Meta-Analysis of Behavioral Problems in Children - Research Paper Example

Behavioral problems in children are a popular topic in the developmental psychology literature, partially because the rearing of happy and productive children is instrumental for a better society. In order to improve society, educators and child psychologists attempt to identify problems and solutions in child development. One particular problem addressed by the research in child psychology is behavioral problems special to adopted children, who can both come from institutional and non-institutional adoption environments. Concerning these children and their adoptive parents, the research in this field addresses problems in physical behavior and mental health (Juffer & van IJzendoorn, 2005). The most illuminating kind of study in the literature is a meta-analysis, which is an evaluation of many different empirical studies that, taken together, amount to statistically significant data and interpretations. However, it is also useful to look at individual studies looking at specific factors at play in the behavior problems of adopted children. Together, an examination of this research reveals a burgeoning field of inquiry that will advance our understanding of the developmental effects of adoption, and how our society can better care for those children. Gunnar and van Dulmen (2007) examined institutionally adopted children from four to eighteen years old for behavioral problems with the Child Behavior Checklist. They discovered little evidence that the likelihood of behavior problems decrease with time post-adoption; additionally, regression analyses showed a correlation between early institutional rearing with increased rates of attention and social problems. This finding supports the idea that adopted children, regardless of age of adoption in the institutional system, will have a more problematic development than children in a one- or two-parent household. Internalizing and externalizing problems occur more frequently in children adopted after their second year, indicating some greater effects of institutional adoption on children as they age (Gunnar & van Dulmen, 2007). Dana E. Johnson of the University of Minnesota conducted a study that analyzed data over three decades relating to the effectiveness of adoption in ensuring children live long, productive lives after being permanently separated from their birth parents. Johnson (2002) does not compare adopted children to non-adopted children in terms of developmental deficits; rather, it compares adopted children from bad circumstances to non-adopted children who remain in bad circumstances (defined as severe neglect or abuse in early life). This comparison yields much different results about the efficacy and use of adoption in our society relative to the Gunnar and van Dulmen (2007) study. In other words, by changing the frame of reference, Johnson (2002) praises the adoption system for being “a remarkable environment for healing emotional and physical trauma and reversing developmental deficits” (p. 39). For example, she cites a study in which 85% of post-institutionalized Eastern European Orphans exhibited “catch-up brain growth” after their arrival in the United States. Rather than remaining in physically and mentally oppressive circumstances in their native countries, the orphans were allowed high standards of education and nutrition by means of the adoption system. However, Johnson (2002) also cites behavior problems and social deficits among institutional orphans. For instance, Romanian orphans who had spent more than eight months in an orphanage revealed internalizing behaviors such as a failure to make their needs known and withdrawing from siblings and peers. A significant percentage of those children adopted and assessed at both four and six years of age exhibited “quasi-autistic” behavior, such as difficulties in socializing and preoccupation with sensations (Johnson, 2002, p. 45). Nevertheless, according to Johnson, by age 6 adoptees from Romania exhibited the same rates of peer difficulties and conduct problems as their peers adopted from the United Kingdom. This finding seems to suggest that exposure to non-adopted children mitigates development deficits among adopted children. In an important meta-analysis of the literature on adopted child development, Juffer and van IJzendoorn (2005) set out to assess the effects of international adoption on behavioral problems and mental health referrals. Using online databases and scholarly references in their data collection, the researchers computed the differences between adoptees and non-adoptee controls across all age groups. With all of this data compiled, Juffer and van IJzendoorn calculated effect sizes for differences in internalizing behavior, externalizing behavior, behavioral problems, and the utilization of child mental health services. After conducting their data analysis, the authors discovered an overrepresentation, and large effect size, of adoptees using mental health services. Additionally, international adoptees exhibited more behavioral problems than their non-adopted counterparts. Overall, international adoptees were less often referred to mental health services than domestic adoptees; however, according to the authors, “most international adoptees are well-adjusted although they are referred to mental health services more often than non-adopted controls” (Juffer & van IJzendoorn, 2005, p. 2501). Contrary to some specific empirical studies, the meta-analysis showed that international adoptees present fewer behavior problems than domestic adoptees. Juffer and van IJzendoorn (2005) believe it is counterintuitive that adoptees from other countries exhibit less behavior problems than their domestic counterparts, and that they have lower rates of mental health referral. According to the authors, it is surprising that the age at adoption is insignificant for the development of behavioral problems. Again, this is contrary to some previous studies, such as Gunnar and van Dulmen (2007). Juffer and van IJzendoorn (2005) advise clinicians to be conscious of higher risks for behavioral problems in domestic adoptees, as well as in international adoptees, who have lived through neglectful circumstances or others of maltreatment in the pre-adoptive period (p. 2513). Peters, Atkins and McKay (1999) provides a unique perspective on the issue of developmental deficits in adopted children by reviewing five existing “plausible explanations” for the high rate of behavior problems. The researchers assume the existence of these problems in a minority of children based on an extensive literature review of the behavioral, diagnostic, and demographic characteristics. Their review of the five models for these problems examines (1) genetic factors, (2) pathogenesis of the adoption process, (3) long-term effect of impaired pre-adoption childrearing, (4) referral bias in the adoptive parents, and (5) impaired adoptive parent-adoptee relations (p. 297). Their purpose in conducting these reviews is to advance further research with improved methodologies and modeling scenarios; their results indicate that the evidence for each model is “mixed at best” (p. 297). Peters, Atkins and McKay (1999) provides a general overview of research related to rates of ADHD among adopted children, which reveals a higher average of concentration problems and hyperactivity symptoms in children of adoption. Established links between ADHD and genetics lend support to a genetic model of understanding behavior. However, the authors state that if they were to propose their own model, it would be based in part on a psychosocial model, which combines psychology and environment in a detailed explanation. This newer model of behavior problems in adopted children supplies a new awareness of “the normative aspects of adoption” (Peters, Atkins, & McKay, 1999, p. 323); in other words, by applying a psychosocial perspective to the issue of adoption, one can better understand the ethical implications of adopting a child, which returns to the issues raised by Johnson (2002) in her research comparing the developmental deficits of disadvantaged adopted children to the developmental deficits of disadvantaged non-adopted children. If the public understands that adopted children are not inherently developmentally challenged (the “normative” issue), then the benefits of institutional adoption might be realized. Lastly, a study conducted by Howe (1997) retrospectively examined behavioral and developmental deficits in children. The researcher interviewed parents of adopted now-adult children about their child’s adolescence, with children classified either as baby adoptions, older-children adoptions in which children were cared for as babies, and older-children adoptions in which children were not cared for as babies. According to the results of Howe (1997), rates of childhood behavioral problems varied significantly between groups; between groups, the older-children adoptions with adverse care as babies exhibited the highest rates of problems as youths. Approximately three-quarters of the older-adopted/adverse baby care children exhibited some form of problem behaviors. However, as the authors correctly point out, even though the older-adopted/adverse baby care children exhibited more problematic behavior, many parents remained concerned and involved with their sons or daughters throughout their problematic adolescence (Howe, 1997, p. 410). This positive reaction to the child’s developmental deficits resulted in improvement in the child’s overall behavior, which demonstrates that a child’s environment can correct the seemingly insurmountable problems faced by adopted children coming from adverse care as infants. Clearly, the field of research relating to developmental and behavioral problems in adopted children is rich and fruitful; additionally, it is constantly expanding with new directions in the literature. Looking at a few of these studies reveals just how diverse and integrated these analyses can be. Although looking at meta-analyses is important for a general picture, looking at individual empirical studies with actual participants is crucial for understanding how research is conducted on children and their parents. One consistent theme running throughout all of these articles is the malleability of adolescent behaviors, whether disruptive or welcome, by parental intervention early and often in an adopted child’s life. References Gunnar, M., & van Dulmen, M. (2007). Behavior problems in postinstitutionalized internationally adopted children. Development and Psychopathology, 19, 129-148. Howe, D. (1997). Parent-reported problems in 211 adopted children: Some risk and protective factors. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 38, 401-411. Johnson, D. (2002). Adoption and the effect on children's development. Early Human Development, 68, 39-54. Juffer, F., & van IJzendoorn, H. (2005). Behavior problems and mental health referrals of international adoptees: A meta-analysis. Journal of the American Medical Association, 293, 2501-2515. Peters, B., Atkins, M., & McKay, M. (1999). Adopted children’s behavior problems: A review of five explanatory models. Clinical Psychology Review, 19, 297-328. Read More