IMPACT OF CHILDREN LABOR ON PSYCHOSOCIAL DEVELOPMENT OF SCHOOL AGE CHILDREN IN ISMAILIA GOVERNORATE تأثير عمالة الأطفال على الصحة النفسية والاجتماعية للأطفال في سن المدرسة بمحافظة الإسماعيلية

IMPACT OF CHILDREN LABOR ON PSYCHOSOCIAL DEVELOPMENT OF SCHOOL AGE CHILDREN IN ISMAILIA GOVERNORATE

Gehan Ahmed El-Samman^*, Amal Sobhy Mahmoud^**,
Gehad Mohamed Abo El-Matty^*** and  Azza Ismail Ismail^****

*Pediatric Nursing Dept., Faculty of Nursing, Cairo University

**Psychiatric and Mental Health Nursing Dept., Faculty of Nursing, Suez Canal University

***Community Health Nursing Dept., Faculty of Nursing, Suez Canal University

****Pediatric Nursing Dept., Faculty of Nursing, Suez Canal University

INTRODUCTION:

The child is an individual and a member of a family and community, with rights and responsibilities appropriate to his or her age and stage of development (www.unicef.org/crc, 2005). Childhood period is one of the most important periods in human growth (Mckinney et al., 2005).

 The school age years are characterized by slow and steady growth. Child’s world expands from the tight circle of the family to include children and adults at school (Mckinney et al., 2000). During this period there is a dynamic change and maturation as the child becomes increasingly involved in more complex activities, decision making and goal directed activities. Children learn rules, competition and cooperation to achieve goals (Muscari, 2005).

Psychosocial development during the school years focuses on the development of a sense of industry and the development of peer relationships. Each of these in turn will affect developing self-concept (James et al., 2002). Skills acquisition during the school years includes not only classroom skills but also activities, games and sports. A variety of activities brings the child in contact with peers and adults and the child has an opportunity to develop social skills (Jackson and Saunders, 1993). Developing friendships, belonging to group or club and gaining competence in social interactions all foster a sense of industry and a positive sense of self (Jackson and Saunder, 1993 and Muscari, 2005). In addition, Competence and self-esteem increase with each academic, social and athletic achievement (Mckinney et al., 2005).

Peers become important as the child starts school and gradually moves away from security of home and this period is a time for best friends, sharing and exploring. So social relationships increasingly become an important source of support (Mckinney et al., 2005). Although the peer group is highly influential and necessary to normal child development, the parents are still the primary influence in shaping the child’s personality, setting standards for behavior and establishing a value system (Wong, 1993).

Families are the most central and enduring influence in children's lives. The health and well-being of children are inextricably linked to their parent’s physical, emotional, and social health, social circumstances, and child rearing practice (Schor et al., 2003).

The convention on the rights of child holds governments accountable in respecting the right of children including freedom from hunger and protection from disease, free compulsory primary education, adequate health care and equal treatment regardless of gender, race of cultural background, freedom from violence, abuse and hazardous employments (www.unicefusa.org/ 2003). All the previous rights are the responsibility of governments, societies, families and individuals (www.unicef.org/sowc 05, 2005).

Child labor defined by article 32 of the convention on the right of the child as any economic exploitation or work that is likely to be hazardous or interferes with the child’s education or is harmful to the child’s health or physical, mental, spiritual, moral, or social development (Http://capwiz.com/unicefusa, 2003). However, several social and economic factors contribute to children labor (Ali et al., 2002). As poverty or economic factors, lack of awareness and poor educational services are from the important causes contributing to children labor (www.churchworld-services. org, 2005).

Furthermore many factors which lead to children labor are contributing to the child himself as educational failure, and low intelligence and some children have no desire to complete education (Ramzy, 1998).

There are different kinds of work which could be categorized into four main fields, domestic services and food processing, selling services, agricultural and industrial field (Haggag, 1995). Although work can encourage the development of discipline, teach child the meaning of money and provide valuable role model, employment during childhood and adolescence carries significant risks. These risks are magnified greatly when employment is illegal or exploitative (Reigart et al., 1995).

 Children labor exposes the children to physical, chemical, mechanical, biological and psychosocial hazards (Haggag, 1995). As noise, heat and inadequate lighting can affect child's health, exposure to excessive noise may begin the sequence of destructive events in the auditory system that lead to noise induced hearing loss, and excessive heat lead to burns, improper light lead to decreased visual acuity and eye strain (Rom, 1998). Some other serious problems are chemical burns, poisoning and toxic gases which also affect children (Bull et al., 2001). Many of working children are prone to accidents and injuries which include crushing, fractures, head injuries, low back pain, hip pain related to heavy lifting and functions limitation related to falls (Stanhope and Lancaster, 2000). Also working children in their work sites are exposed to infection diseases, viral and bacterial diseases and skin disease (Reigart et al., 1995 and Rome, 1998).

 Children labor has a great effect on psychosocial development of children as abuse, neglect, tension, fear, frustration, separation from family and peers and the burden of premature responsibility. These hazards affect both physical and mental health of children leading to disorders as headache, dizziness, accidents, poor preparation for adult life and antisocial behavior among these children (Haggag, 1995). Furth-ermore, children labor interferes with normal and necessary play of children and exposes them to undesirable and adverse habits like smoking, drinking and drug abuse (Reigart et al., 1995).

 Most of the previous studies focus on the physical hazards of children labor neglecting the other hazards. Consequently, the present study is conducted to shed light on the effect of children labor on their psychosocial development during school age period.

AIM OF THE STUDY:

The Aim of the Present Study is to:

Assess the impact of children labor on psychosocial development of school age children in Ismailia governorate.

SUBJECTS AND METHODS:

Study Design: Comprehensive descriptive design.

Study Setting:

This study is conducted at two areas in Ismailia City.

1-Hai El-Salam for industrial workshops.
2- El-Kasasin City for agricultural fields.

Study Population :

The study population were 114 child divided into two groups (working and school children) whom selected according the following criteria:

A-General inclusion criteria:

1-Age group from 6-12 years.

2-Both gender.

B-Inclusion criteria for working group:

1-Working on a regular basis (full time).

2-Not attending school beside work.

C-Inclusion criteria for school group:

Children from governmental primary school.

D-Exclusion Criteria:

Children with mental and physical handicap.

Sample Size:

The sample size determined by using the equation of the difference between two proportions (Pocock, 1982).

1-Tool of Data Collection :

A structured interview questionnaire sheet was developed by the research investigator after reviewing the related literature and using some points of the questionnaire sheet of Haggag (1995) as (Part 2) and some points of (Part 4). It contains four parts:

Part 1: Socio-demographic characteristics of children such as: age, gender, rank between their siblings, and number of siblings.

Part 2: Data about working children as: type of work, hours of work, rest hours, reasons for work, duration of work, and training before starting work.

Part 3: Data about children going to school as: teaching hours, breaks, classes of recreation, last scores.

Part 4: Data about psychosocial development of children such as: leisure time, presence of friends, hobbies, effect of work or school on behavior and activity.

2-Administrative Design:

                Before conduction of the study, an official letter was obtained from the dean of the Faculty of Nursing, Suez Canal University to the administrators of schools to carry out this study, after explanation of the aim of the study for them. The agreement to share in the study was taken from all of the children participated in the study and also from supervisors of working children. The researcher assured the children (school and working) and their supervisors that the information obtained was confidential and would be used only for the purpose of the study.

3-Operational Design:

The operational design of the current study includes the pilot study and field work.

Pilot Study: The pilot study is carried out after the development of the tool and before starting the data collection. It is carried out on 10% of the sample. It was conducted at the time from June 15 to June 30, 2004.

The purpose of the pilot study was:

- To test the applicability and clarity of the study tool.

- To estimate the time needed to complete the questionnaire, and to add or omit questions.

Appropriate modifications were done, where some questions were omitted and some others added. The required modifications were done and the final form was completed.

Field Work:

                Data was collected by the researcher through structured interview questionnaire sheet to field for each child. For school children four to five students were interviewed per day from 9.00 AM to 1.00 PM in two days each week. The researcher met the students when they were on breaks. For working children from two to four children were interviewed on breaks each day and some times one per day. The approximate time spent with each child during the interview to complete the sheet was 30 to 45 minutes according to the child age. Data was collected in a period of five months from the beginning of July 2004 till the end of November 2004.

4-Statistical Design:

                The statistical design involves scoring of the tool and the statistical analysis.

Scoring System:

                To assess the negative effect of work/school on the psychosocial development among working and school children. The response Yes was scored "3", Sometimes was scored "2" and No was scored "1", these scores were assumed up and converted into percentage.          After that scores categorized as <50% to <64% had severe effect and from 65% to <74% had moderate effect and from 75 to < 84% had mild effect and>85% had no effect.

Statistical Analysis:

Data was collected, presented in tabular form. Percentages were calculated for qualitative data and mean and standard deviations were calculated for quantitative data. The Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) was used for statistical analysis.

Limitation of the Study:

Many of the owners of workshops refused to participate in the study.

RESULTS:

Table(1) shows that the majority of working children are ages between 10 to 12 years (89.5%), and the mean age is 9.76±1.52 year and 80.7% of them are boys. As regards the birth order, 28.1% of them are the third or fourth.

Regarding the school children, less than two thirds of them are aged between 10 to 12 years (61.4%), the mean age is 9.66±1.52 year and more than half of them are girls (54.4%), moreover 28.1% are the first child in the family.

There are a highly statistical significant differences between both groups regarding age (X²=12.12, P=0.002), and gender (X²=13.61, P=0.000). Also a statistical significant differences are found regarding birth order (X²=0.91, P=0.022).

Table (2) deals with wages of working children and it is obviously noted that the vast majority of working children (94.5%) receive wages weekly, and 3.6% of children receive monthly wages, and about 3.5% do not receive any wages.

Less than fifty percent of them (45.5%) receive 140 pounds or more per month, while the minority of them 9.1% receives 100 to 119 pounds per month. Regarding the persons who receive the child wages, more than half of them (58.2%) receive their wages by themselves and a minority of them (9.1%) receives their wages by their brothers. It is found that 63.6% of working children give whole wages to their families and 34.5% take part and give another part to the family and only 1.9% takes wage for him.

In comparison between boys and girls regarding causes for not attending or completing school and occupation features table (3) illustrates that more than half of working children dislike school, so boys and girls do not go to or complete school (56.5% and 72.7% respectively).

 Less than fifty percent of boys and girls report that their failure at school is the main cause for work (45.7% and 45.5% respectively). The highest percentage of boys and girls selected this work because they had relatives or friends in the same work (34.8% and 54.5% respectively), and started to work from age 8 to 9 years (56.5% and 72.7% respectively).

Concerning the type of work, it is found that more than fifty percent of boys (52.2%) and 100% of girls work in agricultural work, and more than half of boys and girls are joined by their fathers to work (54.4% and 54.5% respectively).

There is a highly statistical significant difference between boys and girls regarding type of work (X² =6.67, P=0.009).

Table (4) clarifies that the vast majority of working children (94.74%) work for 6 days per week and take one day off every week. All of working children work for 8 hours or more per day (100%) and about three quarters of them take an hour break every day (75.5%).

 All of school children go to school 6 days per week (100%), and take a day off every week, 64.9% of them spend 6-7 hours at school per day and all of them take quarter of an hour break every day.

 There are highly statistical significant differences between working and school children in the number of working or school days per week (X²=110.04, P=0.000), number of hours spent at work or school (X²=50.51, P=0.000), duration of break at work or school (X²=114, P=0.000)

Table (5) illustrates that the majority of working and school children have time to be with their families to know their problems and talk with them (98.2%, 89.5% respectively). Regarding hobbies, more than fifty percent of working children (59.6%) play sports. More than fifty percent of school children like drawing, reading and listening to stories (52.6%). The minority of both groups do not have hobbies (3.5%, 1.8% respectively). The majority of both groups have hobbies similar to their friends (91.2%, 66.6% respectively). The vast majority of both groups have time to practice their hobbies (93%, 98.2% respectively), but do not practice them in youth clubs (94.7%, 84.2% respectively), while the minority of them practice their hobbies in youth club (5.3%, 15.8% respectively).

Most of children of both groups have a chance to play during break time (75.4%, 98.2% respectively), and about fifty percent of working children (50.9%) spend the day off outside home, while 43.9% of school children go to visit relatives.

 There are highly statistical significant differences between the two groups regarding having hobbies (X²=41.19, P=0.000), similarity of hobbies between children and their friends (X²=15.81, P=0.000) possibility of playing during break time (X²=11.05, P=0.000) and how spending the day off (X²=19.5, P=0.000).

 Table (6) indicates that all of working children (100%) and the majority of school children (98.2%) have good relationships with owners of works or teachers and about three quarters of working children (75.4%) and less than half of school children (47.4%) are insulted and punished corporally by owners of works or teachers when making mistakes. The highest percentage of them understand their mistakes and give them up (49.1%, and 56.1% respectively).

 There are highly statistical significant differences between both groups regarding good relationship with owners of works or teachers (X² =0.00, P=1.002), management of child mistakes by owners of works or teachers (X²=11.38, P=0.003) and child's reaction to punishment (X²=16.77, P=0.000).

From table (7) it is obviously noted that 64.9% of working children do not help their families in home activities, while 85.9% of school children help their families as 79.6% help in arranging home. The work and school have a negative effect on children's activity (33.3% and 10.5% respectively) in the form of getting tired (100% and 83.3% respectively)

 More than three quarters of working children (78.9%) have works faraway from home and most of them (86.7%) go to their works by transportation, while 80.7% of school children have schools near to home and go to their schools by walking (45.5%).

 The majority of both groups are not exposed to injuries during work or school (87.7% and 82.5% respectively), whereas the minority of them are injured (12.3% and 17.5% respectively). Less than fifty percent of injured working children (42.9%) are injured for once or twice, most of them 71.4% being injured from working tools and all of them 100% have wounds being healed completely. In contrast, 50% of injured school children are injured once; the highest percentage of them (70%) are injured during playing and falling down and all of them (100%) have wounds being healed completely.

There are highly statistical significant differences between both groups regarding not helping in home activities (X² =28.78, P=0.000), absence of effect of work or school on child's activity (X²=7.38, P=0.006), site of work or school near home (X²=38.22, P=0.000), how children go to work or school (X²=13.8, P=0.001) and regarding causes of injuries (X²=14.25, P=0.002).

 As a result of the comparison between both groups regarding future work children hope to have and positive psychological effect of work or school, table (8) shows that more than half of working children (57.9%) hop to be worker in future, while three quarters of school children (75.4%) hop to have a professional work. Children become more independent as the positive effect of work or school on their behavior (40.3% and 36.8% respectively).

 There are highly statistical significant differences between both groups regarding type of work which child hopes to do in future (X²=83.48, P=0.00) and positive effect of work or school on child's behavior (X²=29.82, P=00).

From table (9) it is clear that about one third of working children have nightmares as effect of work on behavior or activities (33.3%) and 12.3% are worried and want to cry, 10.5% feeling irritable or nervous, while 38.6% of school children complain of insomnia, 31.6% being phobic and hyperactive and 29.8% having nightmares.

 Regarding working children they sometimes complain of lying (49.1%) about 47.4% sometimes feeling loss of appetite and 42.1% sometimes complaining of insomnia, nightmares and feeling irritable. In contrast, in school children, 50.9% of children sometimes feel loss of appetite, 31.6% feeling sometimes irritable and 26.3% sometimes complaining of insomnia.

The majority of working children (96.5%) do not complain from finger suckling and 93% do not feel hostile, escape from work, bite nails, feeling anxious and having refrain. Hundred percent of school children do not escape from home or school, 94.7% not feeling hostile and 89.5% of them not biting their nails. 

And from figure (3) it is clear that more than half of working children (52.63%) have no negative effect from work on their psychosocial development, and 29.83% of them have mild negative effect whereas less than one third of school children (31.58%) have moderate or no negative effect from school on their psychosocial development.

 There is a highly statistical significant difference between both groups regarding negative effect of work/school on children's psychosocial development (X² =12.89, P=0.004).

Table (1): Socio-demographic characteristics of working and school children

in percentage distribution (n=114)

 *P = 0.05                                **P = 0.01                               ***P = 0.001

Table (2): Wages of working children in percentage distribution (n=57)

Table (3): Causes of not attending school and occupation features of working children

in percentage distribution (n=57)

 **P = 0.01

Table (4): System and burden of work/school among working and school children

 in percentage distribution (n=114)

***P = 0.001

Figure(1): Hours of work/school day among working and school children

in percentage distribution (n=114)

Table (5): Leisure time of working and school children in percentage distribution (n=114)

 ***P = 0.001

Table (6): Relationship with owner of work/teacher, management of child mistakes and child's reaction among working and school children in percentage distribution (n=114)

**P = 0.01                                              ***P = 0

Figure(2): Management of owners of works/teachers of child’s mistakes among studied children

in percentage distribution (n=114)

Table (7): Helping families in home activities and physical effect of work/school on Working and school children in percentage distribution (n=114)

 **P = 0.01                                              ***P = 0.001

Table (8): Type of work which child hopes to have in future and positive psychological effect of work/school on the working/school children in percentage distribution (n=114)

 ***P = 0.001

Figure (3): Negative effect of work/school on psychosocial development among working

and school children in percentage distribution

Table (9)

DISCUSSION:

Children in school age need a warm and nurturing environment. They need a family which can provide social support, socialization coping and life skills. (Schor et al., 2003). Needs of school age children are psychological and emotional rather than biological. They need to feel safe, secure, loved, accepted and belonging (El-Alem, 1997).

Legal and illegal child labor are widely spread and apparently has increased in frequency over the past decade. Children and adolescents are employed under unlawful, often exploitative conditions, working under age, for long hours, at less than minimum wages, on dangerous and prohibited machinery (Reigart et al., 1995). Children labor has a profound negative impact on child's physical, emotional, mental, spiritual, moral and social development (http://capwiz.com/unicefusa,2003).

The current study aims at shedding light on the impact of children labor on psychosocial development of school age children in Ismailia governorate, regarding the socio demographic characteristics, the results of the present study clarify that the majority of working children are boys (Table 1). This may be justified as to the traditions and cultural believes which say that work is useful for boys, for the formation of their personalities and development of their skills. The findings are in agreement with Haggag (1995) who studied "The Impact of Child's Labor on his Health Status in Alexandria", and reported that more than three quarter of working children were boys. Also Soliman (2003) who studied "The Injuries among Children Under 16 Years in a Rural Area in Ismailia Governorate" found that more than half of working children were boys.

 Concerning birth order, more than half of working children in the present study are the third and more (Table 1). It may be justified as parents usually intend to educate their eldest child as he is usually surrounded by special attention and care. This agrees with Haggag (1995) and Mohamed (1995) who studied "The Injuries among Children under 16 who Work in Car Repair Small Workshops in Ismailia City" and they found that most of the working children were the second or third child in the family.

 It is noticed from the present study that the highest percentage of working children receive weekly wages on work and few of them do not take wages (Table 2). Based on the researcher’s view, children who do not take wages work with their families. This finding supported by the results of www.aucegypt.edu/src(2005) that found the majority of working children taking cash money while few of them not taking wages.

The present study shows that the highest percentage of children receive more than 140 pounds monthly. This is in contrast with El-Dapaa (1993), El-Komy (1996) and Mahmoud (1997) who studied “The Relationship between the Complacence Working and Psychologic Correspondence for Workers Children” and reported that most of children received less than 100 pounds monthly. From the point of view of the researcher, the difference in the wages is related to the decreases of the power of pounds recently.

Concerning expenditure of wages, less than two thirds of children give whole wages to their families, while about one third of children give part and keep part for themselves. This result assures that children work is mainly due to financial support. These results are in the same line with Mahmoud (1997) who found that more than half of working children gave whole wages to their families. Also Azer (1998) who studied "Scientific Researches Appointment, Experiment in Working Children Phenomenon Field" reported that the highest percentage of children gave whole wages to their families and they were satisfied with this. EL-Dapaa (1993) contradicted these results and found that about two thirds of working children gave part to their families and kept part to themselves.

Regarding the causes for not attending or completing school, the findings of the study show that working children do not like school (Table 3). From the point of view of the researcher this is due to poor educational services, unsuitability of school environment and physical abuse of teachers, which lead children to hate school and enter labor market. These results correspond to El-Garhy (1994) who found that some children hated school due to physical abuse of teachers.

Moreover, scholastic failure is the main cause for work among boys and girls, this result is congruent with Abd Allah (1986) who studied "Child Labor of Egyptian Industry at Egypt" and (www.aucegypt.edu/src,2005) found that educational failure and financial assistance were the main causes for children labor.

Concerning the age of beginning work, the present study finds that the majority of boys and girls start work at the age of 8-9; this result is supported by El-Garhy (1994) and El-Komy (1996) who found that the majority of children began work between 8-10 years, whereas Haggag (1995) found that children between 10-12 years were the more frequent ages among boys and from 12-14 years among girls.

As for type of work, more than half of boys and all of girls work in agricultural fields, perhaps because working children have friends or relatives in the same work or because fathers select the work and join their children to it. The result agrees with Ali et al. (2002) who found that agricultural sector was the largest illegal sector which involved many children working in it and fathers who usually pushed and joined children to work.

The results of the present study show that more than two thirds of children do not change their work; this may be due to suitability of wages. This result opposes Mahmoud’s study (1997) who reported that more than two thirds of children changed their work.

Some children do not take any day off from work (Table 4); this may be due to financial needs of those children. This result agrees with www.aucegyp.edu/src(2005) which found that the mean of working days per week was 6.08. But, this contradicts the Egyptian Child Right (1989) which assures that children should not work at weekends.

Regarding working hours, all of working children work more than 8 hours per day; this finding goes with Mohamed (1995) who found that the majority of working children worked more than 10 hours per day. Also El-Komy (1996) found that many children worked from 11-14 hours per day. Moreover, Abd El-Rahman (1996) who studied "Working Children Manners in Cairo” found that many owners of work preferred children work as they worked long hours and sometimes with no days off.

Concerning duration of break, about three quarters of working children take an hour. This is supported by El-Dapaa (1993) who reported that most of working children took an hour as a rest period daily. Also this corresponds to Egyptian Child Right (1989) assuring that working hours must be separated by a time or more for eating and rest, with a total time not less than 1 hour. In contrast, the findings contradict Haggag (1995) who found that about three quarters of children receive no or insufficient rest periods.

 Regarding school children, less than two thirds of them study from 6 to 7 hours at school every day and all of them take quarter of an hour break per school day; this may be due to rigidity of educational system and school policies.

From the present study, it is clear that the majority of working and school children have hobbies, which are similar to their friends (Table 5). This result agrees with Hassan (2003) who studied "Health Profile of Public Preparatory School Adolescents in Port Said City" and found that the majority of children had hobbies. Also they do not participate in youth clubs. From the researcher's point of view both working and school children have no time to participate in clubs because they are exhausted from work or homework. But, this finding contradicts James et al. (2002) who mentioned that the school age years were the time for participation in clubs.

Regarding spending the day off, half of working children spend it outside home playing with their friends and less than half of school children spend it in visiting relatives. This may be due to that working and school children spend the 6 days of week at work or school. This result is congruent with Azer and Ramzy (1991) who studied "The Child Labor in Egypt" and Karim (1996) who studied "Social and Economic Manners and Working Children in the Countryside" and they found that the majority of working children spent the day off outside home with their friends. In contrast, this result contradicts Ali et al. (2002) who found that the majority of working children stayed at home and a few number of them went out with friends.

From this study, it is clear that about three quarters of working children complain of insulting and corporal punishment as this is the way of owner of work to manage child's mistake (Table 6). On the other hand, more than half of school children report that discussion and clarification of mistakes is the way of teachers to manage child's mistake. Regarding working children the results are supported by Alrefaay (1994) who studied “Child Abuse and it's Relationship with Psychological Problems” and Abd Elal (1997) and they found that insulting and physical punishment were the main way for management of any mistakes among working children. In contrast, Haggag (1995) contradicts the results of school children, as he thought that insulting and physical punishment were the main way for management among school children.

The majority of working children do not help heir families in home activities (Table 7). From the researcher's point of view, this is due to long hours of work and children become exhausted. This result agrees with El-Mesery (1986) who studied "Child Labor in Urban Areas" and found that a few number of children helped their families as they got home demands. On the other hand, the majority of school children help their families in home activities; this is due to the fact that they return earlier to home, besides that most of school children are girls. However, it forms another load on school children.

 The results show that the majority of working and school children have no physical effect from work or school while the minority of them get tired from work or school. This result opposes El-Mesery (1986); Shaker (1986) and El-Garhy (1994) as they found that most of working children were exhausted and got tired from long hours of work and bad working environment.

 The majority of working children have works faraway from home and most of them go to work by transportation. From the researcher's point of view, this adds another source of danger to those children as many children are prone to accidents during transportation. This result is supported by Montaser (2003) who studied "Working children, Cogent Conscription" and found that many children were injured or dead from car accidents during going to their work. On the other hand, more than three quarters of school children have schools near to their homes and the rest of them have homes faraway from schools and they go to school by walking or transportation; this is considered a load on those children either from walking or danger of transportation.

 Concerning occurrence of injuries at work or school, more than three quarters of working and school children are not injured at work or school. This finding is supported by Soliman (2003) who found that the majority of working children had no injuries at their work. In contrast, it is contradicted by Mohammed (1995) who found that more than two thirds of children are injured at work. On the other hand, the minority of them are injured at work for 1 or 2 times, this agrees with Mahmoud (1997) who found that the majority of working children were injured 1 to 2 times during work.

Concerning causes of injuries among working children, more than two thirds of them are injured from tools. From the researcher's point of view, this may be due to improper or lack of training to those children or due to exhaustion from long hours of work; these results go in the same line with Mohamed (1995) and El-Komy (1996) who found that the highest percentage of working children were injured due to tools. On the other hand, most of injured school children are injured due to playing and falling down; from the researcher's point of view this may be due to over crowdedness of schools and the unsuitability of school buildings or playgrounds.

 The current study reveals that more than half of working children hope to be workers in future (Table 8), because working children see the owner of work as a good model as he has a workshop and gains money. On the other hand, about three quarters of school children hope to have professional work in future and this is due to the effect of environment and encouragement of families, or they see their teachers as good models.

 Concerning positive effect of work or school on children, more than one third of working and school children report that they have become independent. From the researcher's point of view, working children feel this because they receive wages, feel responsible toward their families and school children depend on themselves in studying and doing homework. These results go in the same line with Ferganny (1993) who studied "Child Labor in Arabic Countries", El-Komy (1996), Mahmoud (1997) and El-Araby (2000) who studied "Social Effect of Child Labor in El-Menia" as they found that the majority of working children became more independent, mature and took responsibility toward their families.

 The present study shows that about one third of working children have nightmares (Table 9); from the researcher's point of view this may be due to exposure to different stressful events experienced during the day. This result supported by Haggag (1995) who found that nightmares were reported by the vast majority of working children. Also some of working children are irritable or nervous and this agrees with Moharram (1999) who reported that many of working children were irritable and worried about many things. On the other hand, these findings contradict Nasr El-Din (2001) who studied “Behavioral Problems towards Working Children, Comparing Study” and found that fear and anger were more obvious than worrying among working children. Furthermore, working children complain sometimes of lying and sometimes of insomnia; this is supported by Moharram (1999) who reported that some of working children had insomnia or sometimes were lying.

 Regarding school children, about one third of them complain of insomnia and being phobic or hyperactive and less than one third complain of nightmares. From the researcher's point of view, this may be due to fear of failure at school or load of studying. About half of them sometimes complain from loss of appetite. This agrees with Moharram (1999) who found that school children do not eat enough food. Furthermore, one third of them feel sometimes irritable. This is supported by Nasr El-Din (2001) who reported that worrying or feeling irritable are common complaints among school children.

 Furthermore, the vast majority of working children do not complain of finger suckling and this corresponds to Moharram (1999) who found that the vast majority of working children did not complain from finger suckling. The vast majority of these children do not complain of hostility and this disagrees with Mahdy (2000) who studied “Working Children Direction towards to Working and the Relationship with the Pushing and Self-esteem in Countries Countryside” and found that working children were usually hostile.

All of school children do not escape from home or school. This may be due to their exposure to low stressors in home or school, while the minority of working children escape from home or work and this may be due to their exposure to many stressors even at work or at home. The vast majority of school children do not complain of hostility, and this is congruent with Mahdy (2000) who found that school children were less hostile than working children.

 It is surprising to find that more than half of working children have no negative effect of work on their psychological development while less than one third of them have mild effect and the minority of them have sever effect. This may be due to the fact that children sometimes, and not usually, complain of psychological problems or they may be adapted to these complaints as there is no way to leave work. On the other hand, less than one third of school children have no or moderate negative effect of school on their psychological development and the minority of them have severe effect; this may be due to school and homework that put some burden on those children.

 Finally, there is no much difference between the two groups regarding psychosocial development, as not only work puts children under stressors but also schools do a lot of burdens on their children.

CONCLUSION :

 Children work because their parents do not see the importance of education and they have big family size, so the family is in need of financial support from their children; in addition, those children dislike school or fail in it. Even work has positive effect as the children become more independent, but it also has negative effect on their psychosocial condition, in the form of nightmares, worries, the desire to cry, feeling irritable or nervous, having no time to share in home activities or visiting relatives and being exposed to punishment from the owner of the work. School children are in better condition than working children but they are exposed to punishment from teachers and spend all the school hours in classes and the home hours in doing homework.

RECOMMENDATIONS:

Based on the findings of this study the following recommendations are suggested.

1-Parents:

• ·Parents must be aware of the importance of education for their children.
• ·Parents should use family planning methods.

2-Nurses:

• ·School nurse must share in early detection of pupils who dislike school and manage their problems.
• ·Cooperate effectively with psychologist and social worker to provide psychosocial support and encouragement to unsuccessful pupils.
• ·Cooperate with teachers and parents in management and follow up of learning problems.

3-Teachers:

• ·Teachers can play a role in reducing dropout of pupils from schools, by understanding children’s needs during the different developmental stages and use pleasant methods of teaching.
• ·Create attractive environment in classes or schools which will encourage children to complete school and decrease dropout of schools.
• ·Avoid physical punishment in case of mistakes.
• ·Encourage children through rewarding on better achievement.
• ·Decrease the burden of homework.

4-Ministries and Community Agencies:

• ·Ministry of education must adjust and develop an educational system to be appropriate for children's age and capabilities to decrease burden of studying on them.
• ·Schools should have suitable playgrounds and enough equipment for playing to encourage children to go to school.
• ·The ministry of manpower must have strict enforcement and real application of existing law against all forms of children labor.
• ·Follow up the application of law regarding working hours and rest period.
• ·All community agencies must share in improving conditions of working children and their families till eradication of this problem.
• ·Financial and social support for poor families.

5-Media:

• ·Increase awareness of the importance of education and encourage children to complete it.
• ·Premarital counseling and health education about family planning.
• ·Increase awareness of the causes and negative effects of labor on children.

6-Research:

• ·Further studies on the relationship between children labor and behavior problems.
• · Studies to detect the long term affect.

REFERENCES:

Azer, A. (1989): Report of the Interministerial Committee on Child Labour in Egypt Unicef, R (58) October.

Bull, M.; Grander, G.; Laraque, D.; Pollack, S.; Smith, G.; Spivak, H. and Tenebein, M. (2001): Prevention of Agricultural Injuries Among Children and Adolescents. American Academy of Pediatrics, 108 (4): P.P. 1016-1019.

El-Alem, O. (1997): Psychiatric and Behavior Problems in Primary School Children in Port Said City, Unpublished Master Thesis, Faculty of Nursing Suez Canal University.

Haggag, M. (1995): The Impact of Child's Labor on His Health Status in Alexandria, Doctoral Thesis, Faculty of Nursing, Alexandria University.

Hassan, K.J. (2003): Health Profile of Public Preparatory School Adolescents in Port Said City, Master Thesis, Suez Canal University, Faculty of Nursing.

Http://www.aucegypt.edu/src/childlabor/greatercairo.htm at 24-8-2005.

Http://www.churchworldservices.org/development/project-descriptions/53.html at 24-8-2005.

Http:/nclnet.org/childlabor/rights.htm at 7-6-2005.

Http://capwiz.com/unicefusa/issue/alert/?alertid=34816 at 8-12-2003.

Http://www.unicef.org/crc/convention.htmat 14-6-2005.

Http://www.unicef.org/crc/introduction.htm at 14-6-2005.

http://www. unicefusa. org/childlabor/end.html at 8-12-2003.

Http://www.unicef.org/sowc05/english/childhoodprotective. html at 26-8-2005.

Jackson, D. and Saunder, R. (1993): Child Health Nursing, Lippincott, P.P. 342-343.

James, S.; Ashwill, J. and Droske, S. (2002): Nursing Care of Children Principle and Practice, (2^nd ed). Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders, P.P. 182-198.

Mckinney, E.; Ashwill, J.; Murray, S.; James, S.; Gorrie, T. and Drocke, S. (2000): Maternal Child Nursing, London: W.B. Saunders Company, P.P. 175-184.

Mckinney, E.; James, S.; Murray, S. and Ashwill, J.(2005): Maternal Child Nursing, (2^nd ed). St. Louis: Elsevier Saunders, P.P. 129-145.

Mohamed, A.(1995): Injuries among Children Under 16 Who Working in Car Repair Small. Workshops in Ismalia City, Master Thesis in Occupational Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Suez Canal University.

Moharram, M. (1999): Study about Family Perspective of Causes and Effect of Child Labor on Children's Physical Develo-pment and Psychological Functioning in Port Said, Medical Doctorate degree in Family Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Suez Canal University.

Muscari, M. (2005): Pediatric Nursing, (4^th ed). Lippincott, P.P. 59-63 and 101-102.

Reigart, J.; Etzel, R.; Goldman, L.; Hendrick, J.; Mofenson, H. and Simon, P. (1995): The Hazards of Child Labor. American Academy of Pediatrics, 95 (2): P.P. 311-313.

Rom, W. (1998): Environmental and Occupatio-nal Medicine, (3^rd ed). New York: Lippincott, P.P. 1725-1729.

 Schor, E.; Billingsley, M.; Golden, A.; McMillan, J.; Meloy, L. and Pendarvis, B. (2003): Report of the Task Force on the Family. American Academy of Pediatrics, 111 (6): P.P. 1541-1571.

Soliman, E. (2003): Community Based Survey of Injury among Children Under 16 Years in a Rural Area in Ismailia Governorate, Egypt, Master Thesis in Pediatrics, Faculty of Medicine, Suez Canal University.

Stanhope, M. and Lancaster, J.(2000): Comm-unity and Public Health Nursing, (5^th ed). London: Mosby, P.P. 622-624.

Wong, D. (1993): Essential of Pediatric Nursing, (4^th ed). London: Mosby, P. 428.

أحمد شاکر: "الصحة المهنية وتشغيل الأحداث" المرکز القومي للبحوث الاجتماعية والجنائية، القاهرة 1986.

أحمد عبد الله: "عمل الأطفال في الصناعة المصرية في مصر، موجز بحث وخلاصة تجربة" ورقة مقدمة لندوة عمالة الأطفال، المرکز القومي للبحوث الاجتماعية والجنائية، القاهرة، 1986.

السيد عبد العزيز الرفاعي: "إساءة معاملة الأطفال وعلاقتها ببعض المشکلات النفسية" جامعة عين شمس، معهد الدراسات العليا للطفولة، رسالة ماجستير، 1994.

أيمن عباس الکومي: "عماله الأطفال في منطقه عشوائية، دراسة ميدانية" عين شمس، جامعة عين شمس، معهد الدراسات العليا للطفولة، قسم الدراسات النفسية والاجتماعية، رسالة ماجستير 1996.

حسام الدين محمد محمد عبد العزيز الجارحي: "التوافق النفسي وتقدير الذات لدي الطفل العامل وطفل المدرسة في الريف"، عين شمس (جامعة عين شمس، معهد الدراسات العليا للطفولة)، قسم الدراسات النفسية والاجتماعية، رسالة ماجستير، 1994.

خالد منتصر: الختان والعنف ضد المرأة، عمل الطفلة سخرة مقنعة، الرزق الجديد عنف مستتر وعبودية جديدة، 2003.

دعاء إبراهيم إبراهيم نصر الدين: "المشکلات السلوکية لدي الأطفال العاملين، دراسة مقارنه، جامعة عين شمس، معهد الدراسات العليا للطفولة، قسم الدراسات النفسية والاجتماعية، رسالة ماجستير، 2001.

دعاء سيد ابراهيم مهدي: "اتجاة الطفل العام نحو العمل وعلاقتة بالعدوان وتقدير الذات في الريف والحضر" جامعة عين شمس، معهد الدراسات العليا لطفولة، قسم الدراسات النفسية والاجتماعية، رسالة الماجستير، 2000.

عزة کريم: "الأبعاد الاجتماعية والاقتصادية وعمالة الطفل الريفية" ندوة الحقوق وعمالة الأطفال في الريف المصري، القاهرة، 1996.

عادل عازر وناهد رمزي: "تقرير عن عماله الأطفال في مصر"، القاهرة: المرکز القومي للبحوث الاجتماعية والجنائية مع منظمة الأمم المتحدة للأطفال (اليونيسيف) سبتمبر 1991.

فوزي عزت علي وحسن أنور جمعه وأحمد يحيي عبد الحميد: "دراسة لبعض المتغيرات النفسية والاجتماعية المرتبطة بظاهرة عمالة الأطفال بمحافظة السويس"، يونيو 2002.

محمد عبد الرحمن: "أنماط عمالة الأطفال في مدينة القاهرة" جامعة عين شمس، کلية البنات، رسالة الماجستير، 1996.

محمد عبد الجواد محمود: "دراسة عن العلاقة بين الرضا عن العمل والتوافق النفسي لدي الأطفال العاملين" عين شمس، جامعة عين شمس، معهد الدراسات العليا للطفولة، قسم الدراسات النفسية والاجتماعية، رسالة ماجستير 1997.

منال محمد محمود عبد العال: "الحل السوسيولوجي لعماله الأطفال بمدينه القاهرة" جامعة القاهرة، کلية الآداب، قسم الاجتماع، رسالة ماجستير 1997.

نادر فرجاني: "عمل الأطفال في البلدان العربية"، القاهرة: المجلس العربي للطفولة والتنمية 1993.

نادية رشاد سعد الدين الضبع: "عماله الأطفال وعلاقتها بالتوافق النفسي، دراسة ميدانية علي الأطفال العاملين بالورش الصناعية"، عين شمس، جامعة عين شمس، معهد الدراسات العليا للطفولة، قسم الدراسات النفسية والاجتماعية، رسالة ماجستير 1993.

ناهد رمزي: "ظاهرة عمالة الأطفال في الدول العربية نحو استراتيجية عربية لمواجهه الظاهرة"، المجلس العربي للطفولة والتنمية، المجلد الأول 1998.

نوال المسيري: "عمالة الأطفال في المدينة" ندوة عمالة الأطفال، 1986.

هاني العربي: "الآثار الاجتماعية المترتبة علي عمالة الأطفال، دراسة ميدانية مقارنة في محافظة المنيا" جامعة المنيا، کلية الآداب، رسالة الماجستير، 2000.

وثيقة حقوق الطفل المصري للسيد الرئيس محمد حسني مبارک: 1989، مادة 54، 64، 66.

IMPACT OF CHILDREN LABOR ON PSYCHOSOCIAL DEVELOPMENT OF SCHOOL AGE CHILDREN IN ISMAILIA GOVERNORATE

Gehan Ahmed El-Samman^*, Amal Sobhy Mahmoud^**,
Gehad Mohamed Abo El-Matty^*** and  Azza Ismail Ismail^****

*Pediatric Nursing Dept., Faculty of Nursing, Cairo University

**Psychiatric and Mental Health Nursing Dept., Faculty of Nursing, Suez Canal University

***Community Health Nursing Dept., Faculty of Nursing, Suez Canal University

****Pediatric Nursing Dept., Faculty of Nursing, Suez Canal University

INTRODUCTION:

The child is an individual and a member of a family and community, with rights and responsibilities appropriate to his or her age and stage of development (www.unicef.org/crc, 2005). Childhood period is one of the most important periods in human growth (Mckinney et al., 2005).

 The school age years are characterized by slow and steady growth. Child’s world expands from the tight circle of the family to include children and adults at school (Mckinney et al., 2000). During this period there is a dynamic change and maturation as the child becomes increasingly involved in more complex activities, decision making and goal directed activities. Children learn rules, competition and cooperation to achieve goals (Muscari, 2005).

Psychosocial development during the school years focuses on the development of a sense of industry and the development of peer relationships. Each of these in turn will affect developing self-concept (James et al., 2002). Skills acquisition during the school years includes not only classroom skills but also activities, games and sports. A variety of activities brings the child in contact with peers and adults and the child has an opportunity to develop social skills (Jackson and Saunders, 1993). Developing friendships, belonging to group or club and gaining competence in social interactions all foster a sense of industry and a positive sense of self (Jackson and Saunder, 1993 and Muscari, 2005). In addition, Competence and self-esteem increase with each academic, social and athletic achievement (Mckinney et al., 2005).

Peers become important as the child starts school and gradually moves away from security of home and this period is a time for best friends, sharing and exploring. So social relationships increasingly become an important source of support (Mckinney et al., 2005). Although the peer group is highly influential and necessary to normal child development, the parents are still the primary influence in shaping the child’s personality, setting standards for behavior and establishing a value system (Wong, 1993).

Families are the most central and enduring influence in children's lives. The health and well-being of children are inextricably linked to their parent’s physical, emotional, and social health, social circumstances, and child rearing practice (Schor et al., 2003).

The convention on the rights of child holds governments accountable in respecting the right of children including freedom from hunger and protection from disease, free compulsory primary education, adequate health care and equal treatment regardless of gender, race of cultural background, freedom from violence, abuse and hazardous employments (www.unicefusa.org/ 2003). All the previous rights are the responsibility of governments, societies, families and individuals (www.unicef.org/sowc 05, 2005).

Child labor defined by article 32 of the convention on the right of the child as any economic exploitation or work that is likely to be hazardous or interferes with the child’s education or is harmful to the child’s health or physical, mental, spiritual, moral, or social development (Http://capwiz.com/unicefusa, 2003). However, several social and economic factors contribute to children labor (Ali et al., 2002). As poverty or economic factors, lack of awareness and poor educational services are from the important causes contributing to children labor (www.churchworld-services. org, 2005).

Furthermore many factors which lead to children labor are contributing to the child himself as educational failure, and low intelligence and some children have no desire to complete education (Ramzy, 1998).

There are different kinds of work which could be categorized into four main fields, domestic services and food processing, selling services, agricultural and industrial field (Haggag, 1995). Although work can encourage the development of discipline, teach child the meaning of money and provide valuable role model, employment during childhood and adolescence carries significant risks. These risks are magnified greatly when employment is illegal or exploitative (Reigart et al., 1995).

 Children labor exposes the children to physical, chemical, mechanical, biological and psychosocial hazards (Haggag, 1995). As noise, heat and inadequate lighting can affect child's health, exposure to excessive noise may begin the sequence of destructive events in the auditory system that lead to noise induced hearing loss, and excessive heat lead to burns, improper light lead to decreased visual acuity and eye strain (Rom, 1998). Some other serious problems are chemical burns, poisoning and toxic gases which also affect children (Bull et al., 2001). Many of working children are prone to accidents and injuries which include crushing, fractures, head injuries, low back pain, hip pain related to heavy lifting and functions limitation related to falls (Stanhope and Lancaster, 2000). Also working children in their work sites are exposed to infection diseases, viral and bacterial diseases and skin disease (Reigart et al., 1995 and Rome, 1998).

 Children labor has a great effect on psychosocial development of children as abuse, neglect, tension, fear, frustration, separation from family and peers and the burden of premature responsibility. These hazards affect both physical and mental health of children leading to disorders as headache, dizziness, accidents, poor preparation for adult life and antisocial behavior among these children (Haggag, 1995). Furth-ermore, children labor interferes with normal and necessary play of children and exposes them to undesirable and adverse habits like smoking, drinking and drug abuse (Reigart et al., 1995).

 Most of the previous studies focus on the physical hazards of children labor neglecting the other hazards. Consequently, the present study is conducted to shed light on the effect of children labor on their psychosocial development during school age period.

AIM OF THE STUDY:

The Aim of the Present Study is to:

Assess the impact of children labor on psychosocial development of school age children in Ismailia governorate.

SUBJECTS AND METHODS:

Study Design: Comprehensive descriptive design.

Study Setting:

This study is conducted at two areas in Ismailia City.

1-Hai El-Salam for industrial workshops.
2- El-Kasasin City for agricultural fields.

Study Population :

The study population were 114 child divided into two groups (working and school children) whom selected according the following criteria:

A-General inclusion criteria:

1-Age group from 6-12 years.

2-Both gender.

B-Inclusion criteria for working group:

1-Working on a regular basis (full time).

2-Not attending school beside work.

C-Inclusion criteria for school group:

Children from governmental primary school.

D-Exclusion Criteria:

Children with mental and physical handicap.

Sample Size:

The sample size determined by using the equation of the difference between two proportions (Pocock, 1982).

1-Tool of Data Collection :

A structured interview questionnaire sheet was developed by the research investigator after reviewing the related literature and using some points of the questionnaire sheet of Haggag (1995) as (Part 2) and some points of (Part 4). It contains four parts:

Part 1: Socio-demographic characteristics of children such as: age, gender, rank between their siblings, and number of siblings.

Part 2: Data about working children as: type of work, hours of work, rest hours, reasons for work, duration of work, and training before starting work.

Part 3: Data about children going to school as: teaching hours, breaks, classes of recreation, last scores.

Part 4: Data about psychosocial development of children such as: leisure time, presence of friends, hobbies, effect of work or school on behavior and activity.

2-Administrative Design:

                Before conduction of the study, an official letter was obtained from the dean of the Faculty of Nursing, Suez Canal University to the administrators of schools to carry out this study, after explanation of the aim of the study for them. The agreement to share in the study was taken from all of the children participated in the study and also from supervisors of working children. The researcher assured the children (school and working) and their supervisors that the information obtained was confidential and would be used only for the purpose of the study.

3-Operational Design:

The operational design of the current study includes the pilot study and field work.

Pilot Study: The pilot study is carried out after the development of the tool and before starting the data collection. It is carried out on 10% of the sample. It was conducted at the time from June 15 to June 30, 2004.

The purpose of the pilot study was:

- To test the applicability and clarity of the study tool.

- To estimate the time needed to complete the questionnaire, and to add or omit questions.

Appropriate modifications were done, where some questions were omitted and some others added. The required modifications were done and the final form was completed.

Field Work:

                Data was collected by the researcher through structured interview questionnaire sheet to field for each child. For school children four to five students were interviewed per day from 9.00 AM to 1.00 PM in two days each week. The researcher met the students when they were on breaks. For working children from two to four children were interviewed on breaks each day and some times one per day. The approximate time spent with each child during the interview to complete the sheet was 30 to 45 minutes according to the child age. Data was collected in a period of five months from the beginning of July 2004 till the end of November 2004.

4-Statistical Design:

                The statistical design involves scoring of the tool and the statistical analysis.

Scoring System:

                To assess the negative effect of work/school on the psychosocial development among working and school children. The response Yes was scored "3", Sometimes was scored "2" and No was scored "1", these scores were assumed up and converted into percentage.          After that scores categorized as <50% to <64% had severe effect and from 65% to <74% had moderate effect and from 75 to < 84% had mild effect and>85% had no effect.

Statistical Analysis:

Data was collected, presented in tabular form. Percentages were calculated for qualitative data and mean and standard deviations were calculated for quantitative data. The Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) was used for statistical analysis.

Limitation of the Study:

Many of the owners of workshops refused to participate in the study.

RESULTS:

Table(1) shows that the majority of working children are ages between 10 to 12 years (89.5%), and the mean age is 9.76±1.52 year and 80.7% of them are boys. As regards the birth order, 28.1% of them are the third or fourth.

Regarding the school children, less than two thirds of them are aged between 10 to 12 years (61.4%), the mean age is 9.66±1.52 year and more than half of them are girls (54.4%), moreover 28.1% are the first child in the family.

There are a highly statistical significant differences between both groups regarding age (X²=12.12, P=0.002), and gender (X²=13.61, P=0.000). Also a statistical significant differences are found regarding birth order (X²=0.91, P=0.022).

Table (2) deals with wages of working children and it is obviously noted that the vast majority of working children (94.5%) receive wages weekly, and 3.6% of children receive monthly wages, and about 3.5% do not receive any wages.

Less than fifty percent of them (45.5%) receive 140 pounds or more per month, while the minority of them 9.1% receives 100 to 119 pounds per month. Regarding the persons who receive the child wages, more than half of them (58.2%) receive their wages by themselves and a minority of them (9.1%) receives their wages by their brothers. It is found that 63.6% of working children give whole wages to their families and 34.5% take part and give another part to the family and only 1.9% takes wage for him.

In comparison between boys and girls regarding causes for not attending or completing school and occupation features table (3) illustrates that more than half of working children dislike school, so boys and girls do not go to or complete school (56.5% and 72.7% respectively).

 Less than fifty percent of boys and girls report that their failure at school is the main cause for work (45.7% and 45.5% respectively). The highest percentage of boys and girls selected this work because they had relatives or friends in the same work (34.8% and 54.5% respectively), and started to work from age 8 to 9 years (56.5% and 72.7% respectively).

Concerning the type of work, it is found that more than fifty percent of boys (52.2%) and 100% of girls work in agricultural work, and more than half of boys and girls are joined by their fathers to work (54.4% and 54.5% respectively).

There is a highly statistical significant difference between boys and girls regarding type of work (X² =6.67, P=0.009).

Table (4) clarifies that the vast majority of working children (94.74%) work for 6 days per week and take one day off every week. All of working children work for 8 hours or more per day (100%) and about three quarters of them take an hour break every day (75.5%).

 All of school children go to school 6 days per week (100%), and take a day off every week, 64.9% of them spend 6-7 hours at school per day and all of them take quarter of an hour break every day.

 There are highly statistical significant differences between working and school children in the number of working or school days per week (X²=110.04, P=0.000), number of hours spent at work or school (X²=50.51, P=0.000), duration of break at work or school (X²=114, P=0.000)

Table (5) illustrates that the majority of working and school children have time to be with their families to know their problems and talk with them (98.2%, 89.5% respectively). Regarding hobbies, more than fifty percent of working children (59.6%) play sports. More than fifty percent of school children like drawing, reading and listening to stories (52.6%). The minority of both groups do not have hobbies (3.5%, 1.8% respectively). The majority of both groups have hobbies similar to their friends (91.2%, 66.6% respectively). The vast majority of both groups have time to practice their hobbies (93%, 98.2% respectively), but do not practice them in youth clubs (94.7%, 84.2% respectively), while the minority of them practice their hobbies in youth club (5.3%, 15.8% respectively).

Most of children of both groups have a chance to play during break time (75.4%, 98.2% respectively), and about fifty percent of working children (50.9%) spend the day off outside home, while 43.9% of school children go to visit relatives.

 There are highly statistical significant differences between the two groups regarding having hobbies (X²=41.19, P=0.000), similarity of hobbies between children and their friends (X²=15.81, P=0.000) possibility of playing during break time (X²=11.05, P=0.000) and how spending the day off (X²=19.5, P=0.000).

 Table (6) indicates that all of working children (100%) and the majority of school children (98.2%) have good relationships with owners of works or teachers and about three quarters of working children (75.4%) and less than half of school children (47.4%) are insulted and punished corporally by owners of works or teachers when making mistakes. The highest percentage of them understand their mistakes and give them up (49.1%, and 56.1% respectively).

 There are highly statistical significant differences between both groups regarding good relationship with owners of works or teachers (X² =0.00, P=1.002), management of child mistakes by owners of works or teachers (X²=11.38, P=0.003) and child's reaction to punishment (X²=16.77, P=0.000).

From table (7) it is obviously noted that 64.9% of working children do not help their families in home activities, while 85.9% of school children help their families as 79.6% help in arranging home. The work and school have a negative effect on children's activity (33.3% and 10.5% respectively) in the form of getting tired (100% and 83.3% respectively)

 More than three quarters of working children (78.9%) have works faraway from home and most of them (86.7%) go to their works by transportation, while 80.7% of school children have schools near to home and go to their schools by walking (45.5%).

 The majority of both groups are not exposed to injuries during work or school (87.7% and 82.5% respectively), whereas the minority of them are injured (12.3% and 17.5% respectively). Less than fifty percent of injured working children (42.9%) are injured for once or twice, most of them 71.4% being injured from working tools and all of them 100% have wounds being healed completely. In contrast, 50% of injured school children are injured once; the highest percentage of them (70%) are injured during playing and falling down and all of them (100%) have wounds being healed completely.

There are highly statistical significant differences between both groups regarding not helping in home activities (X² =28.78, P=0.000), absence of effect of work or school on child's activity (X²=7.38, P=0.006), site of work or school near home (X²=38.22, P=0.000), how children go to work or school (X²=13.8, P=0.001) and regarding causes of injuries (X²=14.25, P=0.002).

 As a result of the comparison between both groups regarding future work children hope to have and positive psychological effect of work or school, table (8) shows that more than half of working children (57.9%) hop to be worker in future, while three quarters of school children (75.4%) hop to have a professional work. Children become more independent as the positive effect of work or school on their behavior (40.3% and 36.8% respectively).

 There are highly statistical significant differences between both groups regarding type of work which child hopes to do in future (X²=83.48, P=0.00) and positive effect of work or school on child's behavior (X²=29.82, P=00).

From table (9) it is clear that about one third of working children have nightmares as effect of work on behavior or activities (33.3%) and 12.3% are worried and want to cry, 10.5% feeling irritable or nervous, while 38.6% of school children complain of insomnia, 31.6% being phobic and hyperactive and 29.8% having nightmares.

 Regarding working children they sometimes complain of lying (49.1%) about 47.4% sometimes feeling loss of appetite and 42.1% sometimes complaining of insomnia, nightmares and feeling irritable. In contrast, in school children, 50.9% of children sometimes feel loss of appetite, 31.6% feeling sometimes irritable and 26.3% sometimes complaining of insomnia.

The majority of working children (96.5%) do not complain from finger suckling and 93% do not feel hostile, escape from work, bite nails, feeling anxious and having refrain. Hundred percent of school children do not escape from home or school, 94.7% not feeling hostile and 89.5% of them not biting their nails. 

And from figure (3) it is clear that more than half of working children (52.63%) have no negative effect from work on their psychosocial development, and 29.83% of them have mild negative effect whereas less than one third of school children (31.58%) have moderate or no negative effect from school on their psychosocial development.

 There is a highly statistical significant difference between both groups regarding negative effect of work/school on children's psychosocial development (X² =12.89, P=0.004).

Table (1): Socio-demographic characteristics of working and school children

in percentage distribution (n=114)

 *P = 0.05                                **P = 0.01                               ***P = 0.001

Table (2): Wages of working children in percentage distribution (n=57)

Table (3): Causes of not attending school and occupation features of working children

in percentage distribution (n=57)

 **P = 0.01

Table (4): System and burden of work/school among working and school children

 in percentage distribution (n=114)

***P = 0.001

Figure(1): Hours of work/school day among working and school children

in percentage distribution (n=114)

Table (5): Leisure time of working and school children in percentage distribution (n=114)

 ***P = 0.001

Table (6): Relationship with owner of work/teacher, management of child mistakes and child's reaction among working and school children in percentage distribution (n=114)

**P = 0.01                                              ***P = 0

Figure(2): Management of owners of works/teachers of child’s mistakes among studied children

in percentage distribution (n=114)

Table (7): Helping families in home activities and physical effect of work/school on Working and school children in percentage distribution (n=114)

 **P = 0.01                                              ***P = 0.001

Table (8): Type of work which child hopes to have in future and positive psychological effect of work/school on the working/school children in percentage distribution (n=114)

 ***P = 0.001

Figure (3): Negative effect of work/school on psychosocial development among working

and school children in percentage distribution

Table (9)

DISCUSSION:

Children in school age need a warm and nurturing environment. They need a family which can provide social support, socialization coping and life skills. (Schor et al., 2003). Needs of school age children are psychological and emotional rather than biological. They need to feel safe, secure, loved, accepted and belonging (El-Alem, 1997).

Legal and illegal child labor are widely spread and apparently has increased in frequency over the past decade. Children and adolescents are employed under unlawful, often exploitative conditions, working under age, for long hours, at less than minimum wages, on dangerous and prohibited machinery (Reigart et al., 1995). Children labor has a profound negative impact on child's physical, emotional, mental, spiritual, moral and social development (http://capwiz.com/unicefusa,2003).

The current study aims at shedding light on the impact of children labor on psychosocial development of school age children in Ismailia governorate, regarding the socio demographic characteristics, the results of the present study clarify that the majority of working children are boys (Table 1). This may be justified as to the traditions and cultural believes which say that work is useful for boys, for the formation of their personalities and development of their skills. The findings are in agreement with Haggag (1995) who studied "The Impact of Child's Labor on his Health Status in Alexandria", and reported that more than three quarter of working children were boys. Also Soliman (2003) who studied "The Injuries among Children Under 16 Years in a Rural Area in Ismailia Governorate" found that more than half of working children were boys.

 Concerning birth order, more than half of working children in the present study are the third and more (Table 1). It may be justified as parents usually intend to educate their eldest child as he is usually surrounded by special attention and care. This agrees with Haggag (1995) and Mohamed (1995) who studied "The Injuries among Children under 16 who Work in Car Repair Small Workshops in Ismailia City" and they found that most of the working children were the second or third child in the family.

 It is noticed from the present study that the highest percentage of working children receive weekly wages on work and few of them do not take wages (Table 2). Based on the researcher’s view, children who do not take wages work with their families. This finding supported by the results of www.aucegypt.edu/src(2005) that found the majority of working children taking cash money while few of them not taking wages.

The present study shows that the highest percentage of children receive more than 140 pounds monthly. This is in contrast with El-Dapaa (1993), El-Komy (1996) and Mahmoud (1997) who studied “The Relationship between the Complacence Working and Psychologic Correspondence for Workers Children” and reported that most of children received less than 100 pounds monthly. From the point of view of the researcher, the difference in the wages is related to the decreases of the power of pounds recently.

Concerning expenditure of wages, less than two thirds of children give whole wages to their families, while about one third of children give part and keep part for themselves. This result assures that children work is mainly due to financial support. These results are in the same line with Mahmoud (1997) who found that more than half of working children gave whole wages to their families. Also Azer (1998) who studied "Scientific Researches Appointment, Experiment in Working Children Phenomenon Field" reported that the highest percentage of children gave whole wages to their families and they were satisfied with this. EL-Dapaa (1993) contradicted these results and found that about two thirds of working children gave part to their families and kept part to themselves.

Regarding the causes for not attending or completing school, the findings of the study show that working children do not like school (Table 3). From the point of view of the researcher this is due to poor educational services, unsuitability of school environment and physical abuse of teachers, which lead children to hate school and enter labor market. These results correspond to El-Garhy (1994) who found that some children hated school due to physical abuse of teachers.

Moreover, scholastic failure is the main cause for work among boys and girls, this result is congruent with Abd Allah (1986) who studied "Child Labor of Egyptian Industry at Egypt" and (www.aucegypt.edu/src,2005) found that educational failure and financial assistance were the main causes for children labor.

Concerning the age of beginning work, the present study finds that the majority of boys and girls start work at the age of 8-9; this result is supported by El-Garhy (1994) and El-Komy (1996) who found that the majority of children began work between 8-10 years, whereas Haggag (1995) found that children between 10-12 years were the more frequent ages among boys and from 12-14 years among girls.

As for type of work, more than half of boys and all of girls work in agricultural fields, perhaps because working children have friends or relatives in the same work or because fathers select the work and join their children to it. The result agrees with Ali et al. (2002) who found that agricultural sector was the largest illegal sector which involved many children working in it and fathers who usually pushed and joined children to work.

The results of the present study show that more than two thirds of children do not change their work; this may be due to suitability of wages. This result opposes Mahmoud’s study (1997) who reported that more than two thirds of children changed their work.

Some children do not take any day off from work (Table 4); this may be due to financial needs of those children. This result agrees with www.aucegyp.edu/src(2005) which found that the mean of working days per week was 6.08. But, this contradicts the Egyptian Child Right (1989) which assures that children should not work at weekends.

Regarding working hours, all of working children work more than 8 hours per day; this finding goes with Mohamed (1995) who found that the majority of working children worked more than 10 hours per day. Also El-Komy (1996) found that many children worked from 11-14 hours per day. Moreover, Abd El-Rahman (1996) who studied "Working Children Manners in Cairo” found that many owners of work preferred children work as they worked long hours and sometimes with no days off.

Concerning duration of break, about three quarters of working children take an hour. This is supported by El-Dapaa (1993) who reported that most of working children took an hour as a rest period daily. Also this corresponds to Egyptian Child Right (1989) assuring that working hours must be separated by a time or more for eating and rest, with a total time not less than 1 hour. In contrast, the findings contradict Haggag (1995) who found that about three quarters of children receive no or insufficient rest periods.

 Regarding school children, less than two thirds of them study from 6 to 7 hours at school every day and all of them take quarter of an hour break per school day; this may be due to rigidity of educational system and school policies.

From the present study, it is clear that the majority of working and school children have hobbies, which are similar to their friends (Table 5). This result agrees with Hassan (2003) who studied "Health Profile of Public Preparatory School Adolescents in Port Said City" and found that the majority of children had hobbies. Also they do not participate in youth clubs. From the researcher's point of view both working and school children have no time to participate in clubs because they are exhausted from work or homework. But, this finding contradicts James et al. (2002) who mentioned that the school age years were the time for participation in clubs.

Regarding spending the day off, half of working children spend it outside home playing with their friends and less than half of school children spend it in visiting relatives. This may be due to that working and school children spend the 6 days of week at work or school. This result is congruent with Azer and Ramzy (1991) who studied "The Child Labor in Egypt" and Karim (1996) who studied "Social and Economic Manners and Working Children in the Countryside" and they found that the majority of working children spent the day off outside home with their friends. In contrast, this result contradicts Ali et al. (2002) who found that the majority of working children stayed at home and a few number of them went out with friends.

From this study, it is clear that about three quarters of working children complain of insulting and corporal punishment as this is the way of owner of work to manage child's mistake (Table 6). On the other hand, more than half of school children report that discussion and clarification of mistakes is the way of teachers to manage child's mistake. Regarding working children the results are supported by Alrefaay (1994) who studied “Child Abuse and it's Relationship with Psychological Problems” and Abd Elal (1997) and they found that insulting and physical punishment were the main way for management of any mistakes among working children. In contrast, Haggag (1995) contradicts the results of school children, as he thought that insulting and physical punishment were the main way for management among school children.

The majority of working children do not help heir families in home activities (Table 7). From the researcher's point of view, this is due to long hours of work and children become exhausted. This result agrees with El-Mesery (1986) who studied "Child Labor in Urban Areas" and found that a few number of children helped their families as they got home demands. On the other hand, the majority of school children help their families in home activities; this is due to the fact that they return earlier to home, besides that most of school children are girls. However, it forms another load on school children.

 The results show that the majority of working and school children have no physical effect from work or school while the minority of them get tired from work or school. This result opposes El-Mesery (1986); Shaker (1986) and El-Garhy (1994) as they found that most of working children were exhausted and got tired from long hours of work and bad working environment.

 The majority of working children have works faraway from home and most of them go to work by transportation. From the researcher's point of view, this adds another source of danger to those children as many children are prone to accidents during transportation. This result is supported by Montaser (2003) who studied "Working children, Cogent Conscription" and found that many children were injured or dead from car accidents during going to their work. On the other hand, more than three quarters of school children have schools near to their homes and the rest of them have homes faraway from schools and they go to school by walking or transportation; this is considered a load on those children either from walking or danger of transportation.

 Concerning occurrence of injuries at work or school, more than three quarters of working and school children are not injured at work or school. This finding is supported by Soliman (2003) who found that the majority of working children had no injuries at their work. In contrast, it is contradicted by Mohammed (1995) who found that more than two thirds of children are injured at work. On the other hand, the minority of them are injured at work for 1 or 2 times, this agrees with Mahmoud (1997) who found that the majority of working children were injured 1 to 2 times during work.

Concerning causes of injuries among working children, more than two thirds of them are injured from tools. From the researcher's point of view, this may be due to improper or lack of training to those children or due to exhaustion from long hours of work; these results go in the same line with Mohamed (1995) and El-Komy (1996) who found that the highest percentage of working children were injured due to tools. On the other hand, most of injured school children are injured due to playing and falling down; from the researcher's point of view this may be due to over crowdedness of schools and the unsuitability of school buildings or playgrounds.

 The current study reveals that more than half of working children hope to be workers in future (Table 8), because working children see the owner of work as a good model as he has a workshop and gains money. On the other hand, about three quarters of school children hope to have professional work in future and this is due to the effect of environment and encouragement of families, or they see their teachers as good models.

 Concerning positive effect of work or school on children, more than one third of working and school children report that they have become independent. From the researcher's point of view, working children feel this because they receive wages, feel responsible toward their families and school children depend on themselves in studying and doing homework. These results go in the same line with Ferganny (1993) who studied "Child Labor in Arabic Countries", El-Komy (1996), Mahmoud (1997) and El-Araby (2000) who studied "Social Effect of Child Labor in El-Menia" as they found that the majority of working children became more independent, mature and took responsibility toward their families.

 The present study shows that about one third of working children have nightmares (Table 9); from the researcher's point of view this may be due to exposure to different stressful events experienced during the day. This result supported by Haggag (1995) who found that nightmares were reported by the vast majority of working children. Also some of working children are irritable or nervous and this agrees with Moharram (1999) who reported that many of working children were irritable and worried about many things. On the other hand, these findings contradict Nasr El-Din (2001) who studied “Behavioral Problems towards Working Children, Comparing Study” and found that fear and anger were more obvious than worrying among working children. Furthermore, working children complain sometimes of lying and sometimes of insomnia; this is supported by Moharram (1999) who reported that some of working children had insomnia or sometimes were lying.

 Regarding school children, about one third of them complain of insomnia and being phobic or hyperactive and less than one third complain of nightmares. From the researcher's point of view, this may be due to fear of failure at school or load of studying. About half of them sometimes complain from loss of appetite. This agrees with Moharram (1999) who found that school children do not eat enough food. Furthermore, one third of them feel sometimes irritable. This is supported by Nasr El-Din (2001) who reported that worrying or feeling irritable are common complaints among school children.

 Furthermore, the vast majority of working children do not complain of finger suckling and this corresponds to Moharram (1999) who found that the vast majority of working children did not complain from finger suckling. The vast majority of these children do not complain of hostility and this disagrees with Mahdy (2000) who studied “Working Children Direction towards to Working and the Relationship with the Pushing and Self-esteem in Countries Countryside” and found that working children were usually hostile.

All of school children do not escape from home or school. This may be due to their exposure to low stressors in home or school, while the minority of working children escape from home or work and this may be due to their exposure to many stressors even at work or at home. The vast majority of school children do not complain of hostility, and this is congruent with Mahdy (2000) who found that school children were less hostile than working children.

 It is surprising to find that more than half of working children have no negative effect of work on their psychological development while less than one third of them have mild effect and the minority of them have sever effect. This may be due to the fact that children sometimes, and not usually, complain of psychological problems or they may be adapted to these complaints as there is no way to leave work. On the other hand, less than one third of school children have no or moderate negative effect of school on their psychological development and the minority of them have severe effect; this may be due to school and homework that put some burden on those children.

 Finally, there is no much difference between the two groups regarding psychosocial development, as not only work puts children under stressors but also schools do a lot of burdens on their children.

CONCLUSION :

 Children work because their parents do not see the importance of education and they have big family size, so the family is in need of financial support from their children; in addition, those children dislike school or fail in it. Even work has positive effect as the children become more independent, but it also has negative effect on their psychosocial condition, in the form of nightmares, worries, the desire to cry, feeling irritable or nervous, having no time to share in home activities or visiting relatives and being exposed to punishment from the owner of the work. School children are in better condition than working children but they are exposed to punishment from teachers and spend all the school hours in classes and the home hours in doing homework.

RECOMMENDATIONS:

Based on the findings of this study the following recommendations are suggested.

1-Parents:

• ·Parents must be aware of the importance of education for their children.
• ·Parents should use family planning methods.

2-Nurses:

• ·School nurse must share in early detection of pupils who dislike school and manage their problems.
• ·Cooperate effectively with psychologist and social worker to provide psychosocial support and encouragement to unsuccessful pupils.
• ·Cooperate with teachers and parents in management and follow up of learning problems.

3-Teachers:

• ·Teachers can play a role in reducing dropout of pupils from schools, by understanding children’s needs during the different developmental stages and use pleasant methods of teaching.
• ·Create attractive environment in classes or schools which will encourage children to complete school and decrease dropout of schools.
• ·Avoid physical punishment in case of mistakes.
• ·Encourage children through rewarding on better achievement.
• ·Decrease the burden of homework.

4-Ministries and Community Agencies:

• ·Ministry of education must adjust and develop an educational system to be appropriate for children's age and capabilities to decrease burden of studying on them.
• ·Schools should have suitable playgrounds and enough equipment for playing to encourage children to go to school.
• ·The ministry of manpower must have strict enforcement and real application of existing law against all forms of children labor.
• ·Follow up the application of law regarding working hours and rest period.
• ·All community agencies must share in improving conditions of working children and their families till eradication of this problem.
• ·Financial and social support for poor families.

5-Media:

• ·Increase awareness of the importance of education and encourage children to complete it.
• ·Premarital counseling and health education about family planning.
• ·Increase awareness of the causes and negative effects of labor on children.

6-Research:

• ·Further studies on the relationship between children labor and behavior problems.
• · Studies to detect the long term affect.

REFERENCES:

Azer, A. (1989): Report of the Interministerial Committee on Child Labour in Egypt Unicef, R (58) October.

Bull, M.; Grander, G.; Laraque, D.; Pollack, S.; Smith, G.; Spivak, H. and Tenebein, M. (2001): Prevention of Agricultural Injuries Among Children and Adolescents. American Academy of Pediatrics, 108 (4): P.P. 1016-1019.

El-Alem, O. (1997): Psychiatric and Behavior Problems in Primary School Children in Port Said City, Unpublished Master Thesis, Faculty of Nursing Suez Canal University.

Haggag, M. (1995): The Impact of Child's Labor on His Health Status in Alexandria, Doctoral Thesis, Faculty of Nursing, Alexandria University.

Hassan, K.J. (2003): Health Profile of Public Preparatory School Adolescents in Port Said City, Master Thesis, Suez Canal University, Faculty of Nursing.

Http://www.aucegypt.edu/src/childlabor/greatercairo.htm at 24-8-2005.

Http://www.churchworldservices.org/development/project-descriptions/53.html at 24-8-2005.

Http:/nclnet.org/childlabor/rights.htm at 7-6-2005.

Http://capwiz.com/unicefusa/issue/alert/?alertid=34816 at 8-12-2003.

Http://www.unicef.org/crc/convention.htmat 14-6-2005.

Http://www.unicef.org/crc/introduction.htm at 14-6-2005.

http://www. unicefusa. org/childlabor/end.html at 8-12-2003.

Http://www.unicef.org/sowc05/english/childhoodprotective. html at 26-8-2005.

Jackson, D. and Saunder, R. (1993): Child Health Nursing, Lippincott, P.P. 342-343.

James, S.; Ashwill, J. and Droske, S. (2002): Nursing Care of Children Principle and Practice, (2^nd ed). Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders, P.P. 182-198.

Mckinney, E.; Ashwill, J.; Murray, S.; James, S.; Gorrie, T. and Drocke, S. (2000): Maternal Child Nursing, London: W.B. Saunders Company, P.P. 175-184.

Mckinney, E.; James, S.; Murray, S. and Ashwill, J.(2005): Maternal Child Nursing, (2^nd ed). St. Louis: Elsevier Saunders, P.P. 129-145.

Mohamed, A.(1995): Injuries among Children Under 16 Who Working in Car Repair Small. Workshops in Ismalia City, Master Thesis in Occupational Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Suez Canal University.

Moharram, M. (1999): Study about Family Perspective of Causes and Effect of Child Labor on Children's Physical Develo-pment and Psychological Functioning in Port Said, Medical Doctorate degree in Family Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Suez Canal University.

Muscari, M. (2005): Pediatric Nursing, (4^th ed). Lippincott, P.P. 59-63 and 101-102.

Reigart, J.; Etzel, R.; Goldman, L.; Hendrick, J.; Mofenson, H. and Simon, P. (1995): The Hazards of Child Labor. American Academy of Pediatrics, 95 (2): P.P. 311-313.

Rom, W. (1998): Environmental and Occupatio-nal Medicine, (3^rd ed). New York: Lippincott, P.P. 1725-1729.

 Schor, E.; Billingsley, M.; Golden, A.; McMillan, J.; Meloy, L. and Pendarvis, B. (2003): Report of the Task Force on the Family. American Academy of Pediatrics, 111 (6): P.P. 1541-1571.

Soliman, E. (2003): Community Based Survey of Injury among Children Under 16 Years in a Rural Area in Ismailia Governorate, Egypt, Master Thesis in Pediatrics, Faculty of Medicine, Suez Canal University.

Stanhope, M. and Lancaster, J.(2000): Comm-unity and Public Health Nursing, (5^th ed). London: Mosby, P.P. 622-624.

Wong, D. (1993): Essential of Pediatric Nursing, (4^th ed). London: Mosby, P. 428.

أحمد شاکر: "الصحة المهنية وتشغيل الأحداث" المرکز القومي للبحوث الاجتماعية والجنائية، القاهرة 1986.

أحمد عبد الله: "عمل الأطفال في الصناعة المصرية في مصر، موجز بحث وخلاصة تجربة" ورقة مقدمة لندوة عمالة الأطفال، المرکز القومي للبحوث الاجتماعية والجنائية، القاهرة، 1986.

السيد عبد العزيز الرفاعي: "إساءة معاملة الأطفال وعلاقتها ببعض المشکلات النفسية" جامعة عين شمس، معهد الدراسات العليا للطفولة، رسالة ماجستير، 1994.

أيمن عباس الکومي: "عماله الأطفال في منطقه عشوائية، دراسة ميدانية" عين شمس، جامعة عين شمس، معهد الدراسات العليا للطفولة، قسم الدراسات النفسية والاجتماعية، رسالة ماجستير 1996.

حسام الدين محمد محمد عبد العزيز الجارحي: "التوافق النفسي وتقدير الذات لدي الطفل العامل وطفل المدرسة في الريف"، عين شمس (جامعة عين شمس، معهد الدراسات العليا للطفولة)، قسم الدراسات النفسية والاجتماعية، رسالة ماجستير، 1994.

خالد منتصر: الختان والعنف ضد المرأة، عمل الطفلة سخرة مقنعة، الرزق الجديد عنف مستتر وعبودية جديدة، 2003.

دعاء إبراهيم إبراهيم نصر الدين: "المشکلات السلوکية لدي الأطفال العاملين، دراسة مقارنه، جامعة عين شمس، معهد الدراسات العليا للطفولة، قسم الدراسات النفسية والاجتماعية، رسالة ماجستير، 2001.

دعاء سيد ابراهيم مهدي: "اتجاة الطفل العام نحو العمل وعلاقتة بالعدوان وتقدير الذات في الريف والحضر" جامعة عين شمس، معهد الدراسات العليا لطفولة، قسم الدراسات النفسية والاجتماعية، رسالة الماجستير، 2000.

عزة کريم: "الأبعاد الاجتماعية والاقتصادية وعمالة الطفل الريفية" ندوة الحقوق وعمالة الأطفال في الريف المصري، القاهرة، 1996.

عادل عازر وناهد رمزي: "تقرير عن عماله الأطفال في مصر"، القاهرة: المرکز القومي للبحوث الاجتماعية والجنائية مع منظمة الأمم المتحدة للأطفال (اليونيسيف) سبتمبر 1991.

فوزي عزت علي وحسن أنور جمعه وأحمد يحيي عبد الحميد: "دراسة لبعض المتغيرات النفسية والاجتماعية المرتبطة بظاهرة عمالة الأطفال بمحافظة السويس"، يونيو 2002.

محمد عبد الرحمن: "أنماط عمالة الأطفال في مدينة القاهرة" جامعة عين شمس، کلية البنات، رسالة الماجستير، 1996.

محمد عبد الجواد محمود: "دراسة عن العلاقة بين الرضا عن العمل والتوافق النفسي لدي الأطفال العاملين" عين شمس، جامعة عين شمس، معهد الدراسات العليا للطفولة، قسم الدراسات النفسية والاجتماعية، رسالة ماجستير 1997.

منال محمد محمود عبد العال: "الحل السوسيولوجي لعماله الأطفال بمدينه القاهرة" جامعة القاهرة، کلية الآداب، قسم الاجتماع، رسالة ماجستير 1997.

نادر فرجاني: "عمل الأطفال في البلدان العربية"، القاهرة: المجلس العربي للطفولة والتنمية 1993.

نادية رشاد سعد الدين الضبع: "عماله الأطفال وعلاقتها بالتوافق النفسي، دراسة ميدانية علي الأطفال العاملين بالورش الصناعية"، عين شمس، جامعة عين شمس، معهد الدراسات العليا للطفولة، قسم الدراسات النفسية والاجتماعية، رسالة ماجستير 1993.

ناهد رمزي: "ظاهرة عمالة الأطفال في الدول العربية نحو استراتيجية عربية لمواجهه الظاهرة"، المجلس العربي للطفولة والتنمية، المجلد الأول 1998.

نوال المسيري: "عمالة الأطفال في المدينة" ندوة عمالة الأطفال، 1986.

هاني العربي: "الآثار الاجتماعية المترتبة علي عمالة الأطفال، دراسة ميدانية مقارنة في محافظة المنيا" جامعة المنيا، کلية الآداب، رسالة الماجستير، 2000.

وثيقة حقوق الطفل المصري للسيد الرئيس محمد حسني مبارک: 1989، مادة 54، 64، 66.