4 research outputs found
The global impact of adverse childhood experiences on criminal behavior: A cross-continental study
Background: Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACEs) have been associated with a greater risk of
later criminal offending. However, existing research in this area has been primarily conducted in
Western developed countries and cross-cultural studies are rare.
Objectives: This study examined the relationship between ACEs and criminal behaviors in young
adults living in 10 countries located across five continents, after accounting for sex, age, and
cross-national differences.
Participants and setting: In total, 3797 young adults aged between 18 and 20 years (M = 18.97; DP
= 0.81) were assessed locally in community settings within the 10 countries.Method: The ACE Questionnaire was used to assess maltreatment and household dysfunction
during childhood and a subset of questions derived from the Deviant Behavior Variety Scale
(DBVS) was used to determine past-year criminal variety pertaining to 10 acts considered crime
across participating countries.
Results: Physical and sexual abuse, physical neglect, and household substance abuse were related
to criminal variety, globally, and independently across sexes and countries ranked differently in
the United Nations Human Development Index (HDI). In addition, three out of five experiences of
household dysfunction were related to criminal variety, but subsequent analyses indicate that
some forms of household dysfunction only hold statistical significance among males or females, or
in countries ranking lower in the HDI.
Conclusions: This research strengthens the finding that there are cross-cultural mechanisms
perpetuating the cycle of violence. It also indicates that forms of household dysfunction have an
impact on criminal behavior that is shaped by gender and the country's levels of social well-being.info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersio
ïŧŋāļāļēāļĢāļ§āļīāļāļąāļĒāļāļĢāļ°āđāļĄāļīāļāļŦāļĨāļąāļāļŠāļđāļāļĢāļ§āļīāļāļĒāļēāļĻāļēāļŠāļāļĢāļĄāļŦāļēāļāļąāļāļāļīāļāđāļĨāļ°āļāļĢāļąāļāļāļēāļāļļāļĐāļāļĩāļāļąāļāļāļīāļ āļŠāļēāļāļēāļāļēāļĢāļ§āļīāļāļąāļĒāļāļĪāļāļīāļāļĢāļĢāļĄāļĻāļēāļŠāļāļĢāđāļāļĢāļ°āļĒāļļāļāļāđ (āļŦāļĨāļąāļāļŠāļđāļāļĢāļāļĢāļąāļāļāļĢāļļāļ 2552)āļŠāļāļēāļāļąāļāļ§āļīāļāļąāļĒāļāļĪāļāļīāļāļĢāļĢāļĄāļĻāļēāļŠāļāļĢ āđāļĄāļŦāļēāļ§āļīāļāļĒāļēāļĨāļąāļĒāļĻāļĢāļĩāļāļāļĢāļīāļāļāļĢāļ§āļīāđāļĢāļ
The Evaluation of Master and Doctoral Degree Programs in AppliedBehavioral Science, 2009, Behavioral Science Research Institute,Srinakharinwirot UniversityThis research aimed to evaluate the Master and Doctoral Degree Programs in Applied BehavioralScience Research in 4 dimensions: 1) Program components; 2) Attributes of graduate students,graduates, and lecturers; 3) Program management, learning process, and assessment andevaluation; and 4) learning resources. The survey research methodology was approached, using 11questionnaires and deep interview technique for research samples. The descriptive statistics wereapplied. The research results were as following: 1) Structure and objectives of the program wereprecise, tangible and appropriate, the course contents encourage learners to understand theresearch processes and focus on professional skills; 2) Students and graduates had good desirableattributes and ability to accomplish their certain tasks; 3) Teachers had a great deal of experiencein research, could advice and promote studentsâ ability in problem solving; 4) The teachingprocess was appropriate, using a variety of teaching techniques and knowledge transfer inresearch methodology and in behavioral science; 5) Measurement and evaluation were clear; and6) Learning resources were advantageous for learning and teaching. Furthermore, the academicclimate of the Institute was satisfied and aided student learning.Keywords: Program Evaluation, Field of Applied Behavioral Science Research,Thai Qualifications Framework for Higher Education (TQF: HEd)āļāļāļāļąāļāļĒāđāļāļāļēāļĢāļ§āļīāļāļąāļĒāļāļĢāļąāđāļāļāļĩāđāļĄāļĩāļ§āļąāļāļāļļāļāļĢāļ°āļŠāļāļāđāđāļāļ·āđāļāļāļĢāļ°āđāļĄāļīāļāļŦāļĨāļąāļāļŠāļđāļāļĢāļ§āļīāļāļĒāļēāļĻāļēāļŠāļāļĢāļĄāļŦāļēāļāļąāļāļāļīāļāđāļĨāļ°āļāļĢāļąāļāļāļēāļāļļāļĐāļāļĩāļāļąāļāļāļīāļ āļŠāļēāļāļēāļāļēāļĢāļ§āļīāļāļąāļĒāļāļĪāļāļīāļāļĢāļĢāļĄāļĻāļēāļŠāļāļĢāđāļāļĢāļ°āļĒāļļāļāļāđ āđāļāļāđāļēāļāļāļāļāđāļāļĢāļ°āļāļāļāļāļāļāļŦāļĨāļąāļāļŠāļđāļāļĢ āļāļļāļāļĨāļąāļāļĐāļāļ°āļāļāļāļāļīāļŠāļīāļ āļāļļāļāļĨāļąāļāļĐāļāļ°āļāļāļāļāļēāļāļēāļĢāļĒāđāļāļēāļĢāļāļĢāļīāļŦāļēāļĢāļŦāļĨāļąāļāļŠāļđāļāļĢ āļāļĢāļ°āļāļ§āļāļāļēāļĢāđāļĢāļĩāļĒāļāļāļēāļĢāļŠāļāļ āļāļēāļĢāļ§āļąāļāđāļĨāļ°āļāļĢāļ°āđāļĄāļīāļāļāļĨ āđāļĨāļ°āļāļĢāļąāļāļĒāļēāļāļĢāļāļĩāđāđāļāļ·āđāļāļāđāļāļāļēāļĢāļāļąāļāļāļēāļĢāđāļĢāļĩāļĒāļāļāļēāļĢāļŠāļāļ āđāļāđāļāļĢāļ§āļāļĢāļ§āļĄāļāđāļāļĄāļđāļĨāļāđāļ§āļĒāđāļāļāļŠāļāļāļāļēāļĄāđāļĨāļ°āļāļēāļĢāļŠāļąāļĄāļ āļēāļĐāļāđāļāļēāļāļāļđāđāļāļĩāđāļĄāļĩāļŠāđāļ§āļāđāļāļĩāđāļĒāļ§āļāđāļāļ āļ§āļīāđāļāļĢāļēāļ°āļŦāđāļāđāļāļĄāļđāļĨāļāđāļ§āļĒāļŠāļāļīāļāļīāļāļ·āđāļāļāļēāļāđāļĨāļ°āļāļēāļĢāļ§āļīāđāļāļĢāļēāļ°āļŦāđāđāļāļ·āđāļāļŦāļē āļāļĨāļāļēāļĢāļ§āļīāļāļąāļĒāļāļāļ§āđāļē āđāļāļĢāļāļŠāļĢāđāļēāļāđāļĨāļ°āļ§āļąāļāļāļļāļāļĢāļ°āļŠāļāļāđāļāļāļāļŦāļĨāļąāļāļŠāļđāļāļĢāļĄāļĩāļāļ§āļēāļĄāđāļŦāļĄāļēāļ°āļŠāļĄāđāļĨāļ°āļāļąāļāđāļāļ āđāļāļ·āđāļāļŦāļēāļĢāļēāļĒāļ§āļīāļāļēāļāļāļāļŦāļĨāļąāļāļŠāļđāļāļĢ āļŠāđāļāđāļŠāļĢāļīāļĄāļāļđāđāđāļĢāļĩāļĒāļāđāļŦāđāđāļāļīāļāļāļ§āļēāļĄāļĢāļđāđ āļāļ§āļēāļĄāđāļāđāļēāđāļāđāļāļāļēāļĢāļāļģāļ§āļīāļāļąāļĒ āļĄāļĩāļāļ§āļēāļĄāļŦāļĨāļēāļāļŦāļĨāļēāļĒāļĄāļļāđāļāđāļāđāļāđāļŦāđāļāļđāđāđāļĢāļĩāļĒāļāđāļāļīāļāļāļĢāļ°āļŠāļāļāļēāļĢāļāđ āļāļļāļāļĨāļąāļāļĐāļāļ°āļāļāļāļāļīāļŠāļīāļāđāļĨāļ°āļāļąāļāļāļīāļāļāļĩāđāļāļķāļāļāļĢāļ°āļŠāļāļāđāļāļĒāļđāđāđāļāđāļāļāļāđāļāļĩ āļĄāļĩāļāļ§āļēāļĄāļŠāļēāļĄāļēāļĢāļāđāļĨāļ°āļāļāļīāļāļąāļāļīāļāļēāļāđāļāđāđāļāđāļāļāļĒāđāļēāļāļāļĩ āļāļēāļāļēāļĢāļĒāđāļāļĢāļ°āļāļģāļŦāļĨāļąāļāļŠāļđāļāļĢāđāļāđāļāļāļđāđāļāļĩāđāļĄāļĩāļāļĢāļ°āļŠāļāļāļēāļĢāļāđāđāļāļāļēāļĢāļāļģāļ§āļīāļāļąāļĒāļŠāļđāļ āļŠāļēāļĄāļēāļĢāļāđāļŦāđāļāļģāļāļĢāļķāļāļĐāļēāđāļĨāļ°āļŠāļāļąāļāļŠāļāļļāļāđāļŦāđāļāļīāļŠāļīāļāļŠāļēāļĄāļēāļĢāļāđāļāđāđāļāļāļąāļāļŦāļēāļāđāļēāļāđ āđāļāđ āļāđāļēāļāļāļēāļĢāļāļĢāļīāļŦāļēāļĢāļŦāļĨāļąāļāļŠāļđāļāļĢ āļāļāļ§āđāļē āļāļĢāļ°āļāļ§āļāļāļēāļĢāđāļĢāļĩāļĒāļāļāļēāļĢāļŠāļāļāļĄāļĩāļāļ§āļēāļĄāđāļŦāļĄāļēāļ°āļŠāļĄ āļāļēāļĢāļāļąāļāļāļēāļĢāđāļĢāļĩāļĒāļāļāļēāļĢāļŠāļāļāļĄāļĩāļāļ§āļēāļĄāļŦāļĨāļēāļāļŦāļĨāļēāļĒāđāļāļāđāļēāļāđāļāļāļāļīāļāļ§āļīāļāļĩāļāļēāļĢāļŠāļāļ āđāļĨāļ°āļāļĢāļ°āļāļ§āļāļāļēāļĢāļāđāļēāļĒāļāļāļāļāļāļāđāļāļ§āļēāļĄāļĢāļđāđāļāļēāļāļĢāļ°āđāļāļĩāļĒāļāļ§āļīāļāļĩāļāļēāļĢāļ§āļīāļāļąāļĒāđāļĨāļ°āļāļĪāļāļīāļāļĢāļĢāļĄāļĻāļēāļŠāļāļĢāđ āļāļēāļĢāļ§āļąāļāđāļĨāļ°āļāļĢāļ°āđāļĄāļīāļāļāļĨāļĄāļĩāļāļ§āļēāļĄāļāļąāļāđāļāļ āļāđāļēāļāļŠāļ·āđāļāļāļļāļāļāļĢāļāđāļāļēāļĢāđāļĢāļĩāļĒāļāļāļēāļĢāļŠāļāļ āļāļģāļĢāļēāđāļĢāļĩāļĒāļ āđāļĨāļ°āļŠāļāļēāļāļāļĩāđāđāļĢāļĩāļĒāļ āļĄāļĩāļāļ§āļēāļĄāļāļĢāđāļāļĄ āđāļāļ·āđāļāļāđāļāļāļēāļĢāļāļąāļāļāļēāļĢāđāļĢāļĩāļĒāļāļāļēāļĢāļŠāļāļ āļāļāļāļāļēāļāļāļĩāđāļĒāļąāļāđāļŦāđāļāļ§āđāļēāļāļĢāļĢāļĒāļēāļāļēāļĻāļāļēāļāļāđāļēāļāļ§āļīāļāļēāļāļēāļĢāļāļāļāļŠāļāļēāļāļąāļāļŊ āļāļąāđāļāđāļāđāļāļāļĩāđāļāđāļēāļāļāđāļāđāļĨāļ°āļŠāļāļąāļāļŠāļāļļāļāļŠāđāļāđāļŠāļĢāļīāļĄāļāđāļāļāļēāļĢāđāļĢāļĩāļĒāļāļĢāļđāđāļāļĒāđāļēāļāļĒāļīāđāļāļāļģāļŠāļģāļāļąāļ: āļāļēāļĢāļāļĢāļ°āđāļĄāļīāļāļŦāļĨāļąāļāļŠāļđāļāļĢ, āļŠāļēāļāļēāļāļēāļĢāļ§āļīāļāļąāļĒāļāļĪāļāļīāļāļĢāļĢāļĄāļĻāļēāļŠāļāļĢāđāļāļĢāļ°āļĒāļļāļāļāđ, āļāļĢāļāļāļĄāļēāļāļĢāļāļēāļāļāļļāļāļ§āļļāļāļīāļĢāļ°āļāļąāļāļāļļāļāļĄāļĻāļķāļāļĐāļēāđāļŦāđāļāļāļēāļ