4.2 Article

Internalizing Trajectories in Young Boys and Girls: The Whole is Not a Simple Sum of its Parts

期刊

JOURNAL OF ABNORMAL CHILD PSYCHOLOGY
卷 38, 期 1, 页码 19-31

出版社

SPRINGER/PLENUM PUBLISHERS
DOI: 10.1007/s10802-009-9342-0

关键词

Internalizing; Trajectories; Early childhood; Sex differences; Infant-Toddler Social and Emotional Assessment (ITSEA)

资金

  1. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF MENTAL HEALTH [R01MH055278] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER
  2. NIMH NIH HHS [R01 MH055278] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

There is support for a differentiated model of early internalizing emotions and behaviors, yet researchers have not examined the course of multiple components of an internalizing domain across early childhood. In this paper we present growth models for the Internalizing domain of the Infant-Toddler Social and Emotional Assessment and its component scales (General Anxiety, Separation Distress, Depression/Withdrawal, and Inhibition to Novelty) in a sample of 510 one- to three-year-old children. For all children, Internalizing domain scores decreased over the study, although girls had significantly higher initial levels and boys had steeper declines. General Anxiety increased over the study period and, when modeled individually, girls evidenced higher initial levels and greater increases. For all children, Separation Distress and Inhibition to Novelty decreased significantly over time, while Depression/Withdrawal remained low without change. Findings from our parallel process model, in which all components were modeled simultaneously, revealed that initial levels of internalizing scales were closely associated while rates of change were less closely related. Sex differences in variability around initial levels and rates of change emerged on some scales. Findings suggest that, for one- to three-year-olds, examining scales of the internalizing domain separately rather than as a unitary construct reveals more meaningful developmental and gender variation.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据