Cited by 331Resilience and Mental HealthChild Abuse and TraumaChild Welfare and Adoption

Resilience in children exposed to violence: A meta-analysis of protective factors across ecological contexts

Yule, Kristen, Houston, Jessica, Grych, John·2019·Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review

Abstract

Children who experience violence in their families and communities are at increased risk for a wide range of psychological and behavioral difficulties, but some exhibit resilience, or adaptive functioning following adversity. Understanding what promotes resilience is critical for developing more effective prevention and intervention strategies. Over 100 studies have examined potential protective factors for children exposed to violence in the past 30 years, but there has been no quantitative review of this literature. In order to identify which protective factors have received the strongest empirical support, we conducted a meta-analysis of 118 studies involving 101,592 participants. We separately evaluated cross-sectional (n = 71) and longitudinal (n = 47) studies testing bivariate, additive, and buffering effects for eleven proposed protective factors. Effect sizes generally were stronger in cross-sectional than longitudinal studies, but four protective factors-self-regulation, family support, school support, and peer support-demonstrated significant additive and/or buffering effects in longitudinal studies. Results were consistent across type of violence experienced (i.e., maltreatment, intimate partner violence, community violence). The review highlights the most robust predictors of resilience, identifies limitations of this work, and offers directions for improving our understanding of the processes and programs that foster resilience in children exposed to violence.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s10567-019-00293-1

Cites

237 of 237 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Yule, K., Houston, J., & Grych, J.
Affiliations
Marquette University (US)
Corresponding author
Yule, Kristen
Venue
Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review
Published
2019-03-18
Volume
22
Issue
3
Pages
406-431
ISSN
  • 1096-4037 (ISSN-L)
  • 1573-2827
OpenAlex
W2924860102
Cited by
331
References
237
Citations by year
2026: 37 · 2025: 51 · 2024: 52 · 2023: 62 · 2022: 70 · 2021: 45 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 4
FWCI
5.11
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • e-Publications@Marquette (Marquette University) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Resilience and Mental Health
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Child Abuse and Trauma
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Child Welfare and Adoption
Keywords
resilience, children exposed to violence, protective factors, self-regulation, family support, school support, peer support, child abuse, intimate partner violence, community violence, buffering effect, additive effects, ecological context
MeSH terms
Psychological Trauma, Self-Control, Adolescent, Child, Family Relations, Humans, Peer Group, Schools, Social Support, Violence, Resilience, Psychological, Protective Factors

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review