MétaCan
Menu
← Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2914399724

Obilježja roditeljstva i odnos roditelja prema kockanju kao prediktori kockanja muške djece

2018· dissertation· hr· W2914399724 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Toni Maglica

Notice bibliographique

Revuenon disponible
Typedissertation
Languehr
DomainePsychology
ThématiqueGambling Behavior and Treatments
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésPsychologyPerceptionDevelopmental psychologyPerspective (graphical)HumanitiesSocial psychology
DOInon disponible

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

The research of youth gambling in Croatia and the world have mostly been approached from a child's point of view. This dissertation, beside including child's perspective, includes parents’ personal characteristics through different way of assessment and self-assessment. The impact of parenthood on a negative child outcomes has been proven through many researches (Farrington, Loeber i Ttofi, 2007; Andrews i Bonta, 2006, Feric, 2002, Ricijas, 2012), as well as on gambling as a risky behaviour (Gupta i Derevensky, 1997; Dickson, Derevensky i Gupta, 2000, Wood i Griffiths, 2002; Griffiths, 2003), although literature holdings in this field are rather moderate and recent. The aim of this research is to provide an insight into characteristics of parenthood, particularly those related to relationship with youth gambling, parents’ attitudes toward gambling, frequency of parent gambling and the differences in perception between parents and their children. Moreover, the goal was to determine how those characteristics explain the frequency of their children’s gambling and the way in which child’s perception of parents and parenthood, and child’s personal characteristics, experiences and attitudes to gambling explain the frequency of their gambling. The important attribute of this research is that both, parents (n=244) and their male children (n=244) were involved, so comparison between parents’ perception and their children self-assessment could be done. Subsample of parents consists of n=126 mothers (51.6%) and n=118 fathers (48.4%). Parents’ age ranges from 30 to 63 with the average age Mage=45.98 (SDage=5.59). Age of boys ranges from 14 to 19, with the average age Mage=16 (SDage=1.21). The research was conducted on a convenience sample in Split and Zagreb. In order to conduct this research, a wide battery of instruments was used: (1) Questionnaire about general and socio- demographic data, (2) Questionnaire of risk perception for the youth, (3) Questionnaire of communication assessment about youth risks, (4) Questionnaire of assessment of the experiences of a child with risky behaviour, (5) Questionnaire of family interaction quality – KOBI (Vulic-Prtoric, 2002), (6) Questionnaire of parent behaviour URP-29 (Kuterovac Jagodic, Kerestes I Brkovic, 2007), (7) Gambling attitudes scale (Jelic, Huic I Dinic, 2013), (8) Questionnaire of gambling activities (shorten version): parents’ self-assessment, partners’ assessment, parents’ self- assessment about gambling with their child (Ricijas et all., 2011), (9) South Oaks Gambling Screen- SOGS (Lesieur and Bloom, 1987), (10) Questionnaire of child’s gambling activities (shorten version) (Ricijas et all., 2011), (11) General Problem Severity Subscale (GPSS) as a part of Canadian Adolescent Gambling Inventory- CAGI (Wiebe, Tremblay, Wynne and Stinchfield, 2010), (12) Questionnaire of self- assessment of probability of parents’ disciplining their children for risky behaviour and (13) Questions about whether they gamble together with their child. In order to reach the aforementioned goals, the following data analyses methodology was used: (1) Descriptive statistics (means, standard deviation, frequencies), (2) Wilcox range test, (3) Hi-square test, (4) Mann-Whitney U- Test with the calculation of effect sizes, and (5) Hierarchical regression analysis. The results of the research have shown that parents do not rank gambling that high as the risks related to psychoactive substances use and that they perceive gambling as a greater risk then their children do. When compared to communication with their children, parents communicate more often about substance use (alcohol, cigarettes, drugs) and other behavioural addictions, that is technological risks such as Internet and video games, rather than gambling and they assess their communication more frequent their children do. In relation with parents’ perception of type, frequency and consequences related to gambling, the results show that parents believe sport betting to be the most frequent with the children, but also children self-assessed to gamble more frequent then their parents think so. That difference is shown also in disciplining risky behaviour in a way that parents report to be more prone to disciplining the children, whereas the children do not have the same perception. As far as psychosocial consequences connected to gambling, 88.0% of parents assess that their children do not have any of the consequences, while 64.3% of their children think so. The total of 8.4% of parents assess low and medium level of the problem, while 21.6% of their male children is self-assessed to be in this range of the problem. Finally, 2.8% of parents assessed that their male children have serious psychosocial consequences related to gambling, while 14.1% of children self-assesses to suffer the consequences, which is significant. Related to differences between mothers and fathers, the results show that the fathers have a more positive attitude towards gambling, they gamble more often and have more developed problems connected to gambling. When questioning the contribution of parents’ personal characteristics, parenthood characteristics, parenting related to youth gambling, attitudes toward gambling, frequency and intensity of the problems related to parents gambling in prediction of self- expressed gambling frequency of their male children, the results demonstrate that the frequency of male children gambling cannot be described completely by parents’ self-assessment since only 20% of the variance is explained in that way. However, the set of predictors which measures, from child’s perspective, the assessment of family and parenthood, and also includes children’s self-expression and self-assessment of their attitudes and experiences while gambling, the results show that frequency of boys gambling can be explained through inadequate parenting styles which include restrictive control and permissiveness and parents’ knowledge about their children gambling, a child’s positive attitude toward gambling, experience of winning a great amount of money which motivates the child to gamble more, which explains about 59% variance of criterion.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,001
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,015
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,049

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,002
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,000
Bibliométrie0,0020,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0020,001
Communication savante0,0040,002
Science ouverte0,0010,002
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,002
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0150,002

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,076
Tête enseignante GPT0,400
Écart entre enseignants0,324 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations1
Publié2018
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même sujetGambling Behavior and Treatments→Travaux en français237 207→