MedElevator Войти в исследования
← Поиск публикаций

DOI 10.1007/s10802-007-9109-4

Медицинская библиотека · Journal of abnormal child psychology · 2007

A meta-analysis of the distinction between reactive and proactive aggression in children and adolescents.

Polman Hanneke, Orobio de Castro Bram, Koops Willem, van Boxtel Herman W, Merk Welmoet W

Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяМетаанализПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАПеревод в очереди

Аннотация

The present meta-analytic review aimed to clarify divergent findings concerning the relation between reactive and proactive aggression in children and adolescents. Fifty-one studies with 17,965 participants were included in the analysis. A significant correlation between reactive and proactive aggression was found. The strength of this relation varied considerably between studies, from -.10 to .89. Observational assessment and tilt/noise tasks were associated with smaller correlations than questionnaires. Within the large group of questionnaire studies, studies disentangling the form and function of aggression found lower correlations than studies that did not disentangle form and function. Among questionnaire studies, higher reliability was associated with larger correlations. Effect size did not depend on other study characteristics such as sample type, age, and informant type. It is concluded that reactive and proactive aggression are most clearly distinguished with behavioral observations and questionnaires that unravel form and functions of aggression.

Для цитирования: Polman Hanneke, Orobio de Castro Bram, Koops Willem, van Boxtel Herman W, Merk Welmoet W. A meta-analysis of the distinction between reactive and proactive aggression in children and adolescents.. Journal of abnormal child psychology. 2007. DOI: 10.1007/s10802-007-9109-4.

Предметные рубрики MeSH

Подготовка и перевод публикации
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…

История · было → стало

Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.

Тип публикации указан по данным источника. Уровень доказательности автоматически не присваивается.