These authors contributed equally to this work.
This study aimed to investigate the prevalence of externalizing behavior problems (EBPs) and its influencing factors among Hui left-behind children (LBC) in rural China.
A cross-sectional study was conducted among school students from the southern rural areas in Ningxia, China (2012–2013). The general self-made questionnaire, Egma Minnen av Bardndosna Uppforstran, Eysenck Personality Questionnaire (for Children), Piers-Harris Children’s Self-Concept Scale, and Achenbach’s Child Behavior Checklist (for parents) were used to investigate the related information. Binary logistic regressions were conducted.
The prevalence of EBPs in boys Hui LBC was significantly higher than that of non-LBC (12.37% vs. 6.84%, χ2=4.09, and p=0.04). Multivariate logistic regression analysis showed that low self-awareness of behavior (odds ratio [OR]=29.78), introversion (OR=21.67) and intermediate personality (OR=15.83), poor academic performance (OR=11.65) and both parent migrating (OR=2.73) were the risk factors for the EBPs of Hui LBC, while middle and high father refusal and denial (OR=0.11, OR=0.09) were their protective factors.
Our findings suggest that both parent migrating is a potential risk factor for EBPs among Hui LBC. Hui boys LBC should be paid more attention when formulating relevant policies.
Children’s behavioral problems refer to the abnormal behaviors that affect children’s social functions, including behavioral and emotional problems, which can be divided into two dimensions: externalizing behavior and internalizing behavior disorders [
Ningxia Hui autonomous region is located in the northwest of China, with a population of 6.30 million. Main ethnic population are Hui and Han in Ningxia, among which Hui population accounts for about 1/3 of the total population of the autonomous region. The Hui population in the southern mountainous region of Ningxia accounted for more than 60 percent, with severe water shortage, barren land, closed transportation, economy backwardness and large labor export. Miaomiao et al. [
Therefore, the aims of this study were to assess the prevalence of EBPs and the influencing factors among the Hui LBC in the rural areas of China. Specifically, we tested the following hypotheses: First, the EBPs would be more prevalent in Hui LBC than non-LBC. Second, under the background of Hui culture, the EBPs of Hui LBC would be related to parenting style, children’s personality and children’s self-concept. Finally, socio-demographic variables, including age, gender, would be correlated with the EBPs of the Hui LBC.
Data were collected from a cross-sectional survey conducted in two counties Xiji, Haiyuan of Ningxia Hui autonomous region in southern rural mountains from December 2012 to September 2013. Using multistage stratified random cluster sampling methods, we selected six primary schools, five junior high schools in XinYing Township, HongYao township, XingLong town, Xi ‘An town, ShuTai township form Xiji and Haiyuan countries. One class from grade 1 to grade 9 was randomly selected from each school. A total of 41 classes were selected for the survey. A total of 2,000 questionnaires were distributed, and 1,905 valid ones were recovered, with an effective rate of 95.25%, among which 955 (50.13%) Hui ethnicity children were the subjects of this study. In these 955 participants, 383 were LBC. Inclusion criteria for LBC: 1) who stay in a rural area for more than half a year while both parents or single parents working outside. 2) They are taken care of by their grandparents, relatives, neighbors, single parent, or themselves. They are aged from 6 to 16 years old. 3) Hui ethnicity LBC. Exclusion criteria: 1) whose both parents or single parent has worked outside for less than 6 months; 2) having a serious physical or mental illness, who diagnosed with physical and mental diseases in the hospital and still taking medication. The study was approved by the ethics committee of Ningxia Medical University.
Sociodemographic characteristics: information about students’ gender, age, nationality, academic performance, caregiver and their education level, parents’ education level and occupation, frequency contact with parents and frequency contact with parents, only child, parents’ divorced and parental migration status was collected.
The Achenbach Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL/6–18) in Chinese was used in this survey by instructing parents or guardians who were familiar with the children to report the children’s behavioral problems, which is standardized well and has satisfactory psychometric properties [
This scale was developed by Perris et al. [
Personality was assessed using Eysenck Personality Questionnaire for Chinese children which revised by Gong26 This version has 88 true-false items and includes four sub-scales: evaluating neuroticism (N), extroversion-introversion (E), psychoticism (P), and lie (L) dimensions. Part of the scale is the reverse scoring title. We calculated raw scores of each subscale, and converted into standard T points, standard T <38.5 for typical low score, 38.5 to 43.3 for tended to low score, 43.3 to 56.7 for the middle score, 56.7 to 61.5 as the tendency to high score, >61.5 for the typical high score. In binary logistic regression analysis, the typical low score and tendency low score were further combined into low score type, and the typical high score and tendency high score were combined into high score type. The Cronbach’s alpha was 0.70 for the total scale, 0.76, 0.76, 0.88, and 0.77 for E, P, N, and L, respectively.
Piers-Harris Children’s Self-Concept Scale (PHCSS) is a selfrating Scale for Children compiled by American psychologists Piers and Harris in 1969 and revised in 1974. It is mainly used to evaluate Children’s self-concept. It is composed of 80 items, including 6 sub-scales of behavioral, intelligence and school status, physical appearance and attributes, anxiety, popularity, happiness and satisfaction. The answer is 1, no 0, part of the question is the reverse score. In 2002, Su et al. [
We have been supported by the local education bureau and the leaders of the surveyed schools. The head teacher issued the informed consent for the survey to the parents’ Wechat group, and explained the purpose and significance of the survey in detail to the students and their parents/guardians, as well as the way of filling in the questionnaire and the confidential method. Written informed consent signed by the participants and their parents/guardians was taken back to school. Among the caretakers who lives with the child who spends the most time with the child gave priority to the evaluation. The head teacher then handed the participants’ written informed consent to the investigators. After the questionnaire is distributed in class, the students are required to complete the questionnaire within the prescribed time (60–80 minutes), and the questionnaire is collected by on-site inspection. For students from grade one to grade three, the researchers read each item to the subjects in neutral, non-suggestive language, and asked them to understand and then answer. Achenbach CBCL was taken home by the students and handed over to the guardian to fill in after the communication between the head teacher and the parents. It was col lected within 3 days. For the missing students or incomplete answers, we conducted a family supplementary survey. A total of 122 LBC of Hui ethnicity were interviewed using the household survey. All investigators were trained in advance.
Epidata3.0 software (The EpiData Association, Copenhagen, Denmark) was used to establish the database, double input data, and SPSS 19.0 for Windows software (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA) was used for statistical analysis. The chisquare test was used for categorical variables and the independent sample t-test for continuous variables. Binary logistic regression was used to analyze the risk factors of EBPs in Hui ethnicity LBC. All tests were two-tailed, and p-value smaller than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.
As seen in
When examining the prevalence of specific symptoms and EBPs in Hui ethnicity children, we found that there was no significant difference in the prevalence of specific symptoms and EBPs between Hui ethnicity LBC and non-LBC aged 6–11 (
As shown in the
As shown in the
First, chi-square test was conducted on the categorical variables that affected the incidence of EBPs of Hui ethnicity LBC. It was found that the frequency of contact with teachers, academic performance and parents’ working out conditions were related to EBPs of Hui ethnicity LBC (all p<0.05) (
Second, an independent sample t-test was conducted on the measurement data. The results showed that behavior, anxiety, popularity, happiness and satisfaction, total score of selfconcept, father punishment and strictness, father favoring subjects, father refusal and denial, father over-protection, mother over-interference and over-protection, mother refusal and denial, mother punishment and strictness, E, P, N, and L were significantly related to EBP of Hui ethnicity LBC (
The total score of EBPs of Hui ethnicity LBC was taken as the dependent variable (negative=0, positive=1), and 19 factors with statistical significance in univariate analysis, including behavior, anxiety, popularity, happiness and satisfaction, total score of self-concept, father punishment and strictness, father favoring subjects, father refusal and denial, father overprotection, mother over-interference and overprotection, mother refusal and denial, mother punishment and strictness, E, P, N, L, frequency contact with teacher, academic performance and parents migration status were taken as the independent variables. Multivariate non-conditional logistic regression analysis, by using forward conditions, into the standard of alpha=0.05, exclusion criteria=0.10, showed that low selfawareness of behavior (odds ratio [OR]=29.78), introversion (OR=21.67) and intermediate personality (OR=15.83), poor academic performance (OR=11.65) and both parent migrating (OR=2.73) were the risk factors for the EBPs of Hui ethnicity LBC, while middle father refusal and denial (OR=0.11) and high father refusal and denial (OR=0.09) were the protective factors against the EBPs of Hui ethnicity LBC (
This study results showed that 97 out of 955 Hui children had EBPs, with a prevalence of 10.16%. Of the 383 Hui LBC, 48 had EBPs, with a prevalence of 12.53%. A total of 49 out of 572 Hui ethnicity non-LBC had EBPs, with a prevalence of 8.57%. The prevalence of EBPs was not statistically significant difference between Hui ethnicity LBC and non-LBC. However, our results [
In this study, it was found that among Hui ethnicity LBC aged 6–11, the top four prevalence of CBCL-specific syndromes of male subjects were: depression (14.29%), schizoid (8.92%), obsessive-compulsive (7.14%), uncommunicative (7.14%) and EBPs (7.14%). The top four prevalence of CBCL specific syndromes of female subjects were EBPs (13.79%), schizoid-obsessive (12.07%), cruelty (10.34%) and somatic complaints (8.62%). There was no significant difference in prevalence of CBCL-specific syndromes and EBPs between Hui ethnicity LBC and non-LBC aged 6–11, which was not consistent with that reported by Liu et al. [
Among Hui ethnicity LBC aged 12–16, the top four prevalence of CBCL-specific syndromes of male students was: obsessive-compulsive (14.49%), EBP (14.49%), somatic complaints (13.77%), and hostility (11.59%). The top four prevalence of CBCL-specific symptoms for female was schizoid (18.32%), EBPs (12.21%), cruelty (9.16%), depressed-withdrawal (7.63%) and immaturity (7.63%). This study found that with the growth of age, the prevalence of EBPs of Hui ethnicity male LBC showed an increasing trend, while the prevalence of Hui ethnicity female LBC showed no increasing trend. It was also found that Hui ethnicity male LBC aged 12–16 had significantly higher EBPs than male non-LBC. In conclusion, our study suggested that Hui ethnicity LBC aged 12–16 had higher EBPs, especially for boys.
This study found that the score of hyperactivity factor of Hui ethnicity LBC aged 6–11 years old was significantly lower than that of non-LBC, and there were no significant statistically difference in other factors of CBCL and EBPs of Hui ethnicity LBC compared with non-LBC. We analyzed that one of the reasons may be the behavioral convergence of young children due to far away from parents and inferiority complex. Another reason is that children at this age are in primary school. Because they are far away from their parents, they learn and master certain interpersonal skills. Compared with the psychological rebellion of middle school students when they entered adolescence, primary school students had simple and peaceful psychology and relatively few behavioral problems.
Our findings showed that Hui ethnicity male LBC aged 12–16 had higher scores on schizoid, somatic complaints, uncommunicative, obsessive-compulsive, hostility, delinquent, aggression, hyperactivity and EBPs than those of male non- LBC, indicating that older Hui male LBC were more likely to have behavioral problems, which was consistent with that reported by Xu et al. [
The above results suggest that the high-age male of Hui LBC have a high prevalence rate of EBPs, which is a high-risk population in the group of LBC, and should be paid more attention to.
The results of univariate analysis showed that children’s gender, caregiver’s education level, parents’ education level, parents divorced and only child had no effect on EBPs of Hui ethnicity LBC, which was in line with the previous research results [
The results of multivariate analysis showed that low behavior score was risk factor for EBPs of Hui ethnicity LBC, indicating that the low score of self-concept behavior tended to cause Hui ethnicity LBC to have higher EBPs, which was consistent with the existing research [
The results of multivariate analysis showed that poor academic performance is an independent risk factor for the EBPs of Hui LBC. This finding is consistent with previous study has demonstrated that externalizing problem behavior is associated with academic underachievement [
This survey showed that the risk for the EBPs of Hui LBC whose parents both migrating was 2.73 times higher than that of one parent migrating, which indicated Hui LBC whose parents both migrating was more likely to exhibit the EBPs. This finding is consistent with previous study that has reported an increased risk of abnormal psychological behaviors when both parents migrating [
Our research also revealed that father refusal and denial above the middle level were protective factors against EBPs of Hui LBC, which was inconsistent with existing research reported that the positive correlation between EBPs and authoritarian parenting style [
Our research had several limitations. Firstly, due to the limited conditions, the sample population was single, involving only five township schools in two project demonstration counties, which limited the scalability of the research results and affected the external validity of this study. Secondly, we collected information from caregivers or parents about children’s behavioral problems, which might lead to bias. Thirdly, the scores of the nationwide norm sample used in this study were collected through an epidemiology survey in 1992. It might lead to limitations when we used it to assess children’s behavioral problems in current studies, as China has undergone dramatic development in the past decades. Finally, this survey is a cross-sectional study, and it is impossible to obtain detailed information about the complete development process and the overall trends of EBPs over time in Hui ethnicity LBC. Furthermore, the CBCL is adopted as a screening scale in this survey. Therefore, the prevalence of EBPs and CBCL symptoms of Hui ethnicity LBC cannot be used as the basis for the diagnosis of children’s emotional and behavioral problems. In order to provide more compelling evidence concerning influencing factors on EBPs of Hui nationality LBC, a longitudinal and prospective study is recommended to explore the mechanism of how these risk factors lead to EBPs.
Taken together, this study showed a higher prevalence of EBPs in boys Hui LBC. Boys Hui LBC aged 12–16 had higher prevalence of EBPs than boys Hui non-LBC. Our findings suggested that parental migration was a potential risk factor for EBPs among Hui LBC in rural China. Introverted personality, intermediate personality, low self-conscious of behavior, poor academic performance and both parents migrating are independent risk factors for the occurrence of EBPs of Hui LBC. While, father refusal and denial above the middle level are protective factors against EBPs of Hui LBC. When formulating relevant policies and undertaking age and gender specific intervention measures, influencing factors should be considered to reduce the incidence of EBPs in Hui LBC.
The datasets generated or analyzed during the study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.
The authors have no potential conflicts of interest to disclose.
Conceptualization: Xue Yu, Qiuli Li. Data curation: Lingling Wang, Miaomiao Liu. Formal analysis: Xue Yu, Lingling Wang. Funding acquisition: Xiuying Dai. Investigation: Lingling Wang, Miaomiao Liu. Methodology: Xue Yu. Project administration: Qiuli Li, Xiuying Dai. Resources: Qiuli Li. Software: Lingling Wang. Supervision: Qiuli Li. Validation: Lingling Wang, Miaomiao Liu. Visualization: Xue Yu. Writing—original draft: Xue Yu. Writing—review & editing: Xue Yu, Lingling Wang.
This research was financially supported by grants from “twelfth fiveyear” National science and technology for rural areas support program (2012BAJ18B07-2). The funder had no role in study design, data analysis and interpretation, or preparation of the manuscript.
The authors thank all participants in this study, as well as all the interviewers for data collection in this study.
The demographic characteristics between Hui ethnicity LBC and non-LBC
Characteristics | LBC (N=383) |
Non-LBC (N=572) |
χ2 | p-value | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
N | % | N | % | ||||
Sex | 2.01 | 0.16 | |||||
Male | 194 | 50.65 | 263 | 45.98 | |||
Female | 189 | 49.35 | 309 | 54.02 | |||
Age group (yr) | 0.38 | 0.55 | |||||
6–11 | 114 | 29.77 | 181 | 31.64 | |||
12–16 | 269 | 70.23 | 391 | 68.36 | |||
Age (mean±SD, yr) | 12.86±2.77 | 12.62±2.49 | 1.40 |
0.16 | |||
Only child | 0.92 | 0.34 | |||||
Yes | 15 | 3.92 | 16 | 2.80 | |||
No | 368 | 96.08 | 556 | 97.20 | |||
Mother alive | 2.52 | 0.11 | |||||
Yes | 375 | 97.91 | 567 | 99.13 | |||
No | 8 | 2.09 | 5 | 0.87 | |||
Father’s education level | 0.27 | 0.60 | |||||
Junior high school or higher | 77 | 20.10 | 123 | 21.50 | |||
Primary school or lower | 306 | 79.90 | 449 | 78.50 | |||
Maternal education level | 0.30 | 0.58 | |||||
Junior high school or higher | 29 | 7.57 | 49 | 8.57 | |||
Primary school or lower | 354 | 92.43 | 523 | 91.43 | |||
Caregiver’s education level | 0.38 | 0.54 | |||||
Junior high school or higher | 76 | 19.84 | 123 | 21.50 | |||
Primary school or lower | 307 | 80.16 | 449 | 78.50 | |||
Academic performance | 3.86 | 0.15 | |||||
Good (average score>80) | 53 | 13.84 | 102 | 17.83 | |||
Moderate (average score=60–80) | 262 | 68.41 | 358 | 62.59 | |||
Poor (average score<60) | 68 | 17.75 | 112 | 19.58 | |||
Frequency of contact with teachers | 5.52 | 0.14 | |||||
At least once a week | 26 | 6.79 | 38 | 6.64 | |||
At least once a month | 47 | 12.27 | 92 | 16.08 | |||
>Once a month | 222 | 57.96 | 291 | 50.87 | |||
Never contact | 88 | 22.98 | 151 | 26.40 | |||
Father alive | 0.51 | 0.48 | |||||
Yes | 373 | 97.39 | 561 | 98.08 | |||
No | 10 | 2.61 | 11 | 1.92 | |||
Father’s occupation | 2.46 | 0.12 | |||||
Farmers | 233 | 60.84 | 470 | 76.92 | |||
Non-farmers | 150 | 39.16 | 102 | 23.18 | |||
Mother’s occupation | 3.43 | 0.06 | |||||
Farmers | 287 | 74.93 | 474 | 82.87 | |||
Not farmers | 96 | 25.07 | 98 | 17.13 | |||
Parents’ divorced | 0.35 | 0.56 | |||||
Yes | 16 | 4.18 | 20 | 3.50 | |||
No | 367 | 95.82 | 552 | 96.50 |
t-test. p values are from t-test (continuous variables).
LBC, left-behind children
Prevalence of externalizing behavior problems among different categories of Hui ethnicity children
Variables | Sample size | Positive number | Prevalence rate (%) | χ2 | p-value |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Children | 3.95 | 0.05 | |||
LBC | 383 | 48 | 12.53 | ||
Non | 572 | 49 | 8.57 | ||
Total | 955 | 97 | 10.16 | - | |
Boys | 4.09 | 0.04 | |||
LBC | 194 | 24 | 12.37 | ||
Non-LBC | 263 | 18 | 6.84 | ||
Girls | 0.85 | 0.36 | |||
LBC | 189 | 24 | 12.70 | ||
Non-LBC | 309 | 31 | 10.03 |
LBC, left-behind children
Prevalence and the scores of externalizing behavior problems and specific symptoms in hui ethnicity children (N=955)
Syndromes | Boys |
Girls |
p-value |
||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Aged 6–11 |
Aged 12–16 |
Aged 6–11 |
Aged 12–16 |
Aged 6–11 |
Aged 12–16 |
||||||||
LBC (N=56) | non-LBC (N=88) | LBC (N=138) | non-LBC (N=175) | LBC (N=58) | non-LBC (N=93) | LBC (N=131) | non-LBC (N=216) | χ2a (p-value) |
χ2b (p-value) |
χ2c (p-value) |
χ2d (p-value) |
||
t2 (p-value) | t2 (p-value) | t3 (p-value) | t4 (p-value) | ||||||||||
Schizoid | |||||||||||||
PN (%) | 5 (8.92) | 7 (7.95) | 13 (9.42) | 7 (4.00) | - | - | 24 (18.32) | 34 (15.74) | 0.04 (0.84) | - | 3.79 (0.05) | 0.39 (0.53) | |
Mean±SD | 2.13±2.45 | 2.67±2.53 | 3.66±3.18 | 2.74±2.58 | - | - | 2.69±2.83 | 2.39±2.56 | -1.28 (0.20) | - | 2.75 (0.01) | 1.02 (0.31) | |
Depressed | |||||||||||||
PN (%) | 8 (14.29) | 7 (7.95) | - | - | 2 (3.44) | 6 (6.45) | - | - | 1.47 (0.23) | 0.18 (0.67) | - | - | |
Mean±SD | 3.11±4.79 | 3.35±4.43 | - | - | 4.72±4.44 | 4.91±5.38 | - | - | -0.31 (0.75) | -0.23 (0.82) | - | - | |
Uncommunicative | |||||||||||||
PN (%) | 4 (7.14) | 10 (11.36) | 14 (10.14) | 6 (3.43) | - | - | - | - | 0.70 (0.41) | - | 5.82 (0.02) | - | |
Mean±SD | 2.11±2.52 | 2.39±3.00 | 6.44±6.04 | 4.22±4.67 | - | - | - | - | -0.58 (0.56) | - | 3.57 (0.00) | - | |
Obsessive-compulsive | |||||||||||||
PN (%) | 4 (7.14) | 9 (10.23) | 20 (14.49) | 12 (6.86) | - | - | - | - | 0.40 (0.53) | - | 4.90 (0.03) | - | |
Mean±SD | 2.80±3.71 | 3.58±4.11 | 3.16±3.17 | 2.28±2.45 | - | - | - | - | -1.15 (0.25) | - | 2.69 (0.01) | - | |
Somatic complaints | |||||||||||||
PN (%) | 1 (1.79) | 7 (7.95) | 19 (13.77) | 10 (5.71) | 5 (8.62) | 11 (11.83) | 7 (5.34) | 6 (2.78) | 1.45 (0.23) | 0.39 (0.53) | 5.95 (0.02) | 0.86 (0.35) | |
Mean±SD | 1.34±2.12 | 1.93±2.92 | 5.16±5.30 | 3.65±4.19 | 3.24±3.75 | 3.55±4.16 | 2.70±3.04 | 2.43±2.78 | -1.32 (0.19) | -0.46 (0.65) | 2.73 (0.01) | 0.87 (0.39) | |
Social-withdrawal | |||||||||||||
PN (%) | 2 (3.57) | 5 (5.68) | - | - | 2 (3.44) | 7 (7.52) | - | - | 0.03 (0.86) | 0.46 (0.50) | - | - | |
Mean±SD | 1.34±2.08 | 2.01±2.40 | - | - | 3.03±3.05 | 3.08±3.71 | - | - | -1.72 (0.09) | -0.07 (0.94) | - | - | |
Hyperactive | |||||||||||||
PN (%) | 0 | 0 | 9 (6.52) | 5 (2.86) | 2 (3.45) | 5 (5.38) | - | - | - | 0.02 (0.88) | 2.43 (0.12) | - | |
Mean±SD | 2.20±2.25 | 3.39±3.01 | 3.96±3.49 | 2.98±3.04 | 3.05±3.19 | 3.53±3.74 | - | - | -2.71 (0.01) | -0.80 (0.42) | 2.64 (0.01) | - | |
Aggressive | |||||||||||||
PN (%) | 2 (3.57) | 1 (1.14) | 13 (9.42) | 7 (4.00) | 1 (1.72) | 3 (3.23) | 8 (6.11) | 5 (2.31) | 0.16 (0.69) | 0.00 (.097) | 3.79 (0.05) | 2.29 (0.13) | |
Mean±SD | 4.98±6.19 | 5.45±5.86 | 7.04±6.47 | 5.62±5.61 | 4.62±4.37 | 4.80±5.80 | 6.71±6.13 | 5.37±5.09 | -0.03 (1.00) | -0.20 (0.84) | 2.09 (0.04) | 2.11 (0.04) | |
Delinquent | |||||||||||||
PN (%) | 3 (5.36) | 4 (4.55) | 13 (9.42) | 3 (1.71) | 3 (5.17) | 5 (5.38) | 8 (6.11) | 7 (3.24) | 0.00 (1.00) | 0.00 (1.00) | 9.45 (0.00) | 1.62 (0.20) | |
Mean±SD | 1.52±2.69 | 2.16±2.55 | 3.08±3.78 | 2.29±2.71 | 0.74±1.60 | 0.61±1.24 | 4.63±4.32 | 3.76±3.56 | -1.44 (0.38) | 0.55 (0.58) | 2.08 (0.04) | 1.92 (0.06) | |
Sexual problems | |||||||||||||
PN (%) | - | - | - | - | 2 (3.45) | 6 (6.45) | - | - | - | 0.18 (0.67) | - | - | |
Mean±SD | - | - | - | - | 0.93±1.55 | 1.23±1.76 | - | - | - | -1.05 (0.30) | - | - | |
Cruel | |||||||||||||
PN (%) | - | - | - | - | 6 (10.34) | 6 (6.45) | 12 (9.16) | 11 (5.09) | - | 0.30 (0.58) | - | ||
Mean±SD | - | - | 0.98±1.90 | 1.06±1.78 | 2.19±3.49 | 1.36±1.96 | - | -0.27 (0.79) | 2.50 (0.01) | ||||
Schizoid-obsessive | |||||||||||||
PN (%) | - | - | - | - | 7 (12.07) | 9 (9.68) | - | - | - | 0.22 (0.64) | - | - | |
Mean±SD | - | - | 1.74±2.69 | 1.68±2.90 | - | 0.14 (0.89) | - | ||||||
Immature | |||||||||||||
PN (%) | - | - | 6 (4.35) | 4 (2.29) | - | - | 10 (7.63) | 7 (3.24) | - | - | 1.06 (0.30) | 3.38 (0.07) | |
Mean±SD | - | - | 1.72±2.10 | 1.36±1.84 | - | - | - | - | 1.64 (0.10) | - | |||
Hostile | |||||||||||||
PN (%) | - | - | 16 (11.59) | 5 (2.86) | - | - | - | - | - | - | 9.41 (0.00) | - | |
Mean±SD | - | - | 4.62±4.81 | 3.33±3.33 | - | - | - | - | - | - | 2.68 (0.01) | - | |
Depressed-withdrawal | |||||||||||||
PN (%) | - | - | - | - | - | - | 10 (7.63) | 18 (8.33) | - | - | - | 0.05 (0.82) | |
Mean±SD | - | - | - | - | - | - | 5.73±4.95 | 5.19±4.73 | - | - | - | 1.00 (0.32) | |
Anxious-obsessive | |||||||||||||
PN (%) | - | - | - | - | - | - | 7 (5.34) | 9 (4.17) | - | - | - | 0.26 (0.61) | |
Mean±SD | - | - | - | - | - | - | 7.27±6.13 | 6.40±6.02 | - | - | - | 1.31 (0.19) | |
Externalizing behavior | |||||||||||||
PN (%) | 4 (7.14) | 5 (5.68) | 20 (14.49) | 13 (7.43) | 8 (13.79) | 14 (15.05) | 16 (12.21) | 17 (7.87) | 0.00 (1.00) | 0.05 (0.83) | 4.08 (0.04) | 1.79 (0.18) | |
Mean±SD | 8.07±9.19 | 9.48±8.75 | 12.04±10.96 | 9.41±8.94 | 9.33±9.20 | 10.23±11.09 | 12.31±10.98 | 9.78±8.45 | -0.92 (0.36) | -0.52 (0.61) | 2.28 (0.02) | 2.26 (0.03) |
LBC, left-behind children; χ2a, comparison of LBC and non-LBC in boys aged 6–11; χ2b, comparison of LBC and non- LBC in girls aged 6–11; χ2c, comparison of LBC and non-LBC in boys aged 12–16; χ2d, comparison of LBC and non- LBC in girls aged 12-16; t1, comparison of LBC and non-LBC in boys aged 6–11; t2, comparison of LBC and non-LBC in girls aged 6–11; t3, comparison of LBC and non-LBC in boys aged 12–16; t4, comparison of LBC and non-LBC in girls aged 12–16; PN, positive number; SD, standard deviation
Univariate analysis of the influence of general demographic data on externalizing behavior problems of Hui ethnicity leftbehind children (N=383)
Characteristics | Total number | Positive number | χ2 | p-value | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Sex | 0.17 | 0.68 | |||
Male | 194 | 22 | |||
Female | 189 | 24 | |||
Caregiver’s education level | 0.12 | 0.73 | |||
Junior high school or higher | 76 | 10 | |||
Primary school or lower | 307 | 36 | |||
Age group (yr) | 0.34 | 0.56 | |||
6–11 | 114 | 12 | |||
12–16 | 269 | 34 | |||
Father’s education level | 2.78 | 0.10 | |||
Junior high school or higher | 77 | 5 | |||
Primary school or lower | 306 | 41 | |||
Maternal education level | 0.37 | 0.55 | |||
Junior high school or higher | 29 | 5 | |||
Primary school or lower | 354 | 41 | |||
Frequency of contact with teachers | 10.01 | 0.02 | |||
At least once a week | 26 | 2 | |||
At least once a month | 47 | 4 | |||
>Once a month | 222 | 21 | |||
Never contact | 88 | 19 | |||
Academic performance | 14.98 | <0.01 | |||
Good (average score>80) | 53 | 2 | |||
Moderate (average score=60–80) | 262 | 27 | |||
Poor (average score<60) | 68 | 17 | |||
Only child | 0.32 | 0.57 | |||
Yes | 15 | 3 | |||
No | 368 | 43 | |||
Parents’ divorced | 0.11 | 0.74 | |||
Yes | 16 | 1 | |||
No | 367 | 45 | |||
Parental migration status | 4.31 | 0.04 | |||
One parent migrating | 252 | 24 | |||
Both parents migrating | 131 | 22 | |||
Father’s occupation | 0.00 | >0.99 | |||
Farmers | 233 | 28 | |||
Not farmers | 150 | 18 | |||
Mother’s occupation | 2.63 | 0.11 | |||
Farmers | 287 | 30 | |||
Not farmers | 96 | 16 | |||
Father alive | 0.43 | 0.22 | |||
Yes | 373 | 46 | |||
No | 10 | 0 | |||
Mother alive | 0.00 | >0.99 | |||
Yes | 375 | 45 | |||
No | 8 | 1 |
Univariate analysis of influence of measurement data on EBPs of hui ethnicity left-behind children (N=383)
Variables | EBPs |
t | p-value | |
---|---|---|---|---|
No (N=337) | Yes (N=46) | |||
PHCSS | ||||
Behavior | 11.77±2.54 | 9.20±2.72 | 6.41 | <0.01 |
Intellectual and school status | 8.34±3.28 | 7.46±3.16 | 1.73 | 0.09 |
Physical appearance and attributes | 5.60±2.76 | 5.52±2.69 | 0.18 | 0.86 |
Anxiety | 8.21±2.52 | 6.93±2.59 | 3.21 | <0.01 |
Popularity | 8.17±2.06 | 6.87±2.26 | 3.96 | <0.01 |
Happiness and satisfaction | 6.58±1.95 | 5.91±2.19 | 2.15 | 0.03 |
Total score of self-concept | 49.37±10.73 | 40.59±10.72 | 4.03 | <0.01 |
EMBU | ||||
Emotional warmth and understanding (F) | 44.31±9.59 | 43.04±10.25 | 0.84 | 0.41 |
Punishment and strictness (F) | 19.28±5.81 | 23.67±8.12 | -3.54 | <0.01 |
Over-interference (F) | 18.64±4.61 | 20.41±6.23 | -1.86 | 0.07 |
Favoring subjects (F) | 8.71±3.10 | 10.00±3.67 | -2.59 | 0.01 |
Refusal and denial (F) | 9.16±3.12 | 11.20±4.29 | -3.11 | <0.01 |
Over-protection (F) | 10.28±2.58 | 11.20±2.78 | -2.23 | 0.03 |
Emotional warmth and understanding (M) | 47.46±9.35 | 44.72±8.80 | 1.88 | 0.06 |
Over-interference and over-protection (M) | 34.07±6.62 | 36.48±6.89 | -2.30 | 0.02 |
Refusal and denial (M) | 13.01±4.03 | 16.13±4.82 | -4.19 | <0.01 |
Punishment and strictness (M) | 14.15±4.50 | 17.61±5.53 | -4.06 | <0.01 |
Favoring subjects (M) | 9.91±2.98 | 10.48±3.40 | -1.20 | 0.23 |
EPQ | ||||
Extroversion-introversion | 15.10±4.19 | 13.30±3.29 | 2.80 | 0.01 |
Psychoticism | 10.29±4.52 | 11.80±4.13 | -2.15 | 0.03 |
Neuroticism | 4.53±2.76 | 6.43±2.96 | -4.36 | <0.01 |
Lie | 13.44±4.25 | 11.59±3.72 | 2.82 | 0.01 |
Data are presented as mean±standard deviation. EBP, externalizing behavior problem; PHCSS, Piers-Harri Children’s Self-Concept Scale; EMBU, Egma Minnen av Bardndosna Uppforstran; F, father; M, mother; EPQ, Eysenck Personality Questionnaire
Results of multivariate logistic regression analysis predicting externalizing behavior problems of Hui ethnicity left-behind children (N=383)
Variables | Reference | B | SE | Wald | p-value | OR (95% CI) | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Behavior | High | Low | 3.39 | 1.18 | 8.34 | 0.04 | 29.78 (2.98–298.08) |
Middle | 1.38 | 1.10 | 1.56 | 0.21 | 3.96 (0.46–34.46) | ||
Extroversion-introversion | High | Low | 3.08 | 1.11 | 7.66 | 0.01 | 21.67 (2.46–191.28) |
Middle | 2.76 | 1.08 | 6.49 | 0.01 | 15.83 (1.89–132.41) | ||
Father refusal and denial | Low | Middle | -2.24 | 1.07 | 4.40 | 0.04 | 0.11 (0.01–0.86) |
High | -2.40 | 1.12 | 4.55 | 0.03 | 0.09 (0.01–0.82) | ||
Mother refusal and denial | Low | Middle | 1.43 | 1.23 | 1.35 | 0.25 | 4.17 (0.37–46.45) |
High | 2.31 | 1.26 | 3.35 | 0.07 | 10.08 (0.85–119.66) | ||
Migration status | One parent migrating | Both parent migrating | 1.00 | 0.38 | 6.86 | 0.01 | 2.73 (1.29–5.78) |
Academic performance | Good | Poor | 2.46 | 0.90 | 7.47 | 0.01 | 11.65 (2.00–67.78) |
Moderate | 1.37 | 0.83 | 2.71 | 0.10 | 3.95 (0.77–20.26) | ||
Total score of self-concept | High | Low | -1.13 | 1.21 | 0.87 | 0.35 | 0.32 (0.03–3.48) |
Middle | 0.26 | 1.18 | 0.05 | 0.83 | 1.29 (0.13–12.93) | ||
Constant | -7.59 | 1.88 | 16.36 | <0.01 | 0.00 |
Hosmer and Lemeshow Test for goodness-of-fit: χ2=3.32, p=0.85. The fitting is good. SE, standard error; OR, odds ratio; CI, confidence interval