Fast Track Preventive Intervention Case Study
For any child abnormality, it’s easy to point fingers at the parents or guardians when a diagnosis has been reached. One assumes a lot of developmental factors of the abnormality disorder were caused by childhood trauma, family involvement, and few noticed biological factors. However, when a child is diagnosed with conduct disorder, it becomes difficult to trace the reasoning behind it. Something to consider would be looking to see if the child’s family plays a role in the child’s development of a conduct disorder, if so, what can be done to reverse the effects, and how one can be sure that the child was given a correct diagnosis to follow up with proper treatment. There have been various case studies which observed children after suffering
…show more content…
The program targets high risk youth, reaching them through the primary risk factors of conduct disorder: “antisocial behavior, poor parental behavior management, deficient child social cognitive and emotional coping skills, poor peer relations, weak academic skills, disruptive and rejecting classroom environments, poor parental monitoring/supervision, and poor home relations,” (CPPRG, 2011, p. 332). This program was proven to work, however, there are other factor that can come into play of conduct disorder and how the program works for different at risk youth. A differential factor may be the gender difference. The book Sex Difference in Antisocial Behavior, by Terrie E. Moffitt and Avshalom Caspi, provides a list on how the sexes are similar to one another in “generalized family adversity, poor discipline, cognitive deficit, rejection by peers, and hyperactivity,” (Moffitt, Caspi, 2001, p. 231). Over all they resemble each other more than they are different, yet those slight differences are enough to vary experiment results for a program such as Fast Track. However, Olsson, brings up that males are more likely to suffer from conduct disorder when they are younger, and women show onset at older ages. Males are often more aggressive and violent when committing crimes or interacting with others whereas women are more manipulative, lie frequently and are less physical (Olsson, 2009, p.
The program targets high risk youth, reaching them through the primary risk factors of conduct disorder: “antisocial behavior, poor parental behavior management, deficient child social cognitive and emotional coping skills, poor peer relations, weak academic skills, disruptive and rejecting classroom environments, poor parental monitoring/supervision, and poor home relations,” (CPPRG, 2011, p. 332). This program was proven to work, however, there are other factor that can come into play of conduct disorder and how the program works for different at risk youth. A differential factor may be the gender difference. The book Sex Difference in Antisocial Behavior, by Terrie E. Moffitt and Avshalom Caspi, provides a list on how the sexes are similar to one another in “generalized family adversity, poor discipline, cognitive deficit, rejection by peers, and hyperactivity,” (Moffitt, Caspi, 2001, p. 231). Over all they resemble each other more than they are different, yet those slight differences are enough to vary experiment results for a program such as Fast Track. However, Olsson, brings up that males are more likely to suffer from conduct disorder when they are younger, and women show onset at older ages. Males are often more aggressive and violent when committing crimes or interacting with others whereas women are more manipulative, lie frequently and are less physical (Olsson, 2009, p.