Institutionalisation Flashcards
Rutter used 2 samples, what were they?
165 Romanian orphans
52 British orphans
Rutter than observed and reviewed their development at ages
6 months, 2 years, 12 years and 18 years
The mean IQs were (for those adopted)
6 months _ 107
6 months - 2 years _ 82
Post 2 years_ 77 (mental retardation)
The Romanian orphans had compared to the British orphans….
Lower intellectual and physical development
What’s wrong with the ethics of Rutter’s study of Ronanian orphans?
Rutter did not interfere with the adoption process
What’s wrong with the generalisablity?
- Only Romanian
- It’s a very extreme example of deprivation
Why might it also be measuring the wrong thing?
It’s privation not deprivation and so it’s already expected to be extreme; deprivation is more common and so needs more elaboration.
Many of the children had suffered previous trauma. This is an issue for the method because…
It’s a confounding variable
The Bucharest study did what?
Looked at 95 former Romanian orphans and a control group who’d always had a “normal” family.
Their attachment type was measured (strange situation)
The Bucharest early intervention project found…
74% - of the control group were secure - only 19% of the Romanians but 65% of the Romanians were classed as having a disorganised attachment type
. They were all physically underdeveloped, smaller bodies with frail bones, “institutional dwarfism”
. They had generally disihibited attachment type.
What kind of study was Rutter’s?
A longitudinal one
What’s an advantage of a longitudinal study?
The reliability is improved by merit of the development towards the conclusion being recorded
Zeanah
The Bucharest early intervention project
Zeneah attachment types rate
Control group: 70% secure
Romanians: 40% disinhibited, 19% secure.
