Spanking in Early Childhood and Later Behavior Problems
Related Topics
Doan d...@usc.edu
PEDIATRICS Vol. 113 No. 5 May 2004, pp. 1321-1330 Spanking in Early Childhood and Later Behavior Problems: A Prospective Study of Infants and Young Toddlers Eric P. Slade, PhD and Lawrence S. Wissow, MD From the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Department of Health Policy and Management, Baltimore, Maryland Objective. To explore the relationship of spanking frequency before age 2 with behavior problems near time of entry into school.
Methods. Children who were younger than 2 years were followed up 4 years later, after they had entered school. The likelihood of significant behavior problems at follow-up was estimated in multivariate analyses that controlled for baseline spanking frequency and other characteristics.
Participants were mothers from a large-scale national study and their children. Statistical analysis included an ethnically diverse sample of 1966 children aged 0 to 23 months at baseline. Two dichotomous indicators of behavior problems were used. The first indicated that maternal rating of child behavior problems exceeded a threshold. The second indicated that a mother met with a school administrator to discuss her child's behavior problems.
Results. White non-Hispanic children who were spanked more frequently before age 2 were substantially more likely to have behavior problems after entry into school, controlling for other factors. For Hispanic and black children, ***ociations between spanking frequency and behavior problems were not statistically significant and were not consistent across outcome measures.
Conclusion. Among white non-Hispanic children but not among black and Hispanic children, spanking frequency before age 2 is significantly and positively ***ociated with child behavior problems at school age. These findings are consistent with those reported in studies of children older than 2 years but extend these findings to children who are spanked beginning at a relatively early age.
Doan
"Ron" apositivepl...@netscape.net
Link?
Ron ...
PEDIATRICS Vol. 113 No. 5 May 2004, pp. 1321-1330 Spanking in Early Childhood and Later Behavior Problems: A Prospective Study of Infants and Young Toddlers Eric P. Slade, PhD and Lawrence S. Wissow, MD From the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Department of Health Policy and Management, Baltimore, Maryland Objective. To explore the relationship of spanking frequency before age 2 with behavior problems near time of entry into school.
Methods. Children who were younger than 2 years were followed up 4 years later, after they had entered school. The likelihood of significant behavior problems at follow-up was estimated in multivariate analyses that controlled for baseline spanking frequency and other characteristics.
Participants were mothers from a large-scale national study and their children. Statistical analysis included an ethnically diverse sample of 1966 children aged 0 to 23 months at baseline. Two dichotomous indicators of behavior problems were used. The first indicated that maternal rating of child behavior problems exceeded a threshold. The second indicated that a mother met with a school administrator to discuss her child's behavior problems.
Results. White non-Hispanic children who were spanked more frequently before age 2 were substantially more likely to have behavior problems after entry into school, controlling for other factors. For Hispanic and black children, ***ociations between spanking frequency and behavior problems were not statistically significant and were not consistent across outcome measures.
Conclusion. Among white non-Hispanic children but not among black and Hispanic children, spanking frequency before age 2 is significantly and positively ***ociated with child behavior problems at school age. These findings are consistent with those reported in studies of children older than 2 years but extend these findings to children who are spanked beginning at a relatively early age.
Doan
Doan d...@usc.edu
pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/abstract/113/5/1321 Now, can you show me the link where you admitted that you "ERRed" instead of quoting out of context as I accused you?
Doan
"Ron" apositivepl...@netscape.net
Sure, happy to.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.child-protective-services/... Post # 27 in the thread.
"No no, I made an error and didn't completely read his post. I am not gregg, I am more than willing to admit an error. Now, is Doan willing to make the same admission? After all, we are not on different sides, just in disagreement in this thread. " Ron
"0:-]" pohaku.k...@gmail.com
On Sat, 27 Jan 2007 18:54:45 -0600, "Ron" Yet another example of Doan's dishonesty, and unethical insult to his good family name.
He made NO reply to Ron's showing him that indeed Ron had admitted to an error.
NOT A WORD IN RESPONSE...JUST RAN AWAY AFTER MAKING A FALSE ACCUSATION.
This is the kind of trash we have to put up with on the newsgroup.
Lying, lowlife, cowardly little thugs. Refuses to debate honestly.
Refuses to acknowledge error. Refuses to accept he's been caught lying and behaving dishonorably.
Your family weeps for your shame, Doan.
Your mother would cry herself to sleep nightly if she knew what you do here.
Kane
Doan d...@usc.edu
Getting desperate, Kane? Hoping that Ron will jump in and save your ***?
Hihihi!
No, they kind of trash we have to put is YOU, Kane! Even people on your side, like Chris, disgusted with your tactics!
Hihihi! You described YOURSELF perfectly, Kane!
And your mother approved of you calling other women a "smelly-cunt"! You sure make your mom proud, Kane!
"0:->" pohaku.k...@gmail.com
Do I look desperate to you?
Funny, I don't feel the least desperate...just showing what an unethical liar you are.
Now why would he need to do that.
I'm not having the least difficulty in remember most of the lying deceitful posts you've put here.
Yes, I see that once again you choked.
Let's read on.
Doan?
Doan?
Doan?
Really? Where did he say that, and about what?
Feel free to run again, like we all know you will.
Or that you'll post out of context.
I have no confusion about which of us is which, Doan.
You seem to though.
Doan? Do you share with your family, as I do share with mine, and my friends, your posts, and my own?
Bet you can't do it.
After reading Fern's posts? Yes, she certainly did. And even I was shocked at HER response to Fern's vicious attack against children and families.
Well, both my mother's are dead now, Doan, but yes, they were proud of me...and the one that spoke out about Fern, especially so.
I'm just sorry I can't show her some of your drivel.
Have you shared with your mom yet, Doan?
Tell us what she said. How would she have responded to someone that defended a church pastor whipping children bloody and being proud of it and defying the law claiming he'd do it again?
Fern was busy defending his 'constitutional rights..' which of course ignored the rights of the child.
Fern didn't speak up ONCE about the rights of the children to not be whipped, Doan.
Do you approve? What did YOU call Fern? Would you defend the pastor and not the children? What would YOUR mom say, and your dad, for that matter?
I believe they'd be deeply shamed by your behavior here, Doan.
I doubt they would appreciate your "cleverness" in deceit.
Unless they are like you.
Kane
"Ron" apositivepl...@netscape.net
I don't engage in these conversations Doan. But to a point he is correct, you did fail to acknowledge that I admitted a mistake. Publicly.
I honestly don't know if you have ever done the same, if you have I'd like to see the link to it. If not.... would you be saying that you don't make mistakes, or just don't admit to them?
Ron
Doan d...@usc.edu
No, Ron. You've never admitted that you quoted out of context!
I have, Ron. I have made an offer to you that if can show me where you admitted to quoting out of context then I will publicly apologize for accusing you of not having done so. So far, all I have gotten is a run around. My offer still stands, Ron.
Doan
"Greegor" Greego...@gmail.com
Ronald VanDyne wrote Ron, When did you patch things up with Kane and completely reverse your position on SPANKING to match Kane's?
I just LOVE this pack behavior stuff!
Doan d...@usc.edu
Yup! And you look STUPID too! ;-) No. You are just EXPOSING YOUR STUPIDITY, as usual!
To help you out, of course!
The proven liar here is YOU!
And you, once again. EXPOSING YOUR STUPIDITY!
He called you STUPID, STUPID!
Feel free to declare yourself the victor, STUPID!
The LIAR and STUPID one is you, Kane! Hihihi!
No. I don't run to mom like you, Kane! Hihihi!
What a mom!
Hihihi! Your mom taught you well, "never-spanked" boy!
So you don't have your mom to run to? ;-) More lying from you.
Seem that you can't debate without resorting to ad hom. You lost!
So you called her a "smelly-cunt"?
Hihihi! And you just exposed your STUPIDITY again, Kane.
Doan d...@usc.edu
On 26 Feb 2007, Greegor wrote: Well, I accused Ron of quoting out of context and provided proof of such.
On the other hand, Ron accused me of quoting out of context with no proof.
I have not seen and admission of error with regard to this. All I have seen is a run around. If anyone can show me where Ron actually admitted to quoting out of context as I claimed he has not, I will publicly eat the "humble pie" that Ron preserved for me.
Doan
"0:->" pohaku.k...@gmail.com
He didn't. We had a mutual respect during and after our engagement over spanking. We still do, and we still disagree.
You are lying about Ken and I suddenly agreeing on spanking issues, so you obviously aren't to be trusted when you claim pack behavior.
What has happened is that Doan has alienated yet another person by his attacks, more sly than yours, but nevertheless, attacks on others out of his own thuggery and unethical behavior.
He doesn't debate.
He weasel dodges.
Nothing more...and you admire that ability and wish you were as good at it, not noticing that he really doesn't get away with it.
Even those on the spanking side of the argument get what he is.
0;]
"0:->" pohaku.k...@gmail.com
Getting desperate?
No, anyone can see you have been lying for nearly your entire posting history. All they have to do is look.
He hasn't needed to give me any help in the past. Why would he need to now?
You aren't the difficult to expose, or debate. You are a lying fool, that's all.
The proven liar here is you.
I exposed yet another of your unethical lies.
Do you think you are this dangerous?
Then you admit he didn't mention what you claim, "your tactics," but simply disagreed with me?
I know you won't, but why don't you post the actual exchange, that will show that we had a political difference, Doan?
Nothing to do with spanking or my tactics on the subject of spanking. He was off topic. We differed on our beliefs politically.
I am, as long as you keep making accusations and refusing to provide the proof to support them that I ask you for.
You are doing it again, of course.
I don't run to my mom, and never did. I shared my thoughts and life with her where appropriate.
You are just ducking the question, Doan. As usual. Unethical liar.
I am very proud of her. Are you proud of Fern, or is it Fern that you are calling "what a mom?" Yes, they did.
Never did have.
Prove it. I proved, when challenged on this by Greg, the posts where Fern did in fact defend the preacher and ignored the plight of the abused beaten children.
Lost what? Fern did what Fern did.
Absolutely. That was tame compared to what the children suffered that she ignored the rights of.
Gee, what more "'cleverness' in deceit," could I ask for as an example.
Kane
"0:->" pohaku.k...@gmail.com
So, Doan. You have never answered this and you keep changing the subject back to a claim of 'quoting out of context.' Yet you offer no proof.
Let's see that proof again.
Oh?
Doan, you quote out of context as a matter of common debating tactic.
It's a constant.
To ask for 'proof' would be to ask for the sun to rise. It simply rises.
YOU simply lie and do so nearly every day you post by making claims without proof and without context.
What "this?" The one you haven't provided proof for?
That's your own *** you are chasing.
> If anyone can show me where Ron actually admitted You are re framing the debate, unethically, as usual.
You have not provided the proof you claim to have provided.
Let's see it.
Doan and Greg, two little liars lying the mud.
Kane
"0:->" pohaku.k...@gmail.com
If Doan will provide the material he refers to I will point out as I did before, that "context" was not relevant to the argument.
What Ron posted did not in any way change the meaning of the thread or anyone else's content.
He spoke of an isolated issue, and did so honestly without guile, unlike Doan and Greg who both post an almost continuous string of guile infested garbage.
So, Doan, BRING UP THAT CONVERSATION, and let's have a look at it AGAIN.
Someone made a point. Ron posted something related.
Because he did not print the WHOLE article YOU tried to claim "context" misquoting. His material made NO difference to the issue another (you, as I recall) were attempting to make.
Come on, Doan.
Produce this "proof" you claim to have.
Linked, so we can run your little lying sorry *** to ground and pin you down, again.
0:]
"0:->" pohaku.k...@gmail.com
Not what he said, Greg.
He's also never admitted to kicking your ***, though he has done exactly that.
You made the claim he quoted out of context. And then you asked him for the link to his having admitted TO A MISTAKE. He gave you that.
You never provided proof that he made a contextually deliberate attempt to deceive by failing to fully quote.
What you did was go OUT of his quote, pick up something that was NOT relevant to his quote, and claim it was. That's all. YOU simply lied.
You attempted to deceive.
I asked you to show the contextual error or intent to deceive (something that one must do to show "quoting out of context" as being meaningful.
You have NEVER been able to do that.
Now do it, or just plant your head back up your backside where you keep it.
Why would you demand he admit to quoting out of context, when in fact you cannot prove that he did anything other than NOT include some portion UNRELATED TO THE ISSUE of a longer piece of material?
He gave the link so he could be checked (something YOU rarely do, even when requested, in fact almost ALWAYS when requested) and you simply picked a few lines and claimed they were "left out." They did NOT relate.
You are lying again, Doan.
> then I will publicly apologize for First you have to PROVE that his remarks left something RELEVANT out, Doan. That is the criteria for proving accusations of "quoting out of context." That means the CONTEXT MUST BE RELATED AND MEANINGFUL.
Go for it, stupid.
> So far, all I have gotten is a And mine that you provide the actual material he is accused of quoting out of context, with links to support your claim that WE can check, Doan.
Can't do it, can you, stupid?
Won't do it because you are a liar. And every time you get caught it's one of your "Hihihi" or "You are the proven liar," bullshit.
You are a sneak and a liar and unethical and a shame to your family.
"0:->" pohaku.k...@gmail.com
Kane would draw your attention to the following: see *** and **** Was the difference in behavior values between the three groups adjusted for?
Was any "mother's" 'confidence' scale developed? In other words, just how consistently accurate was the rating by the mothers across the ethnic groups?
This was not an observational study, Doan and company.
It was simply a survey.
**** NO children participated, or were observed.
As such the study has a value, but not the one you are trying for....that black children do indeed behave better with the same spanking experience as white or other children.
Nice try, no cigar, as usual.
Kane
"0:->" pohaku.k...@gmail.com
....in response to Ron's simple request for a link...
... that Doan had somehow managed to forget with his quote of the abstract he hopes to support his claim of black children being different than white children when it comes to CP.
And when he did give the link, he attempted, as you can see below, to divert to another topic...
This little red flag, along with a link that requires the trouble of a cut an paste, instead of including enough to create a live link in the post, suggested to me that I go look.
Doan wanted to hide something, as usual.
Had Doan been honest, he would have posted a live link...like this: http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/abstract/113/5/1321 Now comes the "diversion," one of Doan's common weasel tactics when he's trying to hide something. This issue was a dead issue but created by him to divert, rather than debate.
Why would he change the subject, instead of offer to engage in debate concerning the quoted abstract?
Well, let's go look, shall we: http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/abstract/113/5/1321 Once there, go to the bottom of the article where you will see listings of other articles that cited this one.
There's the key and the deception attempt by Doan the Clever.
Here's what exists at one of the links..this one in fact, and it is in opposition to the one Doan quoted: http://cmx.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/10/3/283 Child Maltreatment, Vol. 10, No. 3, 283-292 (2005) DOI: 10.1177/1077559505277803 ?© 2005 SAGE Publications Corporal Punishment and the Growth Trajectory of Children??™s Antisocial Behavior Andrew Grogan-Kaylor University of Michigan Despite considerable research, the relationship between corporal punishment and antisocial behavior is unclear. This analysis examined (a) the functional form of this relationship, (b) the correlation of initial antisocial behavior and changes in antisocial behavior, (c) differences in the relationship of corporal punishment and antisocial behavior by race, and (d) whether this relationship could be accounted for by unmeasured characteristics of children and their families. Data from 6,912 children in the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth were analyzed using hierarchical linear models. Findings suggested that corporal punishment has a relationship with children??™s initial antisocial behavior and with changes in antisocial behavior. No evidence was found for differences in the effect of corporal punishment across racial groups. The relationship between corporal punishment and antisocial behavior persists even when accounting for unmeasured time invariant characteristics of children and families. The findings suggest that corporal punishment is not a preferable technique for disciplining children.
Key Words: antisocial behavior ??? corporal punishment ??? growth trajectory ??? hierarchical linear models ..........
In fact, folks, if you follow the trail from abstract to abstract and article to article, you will find a great deal of research similar to the above...that clearly states: "No evidence was found for differences in the effect of corporal punishment across racial groups. The relationship between corporal punishment and antisocial behavior persists even when accounting for unmeasured time invariant characteristics of children and families." or words to that effect.
One can not also, if they keep digging along this track, as I suggest, even more information about this particular study. Though it draws a similar conclusion about the effects of spanking with black and Hispanic children vs white children a couple of confounding factors pop up not mentioned in the originally Doan quoted citation.
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/329/7459/0-f ...Children were excluded from analysis for a large number of reasonable exceptions, leaving a group that was 28% black, 20% Hispanic, and 52% non-Hispanic white. Forty per cent of the mothers in the sample had at least 13 years of education, and the average family income was $38 400 (in 1996 dollars), though lowest in the black subgroup ($26 300).
Because of the design of the database, this study specifically excluded "economically disadvantaged white" children. ...
They excluded similar demographic and created a dissimilar white group from the Hispanic and black group? Why? what's with this "design of a database?" What about it would make leaving out one subset of children necessary?
Come ON folks.
Think about the implications.
What would the conclusions have been had this economically disadvantaged, (as the black and likely the Hispanic populations were) group of white children have been included?
High income denotes a number of things. One might be how often they were called to school, and responded, and reported to the interviewers, as compared to other groups.
What we also don't know is what took place, CP-wise, from age 2 (the spanking portion cutoff age) to age five when children start school?
Was spanking increased in any group...decreased? Stopped altogether?
This kinds of unanswered questions bring the validity of the study into serious question.
What Doan and others fail to note, quite often, is that 'peer reviewed' does NOT mean PEER ACCEPTED.
It's important to READ the peer reviews, like this one. And the one before.
Here's the conclusion to the review: "Bottom line In white non-Hispanic children who were not economically disadvantaged, spanking before the age of 2 years is ***ociated with significant behaviour problems on entry to school at age 6. This relation is present after controlling for other factors, but is not seen in black or Hispanic children." Note that it does in fact, but without making it clear, compare NON economically disadvantaged White children with economically DISADVANTAGED African American and Hispanic children.
Any bias possible there?
By Doan, possibly?
R R R R RR R R R R R Now do you understand why Doan tried to divert Ron from the actual article?
Doan thinks such tactics are clever, no doubt.
Kane
| To Top |