Abstract
Originally designed in the nineties to gather subjective perspective of the importance and existence of certain children’s rights at home and at the school, by students and significant adults, using cross-culturally comparable methodology, the study evolved to gather a number of subjective quality of life assessment indicators. Survey study with different types of closed questions. Three measurements in Slovenia in the last decade, 2,000–3,000 students each sweep, and smaller samples in three other countries. Data base has been built on the importance and existence of key quality of life variables and assessments of the proper age to assume certain adult-like rights that enables comparisons of values cross-culturally and between age groups, and national trends that suggest slight degradation of the quality of life of children in last 15 years. The data gathered using this methodology proved to be culture sensitive (reflecting value hierarchies of rights in different countries), age sensitive (reflecting the evolving capacities of the child to grasp more sophisticated levels of rights and the quality of life assessments), useful tool for monitoring changes in the attitudes of (different groups of) adults towards children in the times of social change and transition, and other measures. The elements of the methodology could be used in future efforts to provide such subjective indicators on a broader international scale, as well as for national monitoring of the quality of life of children.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
For a more detailed account and overview of the first sweep (international data gathering) of the study see Hart et al. 2001 and earlier reports by Hart and others.
This would be quite questionable not only from an ethical but also from a methodological point of view.
The study was designed longitudinally. The first data gathering (sweep) was completed in the participating countries by 1991/1992, the second sweep was designed to take place in this decade.
The first and the second section of the questionnaire for children can be found in Appendix. For the entire set of questionnaires contact the authors.
See the most recent version of the questionnaire for students, used in the 2006 sweep, in Appendix.
The data were gathered by Banbehari Mukhopadyay from the Technical Teachers Training Institute in Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India, and Georgy Ligeti from Kurt Lewin Fundation, Budapest, Hungary in the two respective countries.
For full wording of the questions please consult the questionnaire in the Appendix, except for the questions 13, 17 and 21 that were omitted in the 2006 sweep.
As noted earlier, however, we cannot exclude the possibility of an influence of the adult sample bias.
References
Bradshaw, J. (2007). The EU child well-being index. Paper presented at International Society for Child Indicators. Inaugural Conference, June 26–28 2007, Allerton Hotel, Chicago, USA.
Casas, F., Saporiti, A., Gonzalez, M., Figuer, C., Rostan, C., Sadurni, M., Alsinet, C., Guso, M., Gringoli, D., Mancini, A., Ferrucci, F., & Rago, M. (2006). Children’s rights from the point of view of children, their parents and their teachers: A comparative study between Catalonia (Spain) and Molise (Italy). The International Journal of Children’s Rights, 14(1), 1–75.
Covell, K., O’Leary, J. L., & Howe, R. B. (2002). Introducing a new grade 8 curriculum in children’s rights. Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 48(4), 302–313.
Gunnarsdottir, A., Sigurdardottir, M., & Jonsdottir, A. (2001). The study of the rights of the child in Iceland. School Psychology International, 22(2), 190–205.
Hart, N. S., & Pavlovic, Z. (2001). Cross-cultural study on the rights of the child: Children’s questionnaire. Unpublished report on cross-cultural study on the rights of the child. Educational Research Institute, Ljubljana.
Hart, N. S., Pavlovic, Z., & Zeidner, M. (2001). The ISPA Cross-national Children’s Rights Research Project. School Psychology International, 22(2), 99–130.
Irving, K. (2001). Australian student’s perceptions of the importance and existence of their rights. School psychology International, 22(2), 224–240.
Jacobsen, E., & Schegel, I. (2001). Student’s perceptions of their rights in Denmark. School Psychology International, 22(2), 205–224.
Morrow, V. (1999). We are people too’: Children’s and young people’s perspectives on children’s rights and decision-making in England. The International Journal of Children’s Rights, 7, 49–170.
Pavlovic, Z. (2001). Cross-cultural study on the rights of the children in Slovenia: The first ten years. School Psychology International, 22(2), 130–152.
Rener, T. (2000). Vulnerability, young people and private life. In M. Ule (Ed.), Social vulnerability of youth. Ljubljana: Aristej.
Tapp, P. (1998). Children’s views on children’s rights: ‘You don’t have rights you only have privileges’. Children’s Issues, 1(1), 7–8.
Taylor, N., Smith, A. B., & Nairn, K. (2001). Rights important to young people: Secondary students and staff perspectives. The International Journal of Children’s Rights, 9, 137–156.
Tereseviciene, M., & Jonyniene, Z. (2001). Student’s perceptions of their rights in Lithuania. School Psychology International, 22(2), 152–174.
Ule, M. (2000). The results of the survey. In M. Ule (Ed.), Social vulnerability of youth. Ljubljana: Aristej.
United Nations Convention on the the Rights of the Child. Adopted and opened for signature, ratification and accession by UN General Assembly resolution 44/25 of 20 November 1989. Entry into force 2 September 1990.
Veiga, F. H. (2001). Student’s perceptions of their rights in Portugal. School Psychology International, 22(2), 174–190.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Authors wish to express their appreciation to Prof. Stuart N. Hart, for the insightful comments and suggestions to an earlier draft.
Appendix
Appendix
Cross-Cultural Study on the Rights of the Child—Children’s Questionnaire
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Pavlovic, Z., Leban, T.R. Children’s Rights International Study Project (CRISP)—A Shift from the Focus on Children’s Rights to a Quality of Life Assessment Instrument. Child Ind Res 2, 265–291 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12187-008-9031-5
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12187-008-9031-5