Volume 10 -
MEJDS (2020) 10: 67 |
Back to browse issues page
Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Mohammadi E, Khanjani Z, Hashemi Nosratabad T, Bakhshipour Roudsari A. Predicting Unintentional Injuries in Children Based on Inhibitory Control and Impulsivity Concerning Gender. MEJDS 2020; 10 :67-67
URL: http://jdisabilstud.org/article-1-1883-en.html
URL: http://jdisabilstud.org/article-1-1883-en.html
1- University of Tabriz
2- Faculty of Educational Sciences and Psychology, University of Tabriz
2- Faculty of Educational Sciences and Psychology, University of Tabriz
Abstract: (1843 Views)
Background & Objectives: Childhood injuries are a growing global public health problem. Every day, the lives of >2000 families are adversely affected annually by the loss of a child due to an unintentional injury or accidents, i.e., preventable. Once children reach the age of 5 years, unintentional injuries are the most significant threat to their survival. Unintentional injuries are also a major cause of disabilities, which could have a long–lasting impact on all aspects of children’s lives; relationships, learning and playing. Alongside the call for ideal preventative measures, there is, a subsequent obvious and pressing necessity to identify groups more prone to be involved in accidents and at higher risks for injury, compared to their peers. This article investigated behavioral risk factors for pediatric unintentional injury risk, with a particular focus on impulsivity and inhibitory control and the role of gender.
Methods: This was a correlational research. The statistical population of this study was all elementary students of Tabriz City, Iran, in the 2018–2019 academic year. Of them, 140 students (70 boys and 70 girls) were selected as the study sample using a random multistage cluster sampling technique (according to Hu & Bentler Sample Index). The mean age of the investigated girls and boys was 10 years. In the inclusion criteria of the study were the age of 7 to 12 years, no learning disorders, no mental disability, no visual, auditory, or motor impairments, and no medical conditions, such as diabetes, epilepsy, or cardiovascular disease that could influence the research process. The required data were collected using the Minor Injury Severity Scale (MISS) by Peterson, Heiblum, and Saldana (1996); Balloon Analogue Risk Task (BART) by lejuez (2002), and Continuous Performance Test (CPT) by Rosvold (1956).
Results: The mean calculated values were as follows: for unintentional injuries: girls=26.03, boys=40.03, impulsivity: girls=35.6, boys=37. 5, and inhibitory control: girls=7.8, boys=11.8. The results of the correlation matrix of the explored variables revealed a significant positive relationship between unintentional injuries and impulsivity (r=0.445, p<0.001), unintentional injuries and inhibitory control (r=0.564, p<0.01), as well as impulsivity and inhibitory control (r=0.461, p<0.001). The multivariate regression model was used to explain the combinational relationships of predictor variables (impulsivity, inhibitory control, & gender) with an unintentional injury. Predictive variables (impulsivity, inhibitory control, & gender) had a correlation of about 0.68 with an unintentional injury. According to the coefficient of determination (0.46), these variables could significantly explain 46% of the unintentional injury alternations (p<0.05, F=39.21). In addition, the obtained results indicated that impulsivity could predict 0.24% of unintentional injury changes in the standard unit. Furthermore, inhibition control could significantly predict 0.41% of unintentional injury changes. Besides, gender with a standard beta coefficient of 0.32 could significantly predict 32 units of children's unintentional injury changes.
Conclusion: The present study findings highlighted that inhibition control was a better predictor for unintentional injury in children. Moreover, gender could predict unintentional injuries in children. In other words, male and female genders facilitated and prevented unintentional injuries in this group, respectively. Finally, impulsivity could positively and significantly predict unintentional injury among children. It is recommended that school–based screening tests be used in children. Besides, children with impulsivity or weaknesses in inhibitory control should be aware of this problem. Accordingly, they should receive appropriate education to prevent unintentional injuries.
Methods: This was a correlational research. The statistical population of this study was all elementary students of Tabriz City, Iran, in the 2018–2019 academic year. Of them, 140 students (70 boys and 70 girls) were selected as the study sample using a random multistage cluster sampling technique (according to Hu & Bentler Sample Index). The mean age of the investigated girls and boys was 10 years. In the inclusion criteria of the study were the age of 7 to 12 years, no learning disorders, no mental disability, no visual, auditory, or motor impairments, and no medical conditions, such as diabetes, epilepsy, or cardiovascular disease that could influence the research process. The required data were collected using the Minor Injury Severity Scale (MISS) by Peterson, Heiblum, and Saldana (1996); Balloon Analogue Risk Task (BART) by lejuez (2002), and Continuous Performance Test (CPT) by Rosvold (1956).
Results: The mean calculated values were as follows: for unintentional injuries: girls=26.03, boys=40.03, impulsivity: girls=35.6, boys=37. 5, and inhibitory control: girls=7.8, boys=11.8. The results of the correlation matrix of the explored variables revealed a significant positive relationship between unintentional injuries and impulsivity (r=0.445, p<0.001), unintentional injuries and inhibitory control (r=0.564, p<0.01), as well as impulsivity and inhibitory control (r=0.461, p<0.001). The multivariate regression model was used to explain the combinational relationships of predictor variables (impulsivity, inhibitory control, & gender) with an unintentional injury. Predictive variables (impulsivity, inhibitory control, & gender) had a correlation of about 0.68 with an unintentional injury. According to the coefficient of determination (0.46), these variables could significantly explain 46% of the unintentional injury alternations (p<0.05, F=39.21). In addition, the obtained results indicated that impulsivity could predict 0.24% of unintentional injury changes in the standard unit. Furthermore, inhibition control could significantly predict 0.41% of unintentional injury changes. Besides, gender with a standard beta coefficient of 0.32 could significantly predict 32 units of children's unintentional injury changes.
Conclusion: The present study findings highlighted that inhibition control was a better predictor for unintentional injury in children. Moreover, gender could predict unintentional injuries in children. In other words, male and female genders facilitated and prevented unintentional injuries in this group, respectively. Finally, impulsivity could positively and significantly predict unintentional injury among children. It is recommended that school–based screening tests be used in children. Besides, children with impulsivity or weaknesses in inhibitory control should be aware of this problem. Accordingly, they should receive appropriate education to prevent unintentional injuries.
Type of Study: Original Research Article |
Subject:
Psychology
References
1. Huang H, Li B, Chen Y, Yuan Y, Xiong P, Zhang W-D, et al. Etiology and risk factors for childhood unintentional injuries: a retrospective analysis of data at a pediatric intensive care unit. Zhongguo Dang Dai Er Ke Za Zhi. 2019;21(4):323–6. [Chinese]
2. Helton JJ, Weaver NL. Unintentional child injury in child welfare placements. Child Abuse Negl. 2020;99:104231. [DOI]
3. World Health Organization. International Classification of Disease (ICD) Revision 2005. WHO; 2005.
4. Ghirardi L, Larsson H, Chang Z, Chen Q, Quinn PD, Hur K, et al. Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder Medication and Unintentional Injuries in Children and Adolescents. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2019; S0890-8567(19)30452-6. [DOI]
5. Hoare P, Beattie T. Children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and attendance at hospital. Eur J Emerg Med. 2003;10(2):98–100. [DOI]
6. Prasad V, West J, Sayal K, Kendrick D. Injury among children and young people with and without attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder in the community: The risk of fractures, thermal injuries, and poisonings. Child Care Health Dev. 2018;44(6):871–8. [DOI]
7. Barton BK, Schwebel DC. The roles of age, gender, inhibitory control, and parental supervision in children’s pedestrian safety. J Pediatr Psychol. 2007;32(5):517–26. [DOI]
8. Kang J-H, Lin H-C, Chung S-D. Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder increased the risk of injury: a population-based follow-up study. Acta Paediatr. 2013;102(6):640–3. [DOI]
9. Morrongiello BA, Ondejko L, Littlejohn A. Understanding toddlers’ in-home injuries: I. Context, correlates, and determinants. J Pediatr Psychol. 2004;29(6):415–31. [DOI]
10. Schwebel DC, Binder SC, Sales JM, Plumert JM. Is there a link between children’s motor abilities and unintentional injuries? J Safety Res. 2003;34(2):135–41. [DOI]
11. Ruiz-Goikoetxea M, Cortese S, Aznarez-Sanado M, Magallón S, Alvarez Zallo N, Luis EO, et al. Risk of unintentional injuries in children and adolescents with ADHD and the impact of ADHD medications: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2018;84:63–71. [DOI]
12. Ballesteros MF, Williams DD, Mack KA, Simon TR, Sleet DA. The epidemiology of unintentional and violence-related injury morbidity and mortality among children and adolescents in the United States. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2018 28;15(4). [DOI]
13. Dao A, McMullin J. Unintentional Injury, Supervision, and Discourses on Childproofing Devices. Med Anthropol. 2019;38(1):15–29. [DOI]
14. Bijttebier P, Vertommen H, Florentie K. Risk-taking behavior as a mediator of the relationship between children’s temperament and injury liability. Psychology & Health. 2003;18(5):645–53. [DOI]
15. Rosen BN, Peterson L. Gender differences in children’s outdoor play injuries: A review and an integration. Clinical Psychology Review. 1990;10(2):187–205. [DOI]
16. Morrongiello BA, Dawber T. Mothers’ responses to sons and daughters engaging in injury-risk behaviors on a playground: implications for sex differences in injury rates. J Exp Child Psychol. 2000;76(2):89–103. [DOI]
17. Evenden JL. Varieties of impulsivity. Psychopharmacology (Berl). 1999;146(4):348–61. [DOI]
18. Iskander JM, Rakestraw HM, Morris AT, Wildman BG, Duby JC. Group triple P and child unintentional injury risk: a pilot study. Children’s Health Care. 2018;47(4):452–66. [DOI]
19. Hurtig T, Ebeling H, Jokelainen J, Koivumaa-Honkanen H, Taanila A. The association between hospital-treated injuries and ADHD symptoms in childhood and adolescence: a follow-up study in the northern Finland birth cohort 1986. J Atten Disord. 2016;20(1):3–10. [DOI]
20. DeYoung CG. Impulsivity as a Personality Trait. In: Handbook of Self-Regulation: Research, Theory, And Applications. New York, NY, US: Guilford Press; 2011. pp: 485–502.
21. Desrochers SS, Lesko E, Magalong VM, Balsam PD, Nautiyal KM. A role for reward sensitivity in the serotonergic modulation of impulsivity [Internet]. Neuroscience; 2020. [DOI]
22. Munsch S, Dremmel D, Wilhelm P, Baierlé S, Fischer S, Hilbert A. To eat or not to eat: Reward delay impulsivity in children with loss of control eating, attention deficit / hyperactivity disorder, a double diagnosis, and healthy children. PLoS One. 2019;14(9): e0221814. [DOI]
23. Wafer CD. A Comparative Study of Parental Perceptions of Risk-taking in Children [Ph.D dissertation]. [San Diego, USA]: Alliant International University; 2019.
24. Morrongiello BA, Corbett MR, Kane A. A measure that relates to elementary school children’s risk of injury: The Supervision Attributes and Risk-Taking Questionnaire (SARTQ). Inj Prev. 2011;17(3):189–94. [DOI]
25. Schwebel DC, Gaines J. Pediatric unintentional injury: behavioral risk factors and implications for prevention. J Dev Behav Pediatr. 2007;28(3):245–54. [DOI]
26. Soori H, Khodakarim S. Child unintentional injury prevention in Eastern Mediterranean Region. Int J Crit Illn Inj Sci. 2016;6(1):33–9. [DOI]
27. Lee L-C, Harrington RA, Chang JJ, Connors SL. Increased risk of injury in children with developmental disabilities. Res Dev Disabil. 2008;29(3):247–55. [DOI]
28. Hu L, Bentler PM. Fit indices in covariance structure modeling: Sensitivity to under parameterized model misspecification. Psychological Methods. 1998;3(4):424–53. [DOI]
29. Peterson L, Harbeck C, Moreno A. Measures of children’s injuries: self-reported versus maternal-reported events with temporally proximal versus delayed reporting. J Pediatr Psychol. 1993;18(1):133–47. [DOI]
30. Ekhtiari H, Janati A, Moghimi A, Behzadi A. The Farsi version of the balloon analogue risk task: an instrument for the assessment of Riskful-Decision making. Advances in Cognitive Science. 2003;4(4):9–11. [Persian] [Article]
31. Rosvold HE, Mirsky AF, Sarason I, Bransome ED, Beck LH. A continuous performance test of brain damage. Journal of Consulting Psychology. 1956;20(5):343–50. [DOI]
32. Hadianfard H, Najarian B, Shokrkon H, Mehrabizadeh Honarmand M. Construction and validation of the farsi version of the continuous performance test. Journal of Psychology. 2001;4(416):388–404. [Persian]
Send email to the article author
| Rights and permissions | |
 |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |
