Baby Natalie Is Generally in a Positive Mood

• Loading metrics

Open Access

Peer-reviewed

Research Article

Children's psychological well-beingness and trouble beliefs during the COVID-19 pandemic: An online study during the lockdown period in Frg

• Natalie Christner,
• Samuel Essler,
• Astrid Hazzam,
• Markus Paulus

10

• Published: June 23, 2021
• https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0253473

Figures

Abstract

As COVID-19 dramatically changes man social life, restrictive lockdown periods to slow the spread of the virus accept been suggested to specially touch the psychological well-beingness of children and their families. To capture lockdown-related furnishings on a large calibration, the nowadays study used an online questionnaire completed by parents of 3-10-twelvemonth-olds during the most restrictive lockdown period in Germany thus far (N = 2,672). Parents reported their stress level, their kid's well-being, and their kid's trouble behaviors among others. Results showed that near parents and children experienced lockdown-related stress. Concerning children, not being able to meet with friends and family members outside the household emerged as the primary claiming. Older children (7–10 years) evidenced more emotional symptoms as well as less behave bug and hyperactivity than younger children (3–6 years). Children's own and their parents' stress level, the degree to which children missed other children, and children'south age all showed to be negatively related to children's general life satisfaction. Unmarried parenthood and being an only child were associated with higher levels of kid bug. Taken together, these findings shed light on the psychological well-being of children and their families during governmental lockdown measures, as well as on relations between children's coping and demographic background. They accept implications for possible avenues for interventions, inter alia by encouraging policies that facilitate the maintenance of social relationships and focus particularly on children from single parent families, on but children as well as on families in challenging housing situations.

Citation: Christner N, Essler S, Hazzam A, Paulus Yard (2021) Children'due south psychological well-being and problem beliefs during the COVID-19 pandemic: An online study during the lockdown menstruation in Frg. PLoS ONE 16(6): e0253473. https://doi.org/10.1371/periodical.pone.0253473

Editor: Helena R. Slobodskaya, Constitute of Physiology and Basic Medicine, Russia

Received: November 27, 2020; Accepted: June 6, 2021; Published: June 23, 2021

Copyright: © 2021 Christner et al. This is an open up access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted apply, distribution, and reproduction in whatever medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Data Availability: Information relevant for this written report is openly bachelor on OSF at https://osf.io/9bj23/.

Funding: This study was supported by a scholarship of the Claussen-Simon-Stiftung to SE.

Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests be.

Introduction

The pandemic caused by the SARS-CoV-two virus bears an enormous challenge for societies worldwide. In order to slow downwardly the infection charge per unit, many communities arranged lockdowns that involved extensive restrictions of public life. Events and gatherings were cancelled, shops and recreational facilities were closed, and employees had to work from home, if possible. In addition, educational institutions such as schools and universities were closed and began to move teaching online. Kindergartens and daycare centers only offered a reduced possibility of emergency child care for key workers (i.e., retail, health care system, banks, etc.). After, emergency child care was expanded for single-parents. Also these restrictions, governments recommend and enforce social distancing, that is, keeping physical distance from others, including friends and family unit members from different households. Hence, the COVID-xix pandemic massively curtails social interactions and public life.

Families are particularly affected by the contact restrictions and preventive regulations. First, parents' working situation changed, potentially resulting in additional concerns about financial security. Some are required to work short time, some have to work from home, and some struggle with the maintenance of their ain business. Others accept to keep upward their work, facing the threat of interacting with potentially infectious people every 24-hour interval. On top of that, parents' responsibilities increased. Because most of the children had no admission to kindergarten or school for weeks, they had to be taken care of the whole twenty-four hours, including educational activity obligations. The accumulation of responsibilities thus probable constitutes a specially stressful situation for parents and families [ane]. The electric current written report aimed to investigate the impact of the pandemic and associated restrictions on parents' and children's psychological well-being. In improver, we aimed to identify the major problems for children and factors that might attenuate the problematic consequences of the pandemic.

Following developmental theorizing, governmental restrictions should take a pronounced touch on on young children. Offset, children are highly dependent on adults given their limited autonomy. That is, children rely on adults' support in everyday tasks but also for emotion regulative processes. Given parents' increased responsibilities, children might receive less or only inconsistent support. Second, young children might take bug to grasp the complexity of the situation and empathize the massive changes in everyday life due to their limited cognitive abilities [2, 3], leading to perceived insecurity and lack of command. Third, due to their limited cocky-regulation and emotion regulation capacity [4, five], children might exist in special need for support in handling feet acquired by the disruptive situation. The multitude of these atmospheric condition probably makes the state of affairs especially challenging for young children, which is hypothesized to lead to increased emotional and behavioral problems. First evidence during the COVID-19 pandemic supports this assumption [six–8].

A further line of reasoning leads to the supposition that health-promoting regulations caused by the COVID-19 pandemic had widespread effects on children's life. Governmental measures restricted multiple systems in which–considering a bioecological framework [9]–children's interactions are typically embedded, such equally family unit, schoolhouse, or daycare centers. As multiple systems are considered important to cope successfully with a challenging situation [ten, xi], we have reason to presume that the pandemic-related regulations threaten children's well-existence. While children faced a challenging situation, which would crave a successful resilience organisation, nearly resilience systems were temporarily disrupted. Children's everyday life was concentrated on the family unit, likely leading to more force per unit area and stress within the family system.

First studies on the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic indeed evidence an increase of anxiety and low symptoms amidst school-aged children [for review see seven]. In improver, research on previous pandemics revealed that disease-containment methods can take traumatizing effects. Following the Influenza-A-H1N1 pandemic, the proportion of children and parents meeting the clinical criterion for a posttraumatic stress disorder was college in those who experienced isolation or quarantine compared to those who did not feel isolation or quarantine [12]. A review on the psychological consequences of quarantine in adults additionally highlights poorer mental wellness, increased fear, frustration, and a sense of isolation as consequences of quarantine [13]. The current study aimed to expand our understanding of pandemic-related stressors and protective factors for parents' and children's psychological well-being by identifying major problematic topics and examining relations with demographic background.

Given the intense pressure on the family organisation, caregiver stress might be passed on to children. From an attachment theoretical perspective, children seek proximity to caregivers when exposed to stressful situations [14, fifteen]. Given the stressful situation caused by the pandemic, parents experience more stress and, every bit a result, might provide less support to children than required. This leads to the special state of affairs that children's need for the presence and back up of the primary attachment figure is heightened, while parents themselves face a stressful situation and hence struggle fifty-fifty more than to run into the child'due south needs fairly. These challenges for kid emotion regulation might pave the manner for developmental psychopathologies [e.g., 16, 17]. Thus, fifty-fifty though parents spent more fourth dimension with children, they had perhaps more problems in reacting to their children accordingly.

Although the lockdown regulations affected the family organization immensely, the situation might have not only been perceived as stressful. Beyond the negative consequences, families might have perceived positive outcomes. Parents got to spend more fourth dimension with their children, which might accept led to valuable parent-child interactions. The interpretation of the lockdown situation in positive or negative terms might relate to the condition and demographic groundwork of the family. It remains thus an open question to which degree families experienced positive and negative consequences of the lockdown.

The pandemic-related restrictions inhibit personal interaction with friends or other children (except for children living in the same household). This might exist especially challenging for children'south development, because peer relationships, particularly friendships, are of import for several reasons. Friendships play an of import office for children's well-existence, they provide reciprocal assistance and support children's emerging emotion regulation abilities [eighteen–21]. In add-on, friendships offer children a context that is characterized by cooperation, prosocial behavior, and a strong affective tie [xx]. For example, already preschoolers expect more than sharing from friends than non-friends [22]. The lockdown-related isolation hinders directly interactions with friends. Particularly in younger children, friendship rests on articulation activities such as playing together [23]. While older children might be able to maintain social exchange digitally, younger children are less capable in doing and then. We therefore expect the contact restrictions to strongly bear upon children's well-existence.

Next to the social consequences of governmental restriction, the pandemic itself constitutes a psychological challenge for children. Fright of getting infected and concerns near the well-being of close others are potential causes of distress. The general ability to have empathic concern for others' well-being emerges in the first years of life [24, 25]. In schoolhouse years, children evidence feet about their own health [26, 27] and report fright of a novel affliction, equally evidenced during the Swine Flu pandemic [28]. These fears, particularly if non being adequately addressed past caregivers, could lead to maladaptive outcomes [17, 29]. It remains thus important to examine the degree to which children face a variety of concerns, in particular anxiety, in times of the pandemic.

Notably, the stressful state of affairs might exist detrimental for child well-beingness to such an extent that information technology relates to psychopathological outcomes. Developmental theories highlight the function of family unit or parental stress for the emergence of child problem behavior [30, 31]. A number of studies evidenced that parenting stress is associated with internalizing and externalizing bug in their children [32–34]. Because the state of affairs caused by the pandemic is expected to be exceptionally straining for parents, changes in parenting behavior might in turn crusade kid bug [35]. In addition, anxiety of parents regarding the unpredictable situation might pave the manner for internalizing disorders in children [36]. Examining children's problems in times of the lockdown is thus of slap-up importance to foresee potential psychopathological consequences of the governmental regulations for children.

While the considerations above suggest that the situation of the COVID-nineteen pandemic was particularly stressful for parents and children, information technology is possible that some families were less negatively affected than others, depending on the resources they had to cope with such a situation. For example, 2-parent families might take been less affected than single-parent families. Single parents typically study more than parental stress [37, 38], which–given reduced actress-familial resources during the lockdown–might accept been even enhanced. The well-beingness of children with siblings might have been less afflicted than the well-being of only children because they had at to the lowest degree one other child to play with.

Current study

The electric current study investigated the psychological affect of the contact restrictions and lockdown regulations during the COVID-19 pandemic on families and, in particular, immature children anile 3–ten. We focused on this age range because young children are very sensitive to the manner of caregiving and highly dependent on their parents, given piddling autonomy and limited cognitive and emotional resources to handle the state of affairs, as proposed in a higher place. These considerations requite reason to assume that they might be particularly vulnerable to the changing pandemic-related conditions. In addition, the study aimed to identify the main topics that were relevant for children during the lockdown to place possible avenues of intervention.

For that purpose, nosotros assessed families' situations during the most restrictive time of the COVID-19 pandemic (mid of April 2020) in an online study in a German sample. At the time of information acquisition, educational facilities and daycare centers were by and large closed, but offering a minimal emergency kid care for key workers. Meeting people from other households was prohibited and fined, and employees were mostly required to work from home, if possible. Temporary financial support was offered for parents, if they were non able to work because they had to take intendance of their child at home due to pandemic-related closing of institutions. Particularly unmarried parents and families with low income were eligible for boosted financial support. If required to work short-time, that is, being temporarily exempted from work and receiving a reduced payment because of the employer's economic situation, parents received a larger continued payment than people without a child. The conglomeration of restrictions, which massively affected family life, chosen for an investigation of how children and parents handle this exceptional situation. In order to reach as many families every bit possible, nosotros created an online questionnaire that included, inter alia, measures of parents' and children's stress level during the lockdown, changes in children's quality of life, children'south problem behaviors, the extent to which children missed or engaged in social relationships, and pandemic-related challenges that were considered nearly problematic during the lockdown. Overall, we expected children's quality of life to be negatively afflicted by the pandemic. Based on the theoretical considerations above, nosotros predicted children's change in well-being to be related to their own level of stress, to parental stress, and to decreased interaction with friends. In addition, we expected children to evidence problem behaviors, specially if being an only child, living in a single parent family, or living in limiting housing amenities. We controlled for parental instruction when examining these relations. Yet, one needs to be aware that this does not fully control for socioeconomic status, making it possible that some of the associations might exist related to families' financial resources. In addition, we aimed to identify which topics were prevalent for children'due south stress level, eastward.g., existence concerned about an infection of themselves or close others, missing the interaction with other children, or existence constantly surrounded past a parent, which might event in more disputes at home. The prevalence of such concerns might depend on the child's age. With increasing historic period, friendships become more than important, just children might also sympathise amend why they cannot run into their friends, that they are not alone in this, and that this situation volition pass. With increasing age, children might likewise better understand the threat of a virus and therefore be more concerned nigh infections. Nosotros assessed the importance of a diverseness of concerns to shed lite on their relative prevalence in children.

Method

Participants

A total of two,672 participants made up the final sample. An boosted 549 participants were excluded from the last sample every bit they did not fully complete the questionnaire (n = 474) or reported on children exterior of the historic period range from 3 to ten years (n = 75). Equally some participants entered information for more than one kid (run into procedure), we had parental reports of three,389 children for parts of the analyses. Participant recruitment took place by postings on (social media) websites, by direct contacting families affiliated with the lab through Emails, and by words of mouth. Importantly, data drove took place from the end of April until the offset of May 2020 when the lockdown restrictions were strictest in Germany to capture the state of affairs of families and children during the most challenging time of the pandemic. The demographic characteristics of the sample are displayed in Table 1. Many participating families have a high socioeconomic status. Participants excluded due to incompleteness of responses did not differ from participants with complete responses with respect to their family unit status, unmarried parenthood, and educational degree by more than vii percentage points ((1) family unit status for complete vs. incomplete responders–married (80% vs. 76%), relationship & living together (13% vs. xviii%), relationship merely not living together (1% vs. two%), divorced/separated, no relationship (four% vs. 3%), single (2% vs. 1%), widowed, no relationship (<1% vs. <one%); (two) single parenthood for consummate vs. incomplete responders–no single parenthood (94% vs. 96%), single parenthood (6% vs. iv%); (3) Educational caste for complete vs. incomplete responders–university degree (50% vs. 46%), vocational training (23% vs. xxx%), academy of practical sciences degree (fifteen% vs. 14%), professional university (8% vs. 7%), primary training (3% vs. 3%), no vocational degree (<1% vs. 1%)). In add-on, participants could optionally enter their Email address for the purpose of taking function in a raffle of x l € souvenir vouchers. The study was approved by the ethics committee of the Faculty of Psychology and Educational Sciences, LMU Munich, and constitutes the first study of an ongoing longitudinal projection. Participants gave their online informed consent to taking role in the written report.

Ability analysis

We conducted a statistical ability analysis in Chiliad*Power to summate the required sample size. Every bit there was no prior COVID-19-related inquiry to rely on regarding the expected outcome sizes and given the practical and theoretical importance, we aimed at detecting small-scale to large outcome sizes. Assuming blastoff = .05 and ability = .fourscore in a multiple regression assay with 8 predictors, the projected total sample size was approximately North = 759. Therefore, our objective was a final sample of greater than N = 800.

Materials

The online survey consisted of three parts: (1) demographics, (2) state of affairs of the child during the COVID-xix pandemic and parental strategies, likewise equally (3) general measures of parental cocky-efficacy and parent-kid relationship quality. The survey was completed by ane parent. In the introduction of the survey, we asked participants that the parent who mainly cares for the child should consummate the survey. In the context of the present study, nosotros focused on a choice of measures and we will present these in the following.

Demographics.

The demographic questions referred to information about the parent, the child, and the parental strain due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Concerning the parent, we assessed age and gender, family unit and partner status (married, in a relationship and living together, in a human relationship and non living together, divorced or separated without partner, widowed, single), gender of partner (if applicable), number of children in the household, federal state of residence, housing state of affairs (apartment or house, with or without balcony, no, small or big garden), highest educational degree (without, vocational degree, professional academy, master training, (applied) university caste) of self and partner (if applicative), current job status (no job, parental get out, abode office, job outside of the home, reduced working hours, exempted, other) of cocky and partner (if applicative), percentage of childcare piece of work relative to other caregivers (east.yard., 80% of childcare work of written report participant when the other caregivers account for xx% of childcare work). Concerning parental strain due to the COVID-19 pandemic, one question assessed how many more hours the parent cares for the child on a daily basis. In addition, iii questions assessed whether the parent is strained to a greater degree due to the pandemic (e.g., "I am more stressed out in the current situation than ordinarily"; Cronbach's α = 0.91). A five-point Likert scale ranging from 1 ("practice not agree at all") to 5 ("totally hold") was used to record parental responses. Concerning the child, demographic questions assessed age, gender, and educational establishment (kindergarten, school).

Situation of the child during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Kid'due south strain. One item assessed the degree to which children are stressed, irritated, or solitary with regard to the current situation on a 4-betoken scale ("To which caste is your child stressed, irritated, or lonely with regard to the current situation?"). The response scale ranged from i ("not at all stressed, irritated or lone") to 4 ("considerably stressed, irritated or solitary").

Changes in quality of life. To assess how the shutdown during the pandemic afflicted the child, we adapted 12 items from the High german translation of the 52-items KIDSCREEN Health-Related Quality of Life Questionnaire for Children and Adolescents [39]. We selected these specific items (come across below) for three reasons. First, some scales were not applicable given social distancing during the lockdown (due east.m., friends, school and learning, others). Second, some items of relevant scales were like in wording and due to fourth dimension constraints, we only included one item (e.chiliad., "was in a good mood" but not "was happy"; "enjoyed life" merely non "was satisfied with life"). Tertiary, some scales were of more involvement theoretically (e.chiliad., feelings, general mood) and were thus included over others (e.g., physical activities and health). In the original version, the KIDSCREEN assesses children'southward quality of life at a unmarried time point. For the current purpose, we adjusted the items in club to measure out quality of life relatively to the time menstruum earlier the lockdown and in social club to mensurate positive and negative changes likewise (e.one thousand., increase or subtract in quality of life compared to time period earlier the lockdown).

To answer the KIDSCREEN, parents indicated on a 7-point calibration how much more or how much less their kid had positive emotions, moods, time for him-/herself and with his/her parents during the weeks of the complete lockdown every bit compared to earlier the pandemic. The response scale ranged from 1 ("clearly less") to vii ("clearly more") with the middle category iv denoting "no difference". The items were: (ane) enjoyed life, (2) was in a skilful mood, (3) had fun (1–3 aggregated to scale "emotions"; Cronbach's α = 0.89), (4) was lamentable, (v) felt then bad that s/he did not want to exercise annihilation, (6) was lonely (4–6 aggregated to scale "moods"; Cronbach'southward α = 0.78), (seven) was content (single item calibration), (viii) had time for her-/himself, (9) was able to do things s/he wanted to practice in her/his free time (8–9 aggregated to calibration "costless time"; Cronbach'southward α = 0.42), (10) felt that her/his parents had time for her/him, (11) felt adequately treated past her/his parents, and (12) has been able to talk to her/his parents when southward/he wanted (10–12 aggregated to scale "family"; Cronbach'south α = 0.72). Due to its insufficient reliability, the scale "complimentary time" was only used for descriptive purpose and excluded from the statistical analyses.

Social relationships. Five questions assessed how much the child missed his/her educational institution and friends, how oftentimes s/he asks most the reopening of kindergarten or school, whether s/he plays with others from dissimilar households (friends, children from the neighborhood, family members, child attends emergency grouping in kindergarten/schoolhouse), and whether south/he initiates contact to her/his friends in any other way.

Problem behaviors. To go a more detailed insight into the kid's electric current beliefs and well-being, we adapted three subscales (emotional symptoms, conduct bug, hyperactivity-inattention) of the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire [SDQ; 40]. Each subscale consists of 5 items and is answered on a 3-point scale (0 –"not truthful, one –"somewhat true", 2 –"certainly true"). Other subscales were excluded as they largely refer to interactions with other children, which were almost not-existent due to the lockdown. Given the circumstances, the remaining items also had to exist adapted and shortened (e.g., remove references to behavior at schoolhouse or towards other children, which was not applicable during the lockdown). In order to keep the item structure similar, and in order to avoid ambiguous item formulations (e.thou., "Often unhappy, depressed, or bawling"), we decided to suit all items and to create short versions as follows: emotions problems ("Often complains of headaches", "Has many worries", "Ofttimes unhappy", "Nervous or clingy", "Has many fears"; Cronbach's α = 0.78), conduct bug ("Oft has atmosphere tantrums", "Generally obedient", "Often fights", "Often lies or cheats", "Steals from home"; Cronbach's α = 0.71), and hyperactivity ("Restless, overactive", "Constantly fidgeting", "Hands distracted", "Reflects", "Sees tasks through to the cease"; Cronbach's α = 0.65).

Private challenges. Moreover, to assess the greatest challenges of the child during the lockdown, we provided 14 choices with multiple answers possible (e.g., "Kid cannot meet its friends regularly", "Kid is bored", "Conflicts about media usage").

Process

The online survey was hosted on Qualtrics and took participants approximately 15 minutes to consummate. The instructions informed participants about the purpose of the study and participants agreed to data protection regulations.

Next, participants completed the 3 blocks of the survey in a fixed lodge. First, they completed questions on demographics and the strain experienced by parents during the lockdown. Second, they answered questions pertaining to the situation and well-existence of the child and the parental strategies used. Third, they completed the parenting self-efficacy items and the parent-child relationship items. All questions were displayed equally forced choice to minimize missing data. Throughout the survey, participants could navigate back and forth to modify their answers if necessary.

In improver, participants had the opportunity to complete a shortened version of the survey for a second, third, fourth, and 5th child. This shortened version comprised four demographic questions (age, gender, educational institution, additional caregiving work because of the pandemic), the Kidscreen items and the problem behavior items as described above for the corresponding child (662 participants completed the survey for a 2d child, 54 participants completed the survey for a third child, and one participant completed the survey for a quaternary kid). At the very end, participants were thanked for their participation.

Data coding

Numbers were assigned to the verbal markers of the scales as described above. We recoded all contrary items (3 items of the Kidscreen, 3 items on problem behaviors). Sum scores/mean scores were calculated for the respective scales and used for analyses. Data relevant for this study is openly available on OSF at https://osf.io/9bj23/.

Data analysis

Sample sizes between analyses differ, because the questionnaire for a second, tertiary, or quaternary child of a family did not cover all variables. Therefore, some analyses focus only on i child per family (Northward = 2672) and some analyses focus on the total sample of children (maybe multiple children per family; N = 3389). In order to account for the large age range (3–10 years), we divided the sample for some analysis in children aged three to vi years and children aged 7 to x years. This historic period split roughly represents preschool age and schoolhouse age. In addition, we divided the sample for some analyses based on whether children come up from a single parent family or no single parent family considering unmarried parents might be particularly encumbered by contact restrictions. For these analyses, we excluded 30 children for whom information technology was unclear whether they come from single parent or not-single parent families (family unit status: "relationship but not living together"). Analyses were computed with R version 4.0.1.

Results

Stress of parents and children (N = 2672)

General stress level.

Parents report to be more stressed than usual due to the current situation. 31% of the parents fully agreed with all iii items that stated that the current situation is more than challenging and stressful than usual. The frequency of parents' mean rating beyond the three items nearly their stress level is displayed in Fig 1A.

Fig 1.

A: Percentage of parents' mean ratings on items regarding electric current stress. B: Pct of children who are reported to be stressed, irritated, or lone with regard to the electric current situation.

https://doi.org/ten.1371/journal.pone.0253473.g001

The majority of children (>50%) were also reported to be rather or conspicuously stressed, irritated, or lonely with regard to the current situation (run into Fig 1B). The mean level was identical for younger (M = 2.64, SD = 0.85) and older children (M = 2.64, SD = 0.85).

Reasons for stress in children.

The frequency of topics that are reported as beingness stressful for the child are displayed in Fig 2. For both preschool and school-anile children, the nearly prevalent topics are that they cannot run into their friends and other family unit members anymore. Particularly for school-aged children, disagreements nearly schoolwork or other duties and the lacking possibility of engaging in hobbies or sport are also reported often. Interestingly, what seems to be least problematic is children's own fear of getting infected.

Fig 2. Reasons for the kid being stressed, irritated or sad split by the child's age.

Topics: ane) Child cannot meet its friends regularly. two) Kid cannot meet other family unit members (due east.thousand., grandparents). 3) Kid is bored. four) Child cannot appoint in hobbies/sports. 5) Conflicts about media usage (e.yard., mobile phone, computer, tablet). half dozen) Me or my partner are more irritable than usual and sometimes overreact. 7) More than disputes with siblings. viii) Child cannot get out the flat/house as he/she wants to. nine) Conflicts well-nigh doing schoolwork or other duties. 10) Conflicts nigh keeping a daily routine. xi) Business organisation that other people might get sick. 12) Kid is constantly surrounded by one parent at habitation. xiii) Others. fourteen) Concern nigh getting ill oneself.

https://doi.org/10.1371/periodical.pone.0253473.g002

Social relationships of children (N = 2672)

Due to the state-ordered restrictions, children were non able to visit (pre)school. Indicators of how much children miss their (pre)schoolhouse and friends are displayed in Fig 3. The majority of preschool and schoolhouse-anile children asked ever, sometimes, or ofttimes when their preschool or school will open over again (> 60%). The hateful level was comparable in younger (M = 3.08, SD = i.26) and older children (M = 3.05, SD = 1.17), t(2670) = 0.62, p = .533. In particular, more than 70% of parents bespeak that their child misses other children or friendships conspicuously or strongly. This was stronger in older (M = 4.fifteen, SD = 0.92) compared to younger children (1000 = 3.98, SD = ane.01), t(2670) = -4.07, p < .001.

Contacts outside of the household (N = 2627)

In order to examine children'south contacts exterior of the household, we asked whether children played with others from different households (friends, neighbors, family members, attends emergency childcare groups) or whether nothing practical (multiple responses possible). For the post-obit assay, we excluded 15 children whose parent replied inconsistently to the question (selecting both "nothing applies" and one of the other response options). Overall, a number of families reported that their child played occasionally with friends (15%), neighbors (28%), or family unit members living in a dissimilar household (13%; see Fig iv). Independent of single parenthood, playing with neighbors was reported well-nigh often, if whatever reply was applicable. Particularly single parents reported that their child played with other family members.

Fig four. Percentage of parents reporting that their child plays occasionally with friends, neighbors, family members who lived in a different household, that their kid occasionally visits the emergency childcare, or that nothing of the same applies.

The percentages are carve up for single parents and not-single parents.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0253473.g004

Children's trouble behaviors (Northward = 3352)

Nosotros examined children's problem behavior on three dimensions: emotional symptoms, conduct problems, and hyperactivity/inattention. In particular, we compared problem behavior between children coming from single parent (n = 197) and not-single parent families (n = 3159), and between simply children (n = 651) and children with siblings (northward = 2738). The mean sums beyond children on each subscale are displayed in Fig 5. We computed a multiple linear regressions for each scale, addressing the relation between coming from a single parent family or not and between being an simply child or not and each problem behavior. We controlled for the age of the kid, gender of the child, parental educational caste, and housing situation (apartment/house, balcony, pocket-size garden, big garden) past adding these variables as separate predictors. For these regressions, we excluded 10 children of diverse gender or for whom gender was not reported and 27 children whose caregiver replied ambiguously about their housing situation. The results of the regressions are presented in Table two. Children from single parent families showed more than emotional symptoms compared to children from not-unmarried parent families. Besides, only children showed more emotional symptoms and hyperactivity/inattention than children with siblings. Less hyperactivity/inattention was reported for children living in a house (M = 4.01, SD = ii.29) compared to children living in an apartment (M = 4.38, SD = 2.33). Children, who had a big garden at home, showed less hyperactivity/inattention (M = 3.93, SD = 2.27) and less conduct problems (K = 3.23, SD = 2.10) compared to children without a large garden (hyperactivity/inattention: M = 4.32, SD = 2.33; bear problems: Grand = iii.38, SD = 2.15). Parental education related negatively to all aspects of children'southward problem behavior.

Fig 5. Means of problem behavior on each subscale across children.

A: Children divided by their family unit background (single parent; non-single parent). B: Children divided by their sibling status (only child; not-only child).

https://doi.org/ten.1371/periodical.pone.0253473.g005

Changes in children's quality of life (North = 3389)

Fig 6 displays changes in children's psychological well-being, moods and emotions, gratuitous time, family unit life, and children's full general satisfaction. A score of 4 indicates no change in comparison to the situation before the pandemic and the associated restrictions. Nosotros computed 1-sample t-tests to compare means on each scale against 4. On the one hand, children's emotions, moods, and their general satisfaction turned lower or more negative since the start of the pandemic and the associated restrictions, ps < .001, ds range from 0.35–0.41. On the other hand, children's free time and family life turned more positive, psouthward < .001, ds range from 0.24–0.54.

We computed a multiple linear regression on children's full general satisfaction in order to investigate which factors mainly contribute to children'due south well-beingness (Due north = 2672). For that purpose, we considered children'south age, children'southward stress level, parental increase in stress level, children'due south missing of other children or friends, and whether children had contact to people outside the household as predictors. Tabular array 3 presents the regression results. Children's general satisfaction related negatively to children's stress level, parental stress level, and the level children missed other children or friends. In addition, the results show a small relation between children's age and general satisfaction. With increasing age, children were less satisfied.

Give-and-take

The present written report aimed to uncover the situation of children and their families during the most restrictive lockdown period of COVID-xix thus far. By means of an online questionnaire, parents reported on their own and their children'southward well-beingness, stress experiences, and demographic characteristics. Results showed that the majority of both, parents and children, experienced lockdown-related stress. For children, non beingness able to run into with friends and family members exterior the household presented the almost challenging attribute of the lockdown. Older children evidenced more than emotional symptoms too as less comport issues and hyperactivity than younger children. Single parenthood and existence an only child were associated with more child bug. These findings highlight the furnishings of lockdown measures on families during COVID-19 and add to the growing body of studies showing similar findings in different countries [41–43].

Our findings highlight family challenges during the lockdown. In detail, parents reported more hyperactivity and conduct issues for younger as compared to older children. One should exist aware that our results could mirror normative historic period-related changes. Previous research has shown normative age-related decreases in hyperactivity and bear bug for girls and increases in emotional symptoms for boys and girls [44]. Given that we lack a direct comparison with the situation before the lockdown, we cannot quantify to which extent the difficulties reflect normative age-related changes and to which extent they are related to the pandemic restrictions. Considering a relevance of the restrictions, age differences might be related to the however limited self-regulative capacities of younger children [5]. Younger children might have been specially challenged past adapting to a less structured life at abode, every bit preschools could rely less on online teaching than schools and many parents were highly involved in restructuring their professional duties. Notably, older children showed more emotional problems than younger children. Information technology is possible that older children might have been more than emotionally challenged past the absence of their friends, who play an important office in the emotional well-being and regulation in middle babyhood [twenty, 21]. Although we need to be cautious in our interpretation of this set of variables, they offer an overview on the challenges with which families had to deal and they provide the background for the estimation of children'due south and parents' stress during the lockdown period.

Chiefly, express or non-existent contact with other children, friends, and the extended family seems to be i of the most critical factors for children'southward stress during the lockdown. This becomes evident on multiple layers. Parents reported missing other children and family members equally the main reason for children'southward stress and indicated that the majority of children frequently asked about reopening of (pre)school. The seriousness is further underscored by one third of parents reporting that their child occasionally played with children from other households, thereby violating governmental policies. These findings speak to theories highlighting the importance of the mesosystem (extended family unit, peers, neighbors etc.) for child well-existence [nine]. They also underline theoretical considerations about contacts exterior the core family every bit a resilience factor [45] and point to peer relationships as a crucial factor in children'due south abilities to cope with social upheaval induced by COVID-19.

With regard to sociodemographic factors, the current findings reveal a negative relation between parental pedagogy level and all aspects of kid problem behaviors. Previous research on this relation provides mixed evidence, with some studies showing negative relations betwixt maternal or paternal education and kid trouble behaviors [46–48], and others suggesting only a relation with hyperactivity/inattention [49] or no relation with changes in externalizing or internalizing behaviors across middle childhood [50]. While the current study suggests that particularly children of parents with relatively lower education expressed problems, these findings might partly reflect a general design, irrespective of the pandemic.

Another finding suggests that unmarried parenthood is associated with children'southward well-being during the lockdown, peculiarly concerning children's emotional state. Even so, as previous research revealed that children from divorced families generally evidence more internalizing and externalizing behavior problems [51, 52], we take to be cautious in attributing these differences particularly to the lockdown situation. Nevertheless, these findings highlight the special challenge for single-parent families. This becomes likewise axiomatic in the finding that peculiarly children from unmarried parents met family members from dissimilar households. Due to the very limited access to extra-familiar resources, such as caretaking arrangements and interactions with friends or neighbors during the lockdown, single parents might take been faced with greater challenges concerning childcare, financial insecurity, or workplace reorganization than not-single parents. In improver, as findings indicate that unmarried parents in general feel more stress than two-parent families [37, 38], this might have fabricated them more vulnerable during the lockdown in the first place. Thus, our study suggests that targeting single parents during COVID-nineteen related measures could exist a promising avenue for interventions to ensure child and family well-being. For example, one could argue that children of single parents should exist prioritized in the resource allotment of emergency child care slots.

Beyond single parenthood, sibling status was related to child problems during the lockdown. Compared with children having siblings, only children have been reported to testify more than emotional and hyperactivity problems simply less conduct bug. Previous research suggests that only children and children with siblings exercise not differ in means of adjustment or mental health [53, 54]. We might thus conclude that only children show increased emotional and hyperactivity issues compared to children with siblings particularly in the lockdown situation. If i considers this finding forth with the finding that the most stressful aspect of the lockdown was for children to not run into friends and extended family, only children could have experienced a culmination of social isolation. That is, while children with siblings might have been able to compensate for their absent friends by engaging more intensively with their siblings, only children were devoid of whatever peer contact. Thus, sibling condition seems to be associated with child well-beingness as far as social distancing measures are concerned.

A further factor that relates to children's problem behaviors is their housing situation. Peculiarly the availability of a balcony or a large garden seems to be negatively linked with hyperactivity and deport problems. Living in a house compared to an flat seems to be linked with less hyperactivity. Research on housing characteristics and well-being suggests that children'south trouble behaviors by and large chronicle to housing quality [55] and housing type (high-ascension-dwelling vs. depression-rise- or house-dwelling, [56]). Other studies on housing situations report neighborhood effects with increased externalizing problems in children living with low-SES neighbors [57]. Since nosotros lack a systematic comparison with the situation before the lockdown, we have to be cautious in terminal that relations between housing characteristics and problem behaviors are specific to the pandemic. Moreover, it is possible that these relations are attributable to families' financial situation. Nosotros did non control for parents' socioeconomic status, only for parental pedagogy, which tin serve as ane indicator thereof [e.g., 48, 58]. Therefore, associations with household amenities may selection up relations between family unit financial resource and kid problems.

Apart from identifying factors that relate to children's well-beingness, our results advise that the lockdown has not just negative consequences for children and their families. Specifically, children were reported to have more family unit satisfaction than before the pandemic. During the lockdown, children may take valued the additional time spent with their parents, which possibly led to more family satisfaction. That is, if the family unit system had enough resources, children and parents could meaningfully engage with one another autonomously from external social duties. This positive consequence might have been especially pronounced if parent-child relationship quality was loftier at the beginning of the pandemic. Thus, our findings suggest that at that place may be positive side-effects of the lockdown. We have to leave it to futurity research to study these furnishings in more than item.

The current findings allow for some policy implications. Every bit outlined above, the reduced possibility to meet friends and family unit members emerged as a ascendant factor for children's well-existence. Although social distancing measures are required for slowing the spread of the virus [59], these findings suggest that policy measures should try to facilitate social relationships nevertheless. Allowing to come across other children and family members in compliance with hygiene regulations might be a suitable strategy to residuum children'due south need for social contact, parents' need for external back up, and pandemic-related preventive measures. Across that, the findings encourage policy measures that focus specially on children from single parent families, only children, and children from constrained household amenities. Because college levels of trouble behaviors are reported, offering the limited number of emergency child intendance slots for these children might be a benign strategy.

Limitations and determination

Although our study contributes to our understanding of the psychological context every bit well equally the consequences of the pandemic for young children, information technology also comes with a number of limitations. First, we relied on parental report measures to get insights into the family unit dynamics during the COVID-19 pandemic. These might be particularly limited to appraise children's emotional experiences. While in that location were few other options for large-calibration data collection during the lockdown, as personal contact was prohibited, future research should utilize more directly methods to assess children'south behavior and experience during these challenging times. Second, our sample constitutes a convenience sample in which parents of high socioeconomic status are overrepresented, which decreases the external validity of the present written report. This sample bias might outcome from the online questionnaire format, which requires an environment with technical devices and expert net access. Although there are also a number of families from low socioeconomic background, more than research is needed to more than accurately determine pandemic related effects across the socioeconomic calibration. Moreover, as we did non control for families' socioeconomic status, relations between child outcomes and household civilities may pick up relations with families' financial resources. Tertiary, our study is express to the age range from young to heart childhood. Information technology would exist very insightful to see how older children and adolescents were able to cope with the pandemic and which unlike difficulties emerge across the span of childhood and adolescents. Fourth, the electric current written report examined one time indicate during the pandemic. As a direct comparison with the situation prior to the pandemic is defective, nosotros cannot determine to which caste relations of demographic variables with problem behaviors and well-beingness are specific to the pandemic. In addition, longitudinal studies that examine parents' and children's well-beingness on several time points are needed to sympathize long-lasting effects of the lockdown measures and longitudinal relations between parent and kid well-being.

Taken together, our report documents the psychological well-existence and problems of children and families during the strictest COVID-19 related lockdown so far. In particular, both parents and children feel high levels of stress, with parental stress constituting one avenue to the reported internalizing and externalizing problems in children. While several demographic variables seem to relate to how families and children cope with the pandemic, the virtually important ones seem to exist parent status (single, not single parent) and sibling status (but child, non simply child). With social isolation as the major factor in children'due south pandemic-related stress, there also seem to exist singular positive effects regarding family life. Thus, our study can speak to public policy measures and interventions targeting family unit well-being during the unfolding COVID-19 pandemic.

Acknowledgments

We thank all parents for participating in this study.

References

1. 1. Prime H, Wade M, Browne DT. Risk and resilience in family well-being during the COVID-19 pandemic. Am Psychol. 2020;75(five):631–43. pmid:32437181
   • View Article
   • PubMed/NCBI
   • Google Scholar
2. 2. Feldman DH. Cognitive development in babyhood: A gimmicky perspective. In: Weiner IB, editor. Handbook of Psychology: Vol six Developmental Psychology. Wiley; 2012. p. 197–214.
3. 3. Flavell JH. Cognitive development: Children's knowledge about the listen. Annu Rev Psychol. 1999;l:21–45. pmid:10074674
   • View Article
   • PubMed/NCBI
   • Google Scholar
4. iv. Eisenberg Due north, Fabes RA. Emotion and its regulation in early development. In: Eisenberg N, Fabes RA, editors. New directions for child development, No 55: The Jossey-Bass educational activity series. Jossey-Bass; 1992.
5. 5. Best JR, Miller PH. A developmental perspective on executive function. Kid Dev. 2010;81(6):1641–threescore. pmid:21077853
   • View Commodity
   • PubMed/NCBI
   • Google Scholar
6. 6. Chin Chiliad, Sung M, Son S, Yoo J, Lee J, Chang YE. Changes in family unit life and relationships during the COVID-19 pandemic and their associations with perceived stress. Fam Environ Res. 2020;58(iii):447–61.
   • View Article
   • Google Scholar
7. vii. Marques de Miranda D, da Silva Athanasio B, Sena Oliveira AC, Simoes-e-Silva Air conditioning. How is COVID-19 pandemic impacting mental health of children and adolescents? Int J Disaster Hazard Reduct. 2020;51(101845).
   • View Article
   • Google Scholar
8. eight. Jiao WY, Wang LN, Liu J, Fang SF, Jiao FY, Pettoello-Mantovani Thousand, et al. Behavioral and emotional disorders in children during the COVID-xix epidemic. J Pediatr. 2020;221:264–half dozen. pmid:32248989
   • View Article
   • PubMed/NCBI
   • Google Scholar
9. 9. Bronfenbrenner U, Morris PA. The bioecological model of homo evolution. In: Damon W, Lerner RM, editors. Handbook of Child Psychology. John Wiley & Sons Inc.; 2007. p. 793–828.
10. 10. Masten Equally, Motti-Stefanidi F. Multisystem resilience for children and youth in disaster: Reflections in the context of COVID-19. Advers Resil Sci. 2020. pmid:32838305
    • View Article
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
11. 11. Ungar M, Ghazinour K, Richter J. Almanac research review: What is resilience inside the social environmental of human development? J Child Psychol Psychiatry. 2013;54(4):348–66. pmid:23215898
    • View Article
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
12. 12. Sprang Thousand, Silman Grand. Posttraumatic stress disorder in parents and youth later health-related disasters. Disaster Med Public Health Prep. 2013;7(1):105–10. pmid:24618142
    • View Article
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
13. 13. Brooks SK, Webster RK, Smith LE, Woodland L, Wessely Southward, Greenberg N, et al. The psychological affect of quarantine and how to reduce information technology: rapid review of the evidence. Lancet. 2020;395(10227):912–20. pmid:32112714
    • View Article
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
14. 14. Bowlby J. Attachment and loss, Vol. ane: Attachment. Basic Books; 1982.
15. 15. Thompson RA. The legacy of early attachments. Kid Dev. 2000;71(one):145–52. pmid:10836568
    • View Article
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
16. 16. Beauchaine TP, Cicchetti D. Emotion dysregulation and emerging psychopathology: A transdiagnostic, transdisciplinary perspective. Dev Psychopathol. 2019;31(3):799–804. pmid:31290735
    • View Article
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
17. 17. Cicchetti D, Ackerman BP, Izard CE. Emotions and emotion regulation in developmental psychopathology. Dev Psychopathol. 1995;7(1):1–x.
    • View Commodity
    • Google Scholar
18. xviii. Hay DF, Payne A, Chadwick A. Peer relations in childhood. J Child Psychol Psychiatry. 2004;45(1):84–108. pmid:14959804
    • View Article
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
19. 19. Laursen B, Hartup WW. The origins of reciprocity and social exchange in friendships. New Dir Kid Adolesc Dev. 2002;(95):27–forty. pmid:11933530
    • View Article
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
20. 20. Newcomb AF, Bagwell CL. Children's friendship relations: A meta-analytic review. Psychol Balderdash. 1995;117(2):306–47.
    • View Commodity
    • Google Scholar
21. 21. Rubin KH, Chen X, Coplan R, Buskirk AA, Wojslawowicz JC. Peer relationships in childhood. In: Bornstein MH, Lamb ME, editors. Developmental science: An advanced textbook. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers; 2005. p. 469–512.
22. 22. Paulus Thousand, Moore C. The development of recipient-dependent sharing behavior and sharing expectations in preschool children. Dev Psychol. 2014;50(3):914–21. pmid:23978297
    • View Article
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
23. 23. Furman W, Bierman KL. Developmental changes in young children'southward conceptions of friendship. Child Dev. 1983;54(3):549–56. pmid:25418994
    • View Article
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
24. 24. Zahn-Waxler C, Radke-Yarrow M, Wagner E, Chapman M. Development of concern for others. Dev Psychol. 1992;28(1):126–36.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
25. 25. Eisenberg Northward, Spinrad TL, Morris AS. Empathy-related responding in children. In: Killen M, Smetana JG, editors. Handbook of moral development. Psychology Press; 2014. p. 184–207.
26. 26. Wright KD, Asmundson GJG. Health feet in children: Development and psychometric backdrop of the babyhood affliction attitude scales. Cogn Behav Ther. 2003;32(4):194–202. pmid:16291551
    • View Article
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
27. 27. Rask CU, Elberling H, Skovgaard AM, Thomsen PH, Fink P. Parental-reported wellness feet symptoms in v- to 7-year-one-time children: The Copenhagen Child Cohort CCC 2000. Psychosomatics. 2012;53:58–67. pmid:22221722
    • View Article
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
28. 28. Remmerswaal D, Muris P. Children's fear reactions to the 2009 Swine Flu pandemic: The office of threat information as provided by parents. J Anxiety Disord. 2011;25(iii):444–9. pmid:21159486
    • View Article
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
29. 29. Vasey M, Dadds MR. The developmental psychopathology of anxiety. Oxford University Press; 2001.
30. thirty. Granic I, Patterson GR. Toward a comprehensive model of antisocial evolution: A dynamic systems approach. Psychol Rev. 2006;113(i):101–31. pmid:16478303
    • View Commodity
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
31. 31. Masarik AS, Conger RD. Stress and kid evolution: A review of the Family Stress Model. Curr Opin Psychol. 2017;xiii:85–90. pmid:28813301
    • View Article
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
32. 32. Stone LL, Mares SHW, Otten R, Engels RCME, Janssens JMAM. The co-development of parenting stress and childhood internalizing and externalizing problems. J Psychopathol Behav Assess. 2016;38(i):76–86. pmid:27069304
    • View Article
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
33. 33. Costa NM, Weems CF, Pellerin K, Dalton R. Parenting stress and childhood psychopathology: An examination of specificity to internalizing and externalizing symptoms. J Psychopathol Behav Assess. 2006;28(two):113–22.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
34. 34. Mackler JS, Kelleher RT, Shanahan L, Calkins SD, Keane SP, O'Brien Grand. Parenting stress, parental reactions, and externalizing behavior from ages 4 to 10. J Marriage Fam. 2005;77(ii):388–406.
    • View Commodity
    • Google Scholar
35. 35. Grant KE, Compas BE, Stuhlmacher AF, Thurm AE, McMahon SD, Halpert JA. Stressors and child and boyish psychopathology: Moving from markers to mechanisms of risk. Psychol Bull. 2003;129(iii):447–66. pmid:12784938
    • View Article
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
36. 36. Tandon Yard, Cardeli E, Luby J. Internalizing disorders in early childhood: A review of depressive and feet disorders. Child Adolesc Psychiatr Clin N Am. 2009;18(3):593–610. pmid:19486840
    • View Article
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
37. 37. Gringlas K, Weinraub M. The more things modify… Single parenting revisited. Vol. sixteen, Periodical of Family Issues. 1995. p. 29–52.
    • View Commodity
    • Google Scholar
38. 38. Williford AP, Calkins SD, Keane SP. Predicting alter in parenting stress across early on childhood: Kid and maternal factors. J Abnorm Child Psychol. 2007;35(two):251–63. pmid:17186365
    • View Article
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
39. 39. Ravens-Sieberer U. The KIDSCREEN questionnaires: Quality of life questionnaires for children and adolescents—Handbook. Pabst Science Publishers; 2006.
40. forty. Goodman R. The Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire: A research note. J Kid Psychol Psychiatry. 1997; pmid:9255702
    • View Article
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
41. 41. Spinelli G, Lionetti F, Pastore G, Fasolo Grand. Parents' stress and children'due south psychological issues in families facing the COVID-nineteen outbreak in Italy. Forepart Psychol. 2020;11:1713. pmid:32719646
    • View Article
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
42. 42. Yeasmin Due south, Banik R, Hossain South, Hossain MN, Mahumud R, Salma N, et al. Affect of COVID-nineteen pandemic on the mental health of children in People's republic of bangladesh: A cross-sectional written report. Child Youth Serv Rev. 2020;117:105277. pmid:32834275
    • View Commodity
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
43. 43. Romero Eastward, López-Romero L, Domínguez-Álvarez B, Villar P, Gómez-Fraguela JA. Testing the effects of COVID-19 confinement in spanish children: The role of parents' distress, emotional issues and specific parenting. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020;17(19):6975. pmid:32987641
    • View Commodity
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
44. 44. Janitza S, Klipker K, Hölling H. Age-specific norms and validation of the German SDQ parent version based on a nationally representative sample (KiGGS). Eur Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2020;29:123–36. pmid:31016398
    • View Article
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
45. 45. Barnard CP. Resiliency: A shift in our perception? Am J Fam Ther. 1994;22(2):135–44.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
46. 46. Klein AM, Otto Y, Fuchs S, Zenger M, Von Klitzing K. Psychometric properties of the parent-rated SDQ in preschoolers. Eur J Psychol Assess. 2013;29(2):96–104.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
47. 47. Mieloo C, Raat H, van Oort F, Bevaart F, Vogel I, Donker M, et al. Validity and reliability of the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire in v–vi year olds: Differences by gender or by parental teaching? PLoS One. 2012;seven(five). pmid:22629332
    • View Article
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
48. 48. Bøe T, Sivertsen B, Heiervang Due east, Goodman R, Lundervold AJ, Hysing M. Socioeconomic status and child mental wellness: The role of parental emotional well-being and parenting practices. J Abnorm Child Psychol. 2014;42(5):705–15. pmid:24150864
    • View Article
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
49. 49. Woerner W, Becker A, Rothenberger A. Normative data and scale properties of the German language parent SDQ. Eur Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2004;thirteen(ii). pmid:15243780
    • View Article
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
50. 50. Lansford JE, Malone PS, Tapanya Southward, Tirado LMU, Zelli A, Alampay LP, et al. Household income predicts trajectories of kid internalizing and externalizing behavior in high-, middle-, and low-income countries. Int J Behav Dev. 2019;43(1):74–9. pmid:30739968
    • View Commodity
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
51. 51. Amato PR, Keith B. Parental divorce and the well-being of children: A meta-assay. Psychol Bull. 1991;110(one):26–46. pmid:1832495
    • View Article
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
52. 52. Wood JJ, Repetti RL, Roesch SC. Divorce and children's adjustment problems at abode and schoolhouse: The role of depressive/withdrawn parenting. Child Psychiatry Hum Dev. 2004;35(2):121–42. pmid:15577278
    • View Article
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
53. 53. Bojanowski S, Führer D, Romer G, Bergelt C, von Klitzing Grand, Brähler E, et al. The mental health of only children and of siblings of parents with cancer—Get-go results of a multicenter written report in Federal republic of germany. Z Kinder Jugendpsychiatr Psychother. 2014;42(4):223–32. pmid:25005900
    • View Commodity
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
54. 54. Falbo T, Polit DF. Quantitative review of the only kid literature: Research evidence and theory development. Psychol Bull. 1986;100(ii):176–89.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
55. 55. Coley RL, Leventhal T, Lynch AD, Kull Chiliad. Relations betwixt housing characteristics and the well-being of low-income children and adolescents. Dev Psychol. 2013;49(9):1775–89. pmid:23244408
    • View Commodity
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
56. 56. Evans GW, Wells NM, Moch A. Housing and mental health: A review of the evidence and a methodological and conceptual critique. J Soc Issues. 2003;59(3):475–500.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
57. 57. Leventhal T, Brooks-Gunn J. The neighborhoods they live in: The effects of neighborhood residence on kid and boyish outcomes. Psychol Bull. 2000;126(2):309–37. pmid:10748645
    • View Article
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
58. 58. Lampert T, Hoebel J, Kuntz B, Müters S, Kroll LE. Messung des sozioökonomischen Status und des subjektiven sozialen Status in KiGGS Welle 2. J Heal Monit. 2018;3(1):114–33.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
59. 59. Greenstone Grand, Nigam V. Does social distancing matter? Academy of Chicago, Becker Friedman Institute for Economic science Working Newspaper No. 2020–26. 2020.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar

yocumpandrear.blogspot.com

Source: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0253473

Share this post