Titlebook: Child Advocacy; Psychological Issues Gary B. Melton Book 1983 Plenum Press, New York 1983 ETA.Training.assessment.children.development.eval

近地點(diǎn)

書目名稱Child Advocacy影響因子(影響力)




書目名稱Child Advocacy影響因子(影響力)學(xué)科排名




書目名稱Child Advocacy網(wǎng)絡(luò)公開度




書目名稱Child Advocacy網(wǎng)絡(luò)公開度學(xué)科排名




書目名稱Child Advocacy被引頻次




書目名稱Child Advocacy被引頻次學(xué)科排名




書目名稱Child Advocacy年度引用




書目名稱Child Advocacy年度引用學(xué)科排名




書目名稱Child Advocacy讀者反饋




書目名稱Child Advocacy讀者反饋學(xué)科排名

myalgia

,The Consumer’s Point of View,“rights” to which children are entitled aside, those attitudes probably will reflect the rights that are finally fulfilled for children. In practical terms, adults decide the degree of autonomy that children may exercise and the adequacy of conditions for self-actualization to which they are exposed

Gesture

Human Ecology and Child Advocacy,y approaches to intervention (Levine & Levine, 1970). Intrapsychic factors in behavior tend to be emphasized during periods in which the political climate swings to the right. Thus, during conservative periods, individuals tend to be perceived as responsible for their plight, and interventions are a

Foam-Cells

語(yǔ)言學(xué)

帶來(lái)

Administrative Advocacy, of course not limited to those elected to enact laws. Administrative agencies share much of this responsibility. Bureaucratic decision making is in fact important at three points. First, legislatures depend to a large extent on the executive branch to generate legislative proposals. The professiona

帶來(lái)

Legislative Advocacy,omic and political supports for young American families relative to other developed nations. As in Nixon’s fabled veto of the Brademus-Mondale Child Development Bill in 1971 (see Steiner, 1976, Chap. 5), lack of such supports has been justified on grounds of noninterference in family life. This “Ame

Mawkish

Legal Advocacy,actively involved in running schools,. jails and prisons,. and facilities for the mentally ill and the mentally retarded.. Although the more conservative Burger Court has shown some distaste for some of the standards established in law by the Supreme Court in the fifties and sixties, it has shown li

GLADE

Concepts of Childhood,iffer dramatically, depending upon whether the self-styled child advocate seeks to “save” or to “l(fā)iberate” children. Assuming that both child savers and kiddie libbers sincerely strive to better the welfare of children, it is clear that their underlying premises about the nature of childhood differ.

calumniate

Steffen Weichert,Gesine Quint,Torsten Bartelves them vulnerable to abuse by caretakers. By law, social custom, and in some cases the developmental incapacity of the child, children are subject to a “benign oppression” which renders them essentially powerless (Koocher, 1976b). Even if caretakers are not malevolent in their intentions, their ac