Risk, Protective Factors, and the Prevalence of Behavioral and Emotional Disorders in Children and Adolescents

Rae‐Grant, Naomi I.; Thomas, Betsy; Offord, David R.; Boyle, Michael H.

doi:10.1097/00004583-198903000-00019

Cited by 157 publications

(26 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…It is expected that most of the SRS subscale scores will be negatively correlated with emotional and behavioural problems [e.g. 16, 17] and attainment of good health [18]. …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The student resilience survey: psychometric validation and associations with mental health

Lereya

Humphrey

Patalay

et al. 2016

Child Adolesc Psychiatry Ment Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundPolicies, designed to promote resilience, and research, to understand the determinants and correlates of resilience, require reliable and valid measures to ensure data quality. The student resilience survey (SRS) covers a range of external supports and internal characteristics which can potentially be viewed as protective factors and can be crucial in exploring the mechanisms between protective factors and risk factors, and to design intervention and prevention strategies. This study examines the validity of the SRS.Methods7663 children (aged 11–15 years) from 12 local areas across England completed the SRS, and questionnaires regarding mental and physical health. Psychometric properties of 10 subscales of the SRS (family connection, school connection, community connection, participation in home and school life, participation in community life, peer support, self-esteem, empathy, problem solving, and goals and aspirations) were investigated by confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), differential item functioning (DIF), differential test functioning (DTF), Cronbach’s α and McDonald’s ω. The associations between the SRS scales, mental and physical health outcomes were examined.ResultsThe results supported the construct validity of the 10 factors of the scale and provided evidence for acceptable reliability of all the subscales. Our DIF analysis indicated differences between boys and girls, between primary and secondary school children, between children with or without special educational needs (SEN) and between children with or without English as an additional language (EAL) in terms of how they answered the peer support subscale of the SRS. Analyses did not indicate any DIF based on free school meals (FSM) eligibility. All subscales, except the peer support subscale, showed small DTF whereas the peer support subscale showed moderate DTF. Correlations showed that all the student resilience subscales were negatively associated with mental health difficulties, global subjective distress and impact on health. Random effects linear regression models showed that family connection, self-esteem, problem solving and peer support were negatively associated with all the mental health outcomes.ConclusionsThe findings suggest that the SRS is a valid measure assessing these relevant protective factors, thereby serving as a valuable tool in resilience and mental health research.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13034-016-0132-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

show abstract

“…It is expected that most of the SRS subscale scores will be negatively correlated with emotional and behavioural problems [e.g. 16, 17] and attainment of good health [18]. …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The student resilience survey: psychometric validation and associations with mental health

Lereya

Humphrey

Patalay

et al. 2016

Child Adolesc Psychiatry Ment Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This included the development of both risk and protective factor models (Masten & Garmezy, 1985;Rae-Grant, Thomas, Offord, & Boyle, 1989;Rauh, 1989) and risk and resilience factor models (Rutter, 1985;Simeonsson, 1994;Werner, 1993) for investigating how the probability of poor outcomes associated with risk factors can be prevented or alleviated. In these different approaches to the study of factors influencing human functioning, risk factors are defined as conditions or influences that increase the likelihood of poor outcomes, protective factors are defined as characteristics or conditions that lower the probability of poor outcomes associated with risk factors, and resilience factors are defined as characteristics or conditions that are associated with positive or successful adaptations to the presence of risk factors (Jenson & Fraser, 2006).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Relationships between Family Risk and Opportunity Factors and Parent and Child Functioning

Dunst¹,

Trivette²,

Hamby³

2014

JEDP

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The effects of socioenvironmental conditions that impede or undermine development (risk factors) and the conditions that promote or enhance development (opportunity factors) were examined in a study of 192 mothers and their one-year-old children. The outcomes constituting the focus of investigation were maternal psychological well-being (positive and negative affect) and child cognitive development. Results showed that the presence of multiple risk factors in the absence of opportunity factors had negative consequences on both the maternal and child outcomes, and that the presence of multiple opportunity factors in the absence of risk factors had positive consequences on both outcomes Implications for improving early childhood intervention practices are described.

show abstract

“…Some authors refer to variables as if they are either uniquely promotive or uniquely risk factors (Ferguson & Lynskey, 1996;Luthar, Cicchetti, & Becker, 2000;Pollard, Hawkins, & Athur, 1999;Rae-Grant, Thomas, Offord, & Boyle, 1989). Others have emphasized that the promotive and risk factors are merely opposite ends of the same variable whether a variable was called a promotive or risk factor depends on which end of the continuum was emphasized (Kandel et al, 1988;White, Moffitt, & Silva, 1989).…”

Section: Promotive and Risk Factorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Individual and Family Factors That Decrease Depression in Japanese, Chinese, and Korean Youth

Boeckel

Laser

2015

IJSW

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study examined the risk and promotive factors that contribute to or decrease depression in late adolescents. Chinese, Japanese and Korean adolescents were surveyed in order to examine the individual and family factors influencing adolescents. Correlation and regression were used to examine the relationship among variables. Findings from the analysis revealed that promotive factors: autonomy, easy temperament, emotional intelligence, humor, moral development, optimism and physical beauty decreased depression. Risk factors that increased depression were history of physical abuse, history of sexual abuse, domestic violence, favoritism of siblings, parental depression and parent not aware. Implications of these findings for theory, research, policy and clinical practice are explored.

show abstract

Risk, Protective Factors, and the Prevalence of Behavioral and Emotional Disorders in Children and Adolescents

Cited by 157 publications

References 14 publications

The student resilience survey: psychometric validation and associations with mental health

The student resilience survey: psychometric validation and associations with mental health

Relationships between Family Risk and Opportunity Factors and Parent and Child Functioning

Individual and Family Factors That Decrease Depression in Japanese, Chinese, and Korean Youth

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About