Sentences with phrase «scale social problems»

In the name of freedom of the individual, we sacrifice them to that caricature of Christianity that some people call «the Protestant ethic,» an ethic that finds no way of dealing directly and massively with large - scale social problems.

Starting a business that attempts to solve large - scale social problems is even harder.

Not exact matches

Would it be possible to create an Ello at scale, or does the idea of a massive social network by definition lead to the problems Facebook is experiencing?

MissionPoint Partners is a leading impact investing advisor and asset manager focused on solving large - scale environmental and social problems through the deployment of high impact capital.

A freedom of information request found the majority of authorities do not have systems in place to measure the scale of the problem, other than collecting statistics on the number of children already receiving help from social services.

With the emergence of large - scale industry in the mid-19th century the social and political implications of capitalist organization became manifest, though even today Americans tend to treat social problems as problems of personal morality.

Within social care, the scale and seriousness of the problem was underplayed by senior managers.

Nadine's problems remain human scale — loneliness, social embarrassment, the threat of humiliation.

The Purpose Prize honors Americans 60 and older and is the nation's only large - scale investment award for senior social entrepreneurs and creative problem solvers.

«To do that we want to understand the full scale of the problem and explore how everyone — including government, social media companies, technology firms, parents and others — can play their part in tackling it.»

Bill Drayton is the originator of the term «social entrepreneur,» someone who seeks to drive large - scale ideas to tackle entrenched social problems — in a word, changemakers.

We recognize that each small problem is part of larger social issues and inequities that affect it, but that every large - scale change begins with deliberate, focused steps.

Collective Insights on Collective Impact This special supplement features the most recent thinking and learning about how to use the collective impact approach to address large - scale social and environmental problems.

A large - scale national study of Head Start classrooms found that the PATHS program improved outcomes in student emotional knowledge and social problem - solving skills among preschool students!

A large scale study of the assessment of the social environment of middle and secondary schools: the validity and utility of teachers» ratings of school climate, cultural pluralism, and safety problems for understanding school effects and school improvement.

Scale - up is a well known problem with social interventions.

The «great society,» with its permeating influence of technology, large - scale industry, and progressive urbanization, presses its problems; the history of political and social liberty admonishes us of its lessons

What kind of catastrophe can not be predicted, but numerous candidates have been discussed in this book: ecological collapses of various kinds, large - scale crop failures due to ecological stress or changes in climate and leading to mass famine; severe resource shortages, which could lead either to crop failures or to social problems or both; epidemic diseases; wars over diminishing resources; perhaps even thermonuclear war.»

Supposing I could give you a mathematical proof that social problems are of such an order of chaotic complexity that the last thing that will work is large scale government intervention?

Yet the emergence of global warming as an issue in the 1980s with its potential for large - scale social change needed to ameliorate its threat was seen as more threatening to conservatives in regard to industry, prosperity, life - style, and the entire American - way of life, than were traditional pollution problems.

Yet there is huge uncertainty over whether it will be possible to deploy them quickly — and at scale — without causing knock - on environmental and social problems.

Michael # 29, the classical economists of the 18th and 19th centuries (Adam Smith, David Ricardo, Thomas Malthus, John Stuart Mill) all wrestled with the problem of limits to growth and came up with scenarios for the human future ranging from extreme pessimism (Malthus) to optimism (John Stuart Mill's expectation that at a certain stage of economic development human society would cease to grow in material scale and reach a «stationary state» where the emphasis would be on qualitative human, social and cultural development.

The importance and imminence of sustainability problems at local and global scales, the dominant role that the Human System plays in the Earth System, and the key functions and services the Earth System provides for the Human System (as well as for other species), all call for strong collaboration of earth scientists, social scientists, and engineers in multidisciplinary research, modeling, technology development, and policymaking.

The mistake is not only the moral one of putting the bulk of the legal system at arm's length from the rainmakers and their well - watered friends but also — and this is the gravamen of my post, I suppose — the analytical one of failing to see that, absent some black swan large scale social disruption, solutions will be forged to the problems facing the legal system, and that, however unpolished they may appear when seen from above, these solutions and their near cousins bid fair to eat their way up the quality / sophistication ladder in the way in which minimills» steel did until --

The Questionnaire for Aggressive Behavior of Children (FAVK) is a newly developed parent rating scale which assesses several factors of peer related aggression: (1) disturbance of social cognitive information processing, (2) disturbance of social problem solving and social skills, (3) disturbance of impulse control, and (4) disturbance of social interaction.

Change in score on 12 primary measures: Clinician - Administered PTSD Scale (CAPS 2) total of 3 clusters and severity, Impact of Events Scale (IES)(self rated), Beck Depression Inventory (self rated), Global Improvement scale (self and assessor rated), main problem (self and assessor rated), total of 4 goals to deal with the problem (self and assessor rated), and Work and Social Adjustment scale (self and assessor raScale (CAPS 2) total of 3 clusters and severity, Impact of Events Scale (IES)(self rated), Beck Depression Inventory (self rated), Global Improvement scale (self and assessor rated), main problem (self and assessor rated), total of 4 goals to deal with the problem (self and assessor rated), and Work and Social Adjustment scale (self and assessor raScale (IES)(self rated), Beck Depression Inventory (self rated), Global Improvement scale (self and assessor rated), main problem (self and assessor rated), total of 4 goals to deal with the problem (self and assessor rated), and Work and Social Adjustment scale (self and assessor rascale (self and assessor rated), main problem (self and assessor rated), total of 4 goals to deal with the problem (self and assessor rated), and Work and Social Adjustment scale (self and assessor rascale (self and assessor rated).

Findings from the paired t test revealed that parents in the IG scored their children significantly better (compared with baseline) 2 months after the intervention in 2 competence scales (social and school) with respect to the internalizing and externalizing problems and in the total problem score (Table 2).

Many of the scales demonstrated weak psychometrics in at least one of the following ways: (a) lack of psychometric data [i.e., reliability and / or validity; e.g., HFQ, MASC, PBS, Social Adjustment Scale - Self - Report (SAS - SR) and all perceived self - esteem and self - concept scales], (b) items that fall on more than one subscale (e.g., CBCL - 1991 version), (c) low alpha coefficients (e.g., below.60) for some subscales, which calls into question the utility of using these subscales in research and clinical work (e.g., HFQ, MMPI - A, CBCL - 1991 version, BASC, PSPCSAYC), (d) high correlations between subscales (e.g., PANAS - C), (e) lack of clarity regarding clinically - relevant cut - off scores, yielding high false positive and false negative rates (e.g., CES - D, CDI) and an inability to distinguish between minor (i.e., subclinical) and major (i.e., clinical) «cases» of a disorder (e.g., depression; CDI, BDI), (f) lack of correspondence between items and DSM criteria (e.g., CBCL - 1991 version, CDI, BDI, CES - D, (g) a factor structure that lacks clarity across studies (e.g., PSPCSAYC, CASI; although the factor structure is often difficult to assess in studies of pediatric populations, given the small sample sizes), (h) low inter-rater reliability for interview and observational methods (e.g., CGAS), (i) low correlations between respondents such as child, parent, teacher [e.g., BASC, PSPCSAYC, CSI, FSSC - R, SCARED, Connors Ratings Scales - Revised (CRS - R)-RSB-, (j) the inclusion of somatic or physical symptom items on mental health subscales (e.g., CBCL), which is a problem when conducting studies of children with pediatric physical conditions because physical symptoms may be a feature of the condition rather than an indicator of a mental health problem, (k) high correlations with measures of social desirability, which is particularly problematic for the self - related rating scales and for child - report scales more generally, and (l) content validity problems (e.g., the RCMAS is a measure of anxiety, but contains items that tap mood, attention, peer interactions, and impulsiscales demonstrated weak psychometrics in at least one of the following ways: (a) lack of psychometric data [i.e., reliability and / or validity; e.g., HFQ, MASC, PBS, Social Adjustment Scale - Self - Report (SAS - SR) and all perceived self - esteem and self - concept scales], (b) items that fall on more than one subscale (e.g., CBCL - 1991 version), (c) low alpha coefficients (e.g., below.60) for some subscales, which calls into question the utility of using these subscales in research and clinical work (e.g., HFQ, MMPI - A, CBCL - 1991 version, BASC, PSPCSAYC), (d) high correlations between subscales (e.g., PANAS - C), (e) lack of clarity regarding clinically - relevant cut - off scores, yielding high false positive and false negative rates (e.g., CES - D, CDI) and an inability to distinguish between minor (i.e., subclinical) and major (i.e., clinical) «cases» of a disorder (e.g., depression; CDI, BDI), (f) lack of correspondence between items and DSM criteria (e.g., CBCL - 1991 version, CDI, BDI, CES - D, (g) a factor structure that lacks clarity across studies (e.g., PSPCSAYC, CASI; although the factor structure is often difficult to assess in studies of pediatric populations, given the small sample sizes), (h) low inter-rater reliability for interview and observational methods (e.g., CGAS), (i) low correlations between respondents such as child, parent, teacher [e.g., BASC, PSPCSAYC, CSI, FSSC - R, SCARED, Connors Ratings Scales - Revised (CRS - R)-RSB-, (j) the inclusion of somatic or physical symptom items on mental health subscales (e.g., CBCL), which is a problem when conducting studies of children with pediatric physical conditions because physical symptoms may be a feature of the condition rather than an indicator of a mental health problem, (k) high correlations with measures of social desirability, which is particularly problematic for the self - related rating scales and for child - report scales more generally, and (l) content validity problems (e.g., the RCMAS is a measure of anxiety, but contains items that tap mood, attention, peer interactions, and impulsiSocial Adjustment Scale - Self - Report (SAS - SR) and all perceived self - esteem and self - concept scales], (b) items that fall on more than one subscale (e.g., CBCL - 1991 version), (c) low alpha coefficients (e.g., below.60) for some subscales, which calls into question the utility of using these subscales in research and clinical work (e.g., HFQ, MMPI - A, CBCL - 1991 version, BASC, PSPCSAYC), (d) high correlations between subscales (e.g., PANAS - C), (e) lack of clarity regarding clinically - relevant cut - off scores, yielding high false positive and false negative rates (e.g., CES - D, CDI) and an inability to distinguish between minor (i.e., subclinical) and major (i.e., clinical) «cases» of a disorder (e.g., depression; CDI, BDI), (f) lack of correspondence between items and DSM criteria (e.g., CBCL - 1991 version, CDI, BDI, CES - D, (g) a factor structure that lacks clarity across studies (e.g., PSPCSAYC, CASI; although the factor structure is often difficult to assess in studies of pediatric populations, given the small sample sizes), (h) low inter-rater reliability for interview and observational methods (e.g., CGAS), (i) low correlations between respondents such as child, parent, teacher [e.g., BASC, PSPCSAYC, CSI, FSSC - R, SCARED, Connors Ratings Scales - Revised (CRS - R)-RSB-, (j) the inclusion of somatic or physical symptom items on mental health subscales (e.g., CBCL), which is a problem when conducting studies of children with pediatric physical conditions because physical symptoms may be a feature of the condition rather than an indicator of a mental health problem, (k) high correlations with measures of social desirability, which is particularly problematic for the self - related rating scales and for child - report scales more generally, and (l) content validity problems (e.g., the RCMAS is a measure of anxiety, but contains items that tap mood, attention, peer interactions, and impulsiscales], (b) items that fall on more than one subscale (e.g., CBCL - 1991 version), (c) low alpha coefficients (e.g., below.60) for some subscales, which calls into question the utility of using these subscales in research and clinical work (e.g., HFQ, MMPI - A, CBCL - 1991 version, BASC, PSPCSAYC), (d) high correlations between subscales (e.g., PANAS - C), (e) lack of clarity regarding clinically - relevant cut - off scores, yielding high false positive and false negative rates (e.g., CES - D, CDI) and an inability to distinguish between minor (i.e., subclinical) and major (i.e., clinical) «cases» of a disorder (e.g., depression; CDI, BDI), (f) lack of correspondence between items and DSM criteria (e.g., CBCL - 1991 version, CDI, BDI, CES - D, (g) a factor structure that lacks clarity across studies (e.g., PSPCSAYC, CASI; although the factor structure is often difficult to assess in studies of pediatric populations, given the small sample sizes), (h) low inter-rater reliability for interview and observational methods (e.g., CGAS), (i) low correlations between respondents such as child, parent, teacher [e.g., BASC, PSPCSAYC, CSI, FSSC - R, SCARED, Connors Ratings Scales - Revised (CRS - R)-RSB-, (j) the inclusion of somatic or physical symptom items on mental health subscales (e.g., CBCL), which is a problem when conducting studies of children with pediatric physical conditions because physical symptoms may be a feature of the condition rather than an indicator of a mental health problem, (k) high correlations with measures of social desirability, which is particularly problematic for the self - related rating scales and for child - report scales more generally, and (l) content validity problems (e.g., the RCMAS is a measure of anxiety, but contains items that tap mood, attention, peer interactions, and impulsiScales - Revised (CRS - R)-RSB-, (j) the inclusion of somatic or physical symptom items on mental health subscales (e.g., CBCL), which is a problem when conducting studies of children with pediatric physical conditions because physical symptoms may be a feature of the condition rather than an indicator of a mental health problem, (k) high correlations with measures of social desirability, which is particularly problematic for the self - related rating scales and for child - report scales more generally, and (l) content validity problems (e.g., the RCMAS is a measure of anxiety, but contains items that tap mood, attention, peer interactions, and impulsisocial desirability, which is particularly problematic for the self - related rating scales and for child - report scales more generally, and (l) content validity problems (e.g., the RCMAS is a measure of anxiety, but contains items that tap mood, attention, peer interactions, and impulsiscales and for child - report scales more generally, and (l) content validity problems (e.g., the RCMAS is a measure of anxiety, but contains items that tap mood, attention, peer interactions, and impulsiscales more generally, and (l) content validity problems (e.g., the RCMAS is a measure of anxiety, but contains items that tap mood, attention, peer interactions, and impulsivity).

Items on the YSR make up eight statistically derived scales of co-occurring problems: Anxious / Depressed, Withdrawn / Depressed, Somatic Complaints, Rule - Breaking Behavior, Aggressive Behavior, Social Problems, Thought Problems, and Attention Pproblems: Anxious / Depressed, Withdrawn / Depressed, Somatic Complaints, Rule - Breaking Behavior, Aggressive Behavior, Social Problems, Thought Problems, and Attention PProblems, Thought Problems, and Attention PProblems, and Attention ProblemsProblems.

Grouped t tests were used to compare the mean change in scores in the control and intervention groups where the differences were normally distributed (ECBI intensity score, SDQ total score, PSI parent child interaction, and parent domains), and Mann - Whitney U tests for the mean change in scores in the two groups where the differences were not normally distributed (ECBI problem score, SDQ conduct, hyperactivity, emotional, peer and prosocial scales, GHQ somatic anxiety, social, depression and total scores, PSI difficult child domain and total score, and SES).

Contrary to the meta - analyses of Crits - Christoph5 andAnderson and Lambert, 7 studies of IPT werenot included (eg, Elkin et al30 and Wilfleyet al31), because the relation of IPT to STPPis controversial, and empirical results suggest that IPT is very close toCBT.9 Thus, this review includes only studiesfor which there is a general agreement that they represent models of STPP.As it is questionable to aggregate the results of very different outcome measuresthat refer to different areas of psychological functioning, we assessed theefficacy of STPP separately for target symptoms, general psychiatric symptoms (ie, comorbid symptoms), and social functioning.32 Thisprocedure is analogous to the meta - analysis of Crits - Christoph.5 Asoutcome measures of target problems, we included patient ratings of targetproblems and measures referring to the symptoms that are specific to the patientgroup under study, eg, measures of anxiety for studies investigating treatmentsof anxiety disorders.33 For the efficacy ofSTPP in general psychiatric symptoms, broad measures of psychiatric symptomssuch as the Symptom Checklist - 90 and specific measures that do not refer specificallyto the disorder under study were included; eg, the Beck Depression Inventoryapplied in patients with personality disorders.34, 35 Forthe assessment of social functioning, the Social Adjustment Scale and similarmeasures were inclusocial functioning.32 Thisprocedure is analogous to the meta - analysis of Crits - Christoph.5 Asoutcome measures of target problems, we included patient ratings of targetproblems and measures referring to the symptoms that are specific to the patientgroup under study, eg, measures of anxiety for studies investigating treatmentsof anxiety disorders.33 For the efficacy ofSTPP in general psychiatric symptoms, broad measures of psychiatric symptomssuch as the Symptom Checklist - 90 and specific measures that do not refer specificallyto the disorder under study were included; eg, the Beck Depression Inventoryapplied in patients with personality disorders.34, 35 Forthe assessment of social functioning, the Social Adjustment Scale and similarmeasures were inclusocial functioning, the Social Adjustment Scale and similarmeasures were incluSocial Adjustment Scale and similarmeasures were included.36

Safecare ®: Towards Wide - scale Implementation of a Child Maltreatment Prevention Program Lutzker & Edwards - Gaura (2012) In Applied Public Health: Examining Multifaceted Social or Ecological Problems and Child Maltreatment View Abstract Describes the history of the SafeCare model, past and current SafeCare model programs and factors associated with SafeCare implementation and recent development of the National SafeCare Training and Research Center and upcoming NSTRC activities.

Following home visits, evaluators rated children's social — emotional problems and competencies in categories designed to generally parallel ITSEA scales.

Outcomes rated by patients (Symptom Checklist -90-R, target complaints, Inventory of Interpersonal Problems, and Beck Depression Inventory) and observers (Health - Sickness Rating Scale, Global Assessment Scale, and Social Adjustment Scale) were analysed separately.

Validity of the Problem and Competence Scales of the Brief Infant - Toddler Social and Emotional Assessment.

The adolescents also completed the Achenbach Youth Self - Report of Problem Behaviors, which produces 2 broadband scales: internalizing (anxiety / depression, social withdrawal, and somatic complaints) and externalizing (delinquency and aggression) behavior problems.17

Emotional and behavioural difficulties were measured using the Total Problems Scale from the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ; MCS) and the Problem Scale of the Brief Infant Toddler Social Emotional Assessment Scale (BITSEA; LSAC).

Children with of - concern scores on the problem scale of the Brief Infant - Toddler Social and Emotional Assessment were at increased risk for parent - reported subclinical / clinical levels of problems and for psychiatric disorders.

Social and emotional factors that were hypothesized to be related to aggressive behavioral outcomes were also assessed using the Language Independent Measure of Communicative Confidence (LIMCC), Meadow - Kendall Social - Emotional Assessment Inventory, Piers Harris Self - Concept Scale, Problem - Solving Measure for Conflict (PSM - C).

Social competence was measured by the total problems scale on the CBCL and TRF.

In relation to the peer problems scale for example, 15 % of children who experienced this social interaction fortnightly or more often scored in the borderline or abnormal range compared with 23 % of children who experienced it less often or never.

Measures include the Conduct Problems Risk Screen (CPRS), Maternal Emotional Style Questionnaire (MESQ), Self - Expressiveness in the Family Questionnaire, Eyberg Child Behavior Inventory 6 (ECBI), Kusche Affective Inventory — Revised (KAI - R), Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ), and the Social Competence Rating Scale (SCRC).

The scale consists of the following dimensions: rule - breaking behavior, aggressive behavior, social problems, conduct problems, and oppositional - defiant problems.

Measures included the Social Problem Solving Inventory — Revised and the Hamilton Depression scale.

Measures utilized include the Childhood Maltreatment Interview Schedule, the Sexual Assault and Additional Interpersonal Violence Schedule, the Clinician - Administered PTSD Scale (CAPS), the Structured Clinical Interview for the DSM — IV (SCID - I and SCID - II), the Modified Posttraumatic Stress Disorder Symptom Scale (MPSS - SR), the General Expectancy for Negative Mood Regulation Scale (NMR), the Anger Expression subscale (Ax / Ex) from the State — Trait Anger Expression Inventory, the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI), the State subscale of the State — Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI — S), the Inventory of Interpersonal Problems (IIP), the Social Adjustment Scale — Self Report (SAS - SR), and the Working Alliance Inventory (WAI).

Measures utilized include the Performance Scale of the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children - Revised (WISC - R), The Matching Familiar Figures Test (MFFT), the Reading Comprehension section of the special edition of the Stanford Achievement Test for Hearing Impaired Students (SAT), Social Problem Solving Assessment Measure - Revised (SPSAM - R), the Kusche Emotional Inventory (KEI), the Meadow / Kendall Social - Emotional Assessment Inventory for Deaf Students (MKSEAI), The Health Resources Inventory (HRI), the Walker Behavior Problem Identification Checklist (WBPIC), the Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL), Child Behavior Profile, and the Eyberg Child Behavior Inventory (ECBI).

Emotional disturbance, social competency, self - reported symptoms and problem behaviors were measured using the Child Global Assessment Scale, the Parent Daily Report Checklist (PDR), the Behavior Symptom Inventory (BSI) and a social interaction task.

FACES IV also had good convergent validity with the FAD, the Family Relationship Problems subscale of Hudson's Multi-Problem Screening Inventory (MPSI), and the Family Social Support subscale of Vaux's Social Support Behaviors Scale (SSB).

Measures of teacher ratings included a) the Problem Behavior at School Interview used to measure externalizing behavior (the sum of the oppositional and conduct problems scales) and prosocial behavior in kindergarten (assessed by four items) and b) the 11 - item Social Problems scale of Achenbach's Teacher's Repoproblems scales) and prosocial behavior in kindergarten (assessed by four items) and b) the 11 - item Social Problems scale of Achenbach's Teacher's RepoProblems scale of Achenbach's Teacher's Report Form.

The Ways Of Coping Questionnaire (WOC)(Folkman & Lazarus, 1988) is a 66 - item self - report questionnaire to assess coping related to a particular event to be answered on a 4 - point Likert scale (0 = does not apply / or not used, 1 = used somewhat, 2 = used quite a bit, 3 = used a great deal) with eight subscales: Confrontive Coping, Distancing, Self - Controlling, Seeking Social Support Accepting, Responsibility, Escape - Avoidance, Planful Problem Solving, and Positive Reappraisal.