P., Humphrey, N., Fitzgerald, N., Deighton, J., & Wolpert, M. (2013). How do schools promote emotional well‐being among their pupils? Findings from a national scoping survey of mental health provision in English schools. Child and Adolescent Mental Health, 18(3), 151-157.
