This study was performed on 105 children with CD and their parents, as well as 105 children without CD and their parents. The mean age of children with and without CD was 9.97 (SD = 1.03) and 9.66 (SD = 1.20) years, respectively. The descriptive statistics related to the research variables (age, sex, child’s education level, and family type) are presented in
Table 1.
According to
Table 2, the skewness for all research variables (physical well-being, emotional well-being, family, friends, school, QOL, and self-esteem) was between -3 and +3, and kurtosis was between -10 and +10. Therefore, the normal distribution of the data was confirmed.
Table 3 demonstrates the results of the independent samples
t-test, which indicated no significant difference in terms of physical and emotional well-being, family, friends, and school dimensions between the parents’ QOL reports and the children’s QOL reports in the group of children with CD. The parents’ QOL report (M = 78.08, SD = 8.15) scored significantly higher than that of the children’s QOL report (M = 78.00, SD = 9.64,
t (208) = 0.06, P < 0.05, two-tailed) in the group of children with CD. The children’s QOL reports (M = 14.04, SD = 3.39) scored significantly higher on the self-esteem dimension compared to the parents’ QOL reports (M = 13.58, SD = 2.85,
t (208) = -1.07, P < 0.05, two-tailed) in the group of children with CD.
According to the parents’ reports, there was no significant difference in terms of QOL, physical well-being, emotional well-being, self-esteem, family, and friends between the two groups of children with and without CD. Children without CD (M = 15.65, SD = 2.20) scored much higher on the school dimension compared to children with CD (M = 12.59, SD = 3.20,
t (208) = -8.07, P < 0.05, two-tailed). Moreover, children with CD (M = 68.85, SD = 11.86) obtained much higher total scores of PP compared to children without CD (M = 48.59, SD = 9.53,
t (208) = 13.64, P < 0.05, two-tailed). Also, children with CD (M = 10.40, SD = 2.47) obtained much higher scores on the attention dimension compared to children without CD (M = 7.36, SD = 2.17,
t (208) = 9.49, P < 0.05, two-tailed). The results showed that children with CD (M = 10.26, SD = 2.31) scored much higher on the dimension of internalizing symptoms compared to children without CD (M = 6.95, SD = 1.91,
t (208) = 11.31, P < 0.05, two-tailed). Also, children with CD (M = 8.21, SD = 1.87) scored much higher on the dimension of externalizing symptoms compared to children without CD (M = 5.61, SD = 1.40,
t (208) = 11.39, P < 0.05, two-tailed). The findings are presented in
Table 4.
According to the children’s QOL reports, there was no significant difference regarding QOL, physical well-being, family, and friends between the two groups of children with and without CD. Children without CD (M = 15.04, SD = 2.45) scored much higher on the school dimension compared to children with CD (M = 13.64, SD = 3.02,
t (208) = -3.68, P < 0.05, two-tailed). Also, children without CD (M = 16.89, SD = 2.65) scored much higher on the self-esteem dimension in comparison to children with CD (M = 14.04, SD = 3.39,
t (208) = -6.77, P < 0.05, two-tailed). Furthermore, children without CD (M = 15.28, SD = 2.27) scored much higher on the emotional well-being dimension as compared to children with CD (M = 11.70, SD = 3.05,
t (208) = -9.63, P < 0.05, two-tailed). These findings are presented in
Table 5.