Сравнить две статьи и написать сравнительное эссе

Indicate whether aspects are specified in the review’s stated inclusion criteria or whether they are found elsewhere in a review report. When answering questions in this section you may sometimes need to specify that something is not described, or is not described clearly.C.1 Populations included in the reviewC.

1.1 SpecifyChildren and young people age 5 to 19 and/or their parentsC.2 Specific interventions included in the reviewC.

2.1 SpecifyIn order to address the problem of cyber abuse, the prevention and intervention programs were divided in four strategies. Especiallytheseincluding: software and technological initiatives used with children and youth in order to ban or filter access to harming online contentonline and offline cyber abuse preventive interventions for children and young adults delivered to any medium (including face-to-face presentations, video games, interactive software).online and offline cyber abuse preventive interventions for parents in order to protect their children. therapeutic interventions for children and young adults who had previously experienced cyber abuse. C.3 Outcomes examined in the reviewC.

3.1 SpecifyOverall, the outcomes have positive effects on bullying, but with no significant changes. Bullying HAHASO: prevalence of bullying incidents, reactions to bullying and knowledge of social skills. Missing: frequency of personal information disclosure in open chat rooms, personal email communication with individuals they meet online. I-SAFE: Internet safety knowledge, intellectual property knowledge.C.4 Study designs included in the reviewC.

4.1 SpecifyAll the included studies in this review used a preand posttest design with a control group, TOW-GROUP quasixperimental research design, and random allocation of participants to treatment or control group. C.5 Were studies required to meet any other criteria for inclusion in the review?(e.g. studiespublishedintheEnglishlanguageonly) C.

5.1 SpecifyThe studies were suitable for the review if: If studies appraised a prevention or interventionprogram/strategy that was conducted to children and youth between 5 and 19 years and/or their parents. If a program/strategy addressed the outcomes primarily associated with children andyoung people exposed to mobile phones and the Internet. The evaluation that used an experimental or two-group quasiexperimental research design that included a no treatment or minimal treatment control group (single-group designs will be excluded) The evaluation was conducted in the last 10 years No restrictions regarding the language of the study or the geographical location of the studyThe study had a postprogram measure of behavior or knowledge addressing cyber abuse or online practices (these possibly included awareness, regarding risks with online activity or the surveys, the development of the Internet safety practices and measures of the frequency of unsafe online behaviors the allocation of study participants to treatment or control groups was by random allocation and the allocation of study participants to quasiexperimental designs was by parallel group design and created through the use of naturally created groups such as classrooms (the studies will differ with respect to the method of constructing the control group and also vary concerning their use of statistical controls to reduce the threat of selection bias). Section D: Review methodsWhen answering questions in this section you may sometimes need to specify that something was not, or does not appear to have been, done.D.1 In what ways were potential review users involved in the review’s production? Specify whether review users were engaged at any of the review’s stages, from specification of the review question to production of the final report. Specifywhichkindsofpotentialreviewuserwereinvolved. D.

1.1 SpecifyNo policy makers involved in the research. D.2 What sources were searched to identify primary studies? Include here detail of the dates of bibliographic database searches and an indication of the kinds of searches run, if available in the review report. Also describe any hand-searching or other kinds of searching undertaken.D.

2.1 SpecifyThe following bibliographic databases were searched: Psychological Abstracts (PsycINFO, PsycLIT, ClinPsyc-clinical subset); MEDLINE; EMBASE; Database of reviews of effectiveness (DARE online); ChildData (child health and welfare); ASSIA (applied social sciences); Caredata (social work); Social Work Abstracts; Child Abuse, Child Welfare & Adoption; Cochrane Collaboration; C2-SPECTR; Social Sciences Abstracts; Social Service Abstracts; and Dissertation Abstracts International (DAI). H and searches for content, over the last 10 years, were completed with the following journals: Youth and Society, Journal of Interpersonal Violence, Annual Review of Sex Research, Computers in Human Behavior, Computers & Education, and Journal of Adolescent Health. G ray literature searching involved a search with the following sites: Google; Canadian Evaluation Society Grey Literature Bank; Criminology Grey Literature; Dissertations and Theses; Proceedings from Professional Conferences, including PapersFirst and Proceedings 2First; and Government Sources, including the Governments of Canada, United States, and the European Union.

H and searches for content, over the last 10 years, were completed with the following journals: Youth and Society, Journal of Interpersonal Violence, Annual Review of Sex Research, Computers in Human Behavior, Computers & Education, and Journal of Adolescent Health.D.3 How were decisions on the relevance of primary studies made? E.g. Were abstracts and/or full reports used for screening? H ow many people applied the review’s inclusion criteria to each study? Were authors contacted for additional information related to the review’s inclusion criteria? D.

3.1 SpecifyTwo text screeners screened the abstracts, to identify relevant studies base on the inclusion criteria. F ull-text screaming was conducted on relevant to identify studies, which made eligible criteria. D. 4 How were the data extracted from primary studies? E.g. Is a data extraction form described? W hat aspects of the study does it aim to describe (note use of tools for judging study quality can be addressed separately below)? W.

ho conducted the data extraction, with what safeguards for reliability and validity? D.

4.1 SpecifyPre-test outcomes were used to calculate the size effects. No mention of data extraction process, safeguards for liability and validity. D.5 What criteria were used to judge the validity (or quality/relevance) of studies? D.

5.1 SpecifyThe studies had to be relevant and have evaluation, I-SAFE cyber safety program, an evaluation of the Missing cyber safety program and an evaluation of an in-school cyber bullying intervention (HAHASO).D.6 How were decisions about the validity (or quality/relevance) of studies made? This is a question about the processes used, see guidance for question D3 aboveD.

6.1 SpecifyFull-text screening by 2 people.D.7 How were studies combined or synthesised? E.g. How were findings grouped (by intervention/outcomes/population/other combination)? Was synthesis narrative or numerical or both, which calculations, if any, were conducted? Whicheffectsmodelwasselected? D.

7.1 Specify Findings from the similar studies were compared. It’s a numerical synthesis. No combined effects calculated to the disparate outcomes. D.8 How were differences in study quality/relevance integrated into the synthesis? E.g. Were study findings weighted, were studies excluded from the synthesis, some other approach taken? D.

8.1 SpecifyThe outcomes of I-SAFE and Missing programs could be compared directly because they had a similar focus, but the HAHASO program couldn’t be compared directly due a different focus. D.9 ADD A QUESTION HERE THAT YOU THINK HELPS TO DESCRIBE THIS REVIEW’S METHODSWhy the potential reviewers weren’t engaged at any of the stages of the review? Then answer the questionHow are the findings are applied to the research context? D.

9.1 SpecifyGeneralizability of these findings to all children and youth in influenced by the narrow range of participants (grades 5 to 9. No information is provided regarding the applicability of these interventions to younger or older children and youth. Results are timely given the increasing interest in combating cyber bullying. Section E: ReviewfindingsE.1 What is the number of studies included in the review? Also summarise here the author’s description of the kinds of studies that they actually includedE.

1.1 SpecifyThe search study found 3,029 but only three articles, that met all the inclusion criteria, were included.E.2 What are the results of the review? Summarise here the author’s description of their findings.E.

3.1 SpecifySignificant results were found between preand posttest scores related to Internet safety knowledge. Most results related to risky online behavior were not significant. Results provide evidence that participation in psycho educational Internet safety interventions is associated with an increase in Internet safety knowledge but is not significantly associated with a change in risky online behavior. E.3 What are the review authors' conclusions? E.

3.1 SpecifyParticipation in cyber abuse prevention interventions may not be significantly related to Internet risk attitudes and behavior. In addition, cyber abuse knowledge may not always lead to behavior change. Section F: Appraisal of the reviewF.1 Did the reviewers try to identify all relevant studies? JustifyyouranswerF.

1.1 YesExhaustive search strategy including keyword search, hand search, contacting experts and grey literature search for the relevant studies. F.

1.2 Can’ttellF.

1.3 NoF.2 Did the reviewers appropriately assess the quality of the included studies? JustifyyouranswerF.

2.1 YesClearly defined eligible criteria to screen and select high quality and relevant studiesF.

2.2 Can’ttellF.

2.3 NoF.3 If the results of the studies have been combined, was it reasonable to do so? Justifyyouranswer?F.

3.1 YesF.

3.2 Can’ttellF.

3.3 NoThe results weren’t combined, but they’re compared. F.4 ADD A QUESTION HERE THAT YOU THINK HELPS APPRAISE THIS REVIEWThen answer the question and justify your answerWere the potential biases addressed in the review? F.

4.1 YesLow attrition rates in Missing and I-SAFE programs suggest that there is little or no attrition bias. F.

4.2 Can’ttellF.

4.3 NoThe potential biases addressed in the review to kinder gardens, middle and high schools to conduct a systematic review of rigorously evaluated school-based interventions to decrease bullying.