CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 143Youth Substance Use and School AttendanceSchool Health and Nursing EducationChild and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional Development

Bridging the gap among professionals who address youths with school absenteeism: overview and suggestions for consensus

Kearney, Christopher A.·2003·Professional Psychology: Research and Practice
DOI 10.1037/0735-7028.34.1.57
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Over decades of study, problematic school absenteeism in youths has been associated with diverse terms such as truancy, psychoneurotic truancy, school refusal, school phobia, and separation anxiety. Unfor-tunately, such disparity has led to lack of consensus regarding definition, assessment, and treatment for this population. This is especially problematic given that school absenteeism and dropout remain at crisis proportions. A brief historical overview is presented of the various terms used to define subtypes of absenteeism. Suggestions are then made for building consensus among psychologists, educators, and others who address these youths. These suggestions surround using a common definitional and assessment approach as well as designing treatment strategies that cover all youths with problematic absenteeism. Problematic school absenteeism in youths has been researched and discussed extensively for over a century, receiving attention from psychologists of different theoretical orientations as well as educators, social workers, physicians, and others. A byproduct of this extensive attention, however, has been considerable disparity about fundamental concepts of definition, assessment, and treat-ment. Such disparity has been manifested by the presence of different sets of professionals who often evaluate a particular aspect of problematic school absenteeism at the expense of view-ing the population as a whole. As a result, practitioners, research-ers, and others are often “not on the same page ” when addressing students or clients, examining research samples, or classifying absentees. Such lack of consensus is especially problematic given that 5.5%–20.0 % of youths are absent from school on a given day and that 11.1 % of youths aged 16–24 years have dropped out of

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/0735-7028.34.1.57

Cites

67 of 67 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

2 of the 69 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Kearney, C. A.
Affiliations
University of Nevada, Las Vegas (US)
Corresponding author
Kearney, Christopher A.
ORCID
Kearney, Christopher A.
Venue
Professional Psychology: Research and Practice
Publisher
American Psychological Association (APA)
Published
2003-02
Volume
34
Issue
1
Pages
57-65
ISSN
  • 0735-7028 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-1323
DOI
10.1037/0735-7028.34.1.57
OpenAlex
W2093904892
Cited by
142
References
69
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 13 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 7 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 10 · 2012: 7
FWCI
25.20
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Professional Psychology Research and Practice (publishedVersion)
Funders
American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Education › Youth Substance Use and School Attendance
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Speech and Hearing › School Health and Nursing Education
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Child and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional Development
Keywords
school absenteeism, truancy, school refusal, school anxiety, separation anxiety, youth, school dropout, terminology, definitions, assessment, treatment, multidisciplinary consensus

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