Can preschool children learn abduction prevention skills?
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the feasibility of training children as young as 3 years old to engage in appropriate responses to potentially dangerous situations. Eighty-five children ranging in age from 3 to 5 years from various preschools were randomly assigned to one of two groups (po...
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Others |
| Published: |
Scholarly Commons
1994
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://scholarlycommons.pacific.edu/uop_etds/2765 https://scholarlycommons.pacific.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3764&context=uop_etds |
| Summary: | The purpose of this study was to evaluate the feasibility of training children as young as 3 years old to engage in appropriate responses to potentially dangerous situations. Eighty-five children ranging in age from 3 to 5 years from various preschools were randomly assigned to one of two groups (post-test-only or pretest-post-test). Treatment involved the training package, Children Need to Know: Personal Safety Training (Kraizer, 1981). Training effectiveness was assessed by an analog measure of self-protection, in which a confederate adult approached and verbally attempted to lure the child from the setting. The results showed that (a) in comparing pretest and post-test scores of the pretest-post-test group, the post-test mean was significantly higher than the pretest mean; (b) in comparing the pretest scores from the pretest-post-test group and the post-test scores from the post-test-only group, no significant interactions or main effects were found; these results with the results in (a) support the idea of a testing effect and/or a pretest sensitization effect; and (c) in comparing the post-test scores from the pretest-post-test group and post-test scores from the post-test-only group, there were no significant interactions, however there was a significant main effect for Group. These results show that post-test scores were higher than pretest scores indicating the possibility of treatment increasing post-test means. However, the post-test-only group means were not significantly higher than the pretest means from the pretest-post-test group. Additionally, the significant difference between the post-test means from the two groups indicate there was a testing effect or possibly a pretest sensitization effect, or both. (Abstract shortened by UMI.) |
|---|