4.3 Review

Critical considerations about the use of poverty measures in the study of cognitive development

Journal

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PSYCHOLOGY
Volume 52, Issue 3, Pages 241-250

Publisher

ROUTLEDGE JOURNALS, TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1002/ijop.12282

Keywords

Childhood poverty; Cognitive development; Poverty measures

Funding

  1. CONICET [0306]
  2. CEMIC
  3. FONCYT [2145, 0500]
  4. Fundacion Conectar

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Developmental psychology and developmental cognitive neuroscience generated evidence at different levels of analysis about the influences of poverty on neurocognitive development (i.e., molecular, neural activation, cognition, behaviour). In addition, different individual and environmental factors were identified as mediators of such influences. Such a complexity is also illustrated through the many poverty conceptual and operational definitions generated by social, human and health sciences. However, to establish the causal relationships between the different factors of poverty and neurocognitive outcomes is still an issue under construction. Most studies of this area apply classic unidimensional poverty indicators such as income and maternal education. Nonetheless, this approach does not take into adequate consideration the variability of neurocognitive outcomes depending on the type of poverty measures, and the dynamic nature of changes during development. This creates a virtual underestimation of the complexity imposed by the involved mediating mechanisms. The scientific and policy implications of this underestimation include the risk of not adequately addressing children rights and developmental opportunities. This article proposes to explore such scenario, which is necessary for the reconsideration of the criteria used to analyse the influences of poverty on child development in general and neurocognitive development in particular.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available