Socially disadvantaged children in Vietnam: a self evaluation study with implications for their education

ABSTRACT

Although educating disadvantaged children is a global issue, Asian disadvantaged children are understudied. This paper reports a mixed-methods study on the psychological issues in disadvantaged children by comparing their caretakers’ evaluation and their own self-evaluation to give implications for their education. Data were collected from a set of questionnaires based on Perceived Competence Scale and semi-structured interviews. First, the questionnaires were administered to 267 participants (202 children and 65 caretakers) at six state-financed centres in, an underexplored context, before 50 participants were randomly selected for personal interviews The quantitative results show that the disadvantaged children undervalued their own physical appearance, social communication and academic performance. The qualitative findings indicate that the children needed further support, and the centres were short of a budget to cover the children’s education and living expenses. The results suggest that this social group needs more attention of educators and authorities.

KEYWORDS:

• Academic performance
• communication
• physical appearance
• self-evaluation
• disadvantaged children

Introduction

Recent research shows a growing interest in teenagers’ well-being and development. Disadvantaged or socially disadvantaged children are a social group of vulnerable children who suffer some disadvantage compared to other social groups. They can be runaway, abandoned, or home-living children. As a child grows up, they experience personal, social, emotional, and cognitive development (Barrington-Leach et al., 2007; Ijaz et al., 2019). If teenagers receive good care, love, and support from the environment (parents, caretakers, and peers), they may develop cognitively, emotionally, and socially to a great extent (Connell & Prinz, 2002; Pianta & La Paro, 2003). When children identify insecurity, they may run away or become delinquent (McGarvey et al., 2010; Mcleer & Del-Lart, 2013). Runaway and abandoned children are usually from families with violent and neglectful or physical and sexual abuse (Alvi et al., 2010; Gwadz et al., 2007).

According to Hosny et al. (2007), there are 150 million street children worldwide. Statistics from 2011 showed there were about 30 million street children in Asia. This figure was around 40,000 in Indonesia, 320,000 in Nepal, and 2.8 million (under 16 years old) in Vietnam living in disadvantaged circumstances, including orphans, disabled children, street children, and working children. Furthermore, over 2 million children were at risk of falling into these underprivileged circumstances. According to Cox and Parwar (Cox & Pawar, 2013), socially disadvantaged children should receive attention and help from the public, governmental agencies, and charity organizations because they live in an environment with little protection (Vu, 2021). They may face risks of violence, sexual abuse, labour exploitation, and difficulty in accessing policies on education, health, and social issues (Boyd & Dang, 2017).

Educating socially disadvantaged children is a global issue. They may encounter social, educational, and psychological problems (Cockerill et al., 2021). Runaway and abandoned children often suffer from low self-esteem and an inferiority complex (Ijaz et al., 2019). Self-evaluation, particularly in adolescents, provides implications for personal, social, educational, and psychological development, resulting in well-being.

In Vietnam, a low-income Asian country, the national and local governments have established state-funded centres for rehabilitating socially disadvantaged children. Some charity organizations have also developed small centres with similar functions for this social group. However, as in other developing countries in Asia, the funding is limited, mainly to finance meals and living expenses. Also, education is basically provided. Children could opt to go to state-funded schools or to be educated right in these centres. The caretakers have multi-functions: caretakers, supervisors, and teachers. They mostly consider it voluntary work (with limited pay) as they love the children.

Although educating socially disadvantaged children has been a burgeoning research interest, little is known about socially disadvantaged children’s self-evaluation in Vietnam. Given that children are the country’s future, conducting a self-evaluation study on Vietnamese socially disadvantaged children is essential. The focus of this study is to investigate three main areas, namely physical appearance, social communication, and academic performance of socially disadvantaged children at major state-funded centres in Vietnam. The results will provide a reference for self-evaluation theory and insights into socially disadvantaged children in the immediate context and beyond. While previous studies on self-evaluation mainly employed qualitative or quantitative methods, the use of mixed-method approach in this study may be used to modify the self-evaluation theory.

Problems encountered by socially disadvantaged children

Socially disadvantaged children are those who suffer from a lack of equal access. They may suffer social, economic, political, and/or emotional difficulties (Cockerill et al., 2021). These types of difficulty are interrelated; therefore, this social group is generally defined as socially underprivileged (Scheffler, 2021). Extant literature shows that the causes of making children disadvantaged are circumstantial and diverse. A child may be sent out by their parents or caretakers to increase the family income (Gordon & Pantazis, 2003). Some children decide to leave home because of family violence, neglection, or abuse (Sinko et al., 2022). Children may be abandoned and become orphans after their parents’ mortality, migration, or break-up (Alvi et al., 2010).

To survive, runaway and abandoned children must do something for a living. It is easy to see children begging, collecting rubbish for recycling, scavenging rubbish dumps, shoe-shining, flower sales, selling magazines and newspapers, or even committing prostitution (Kudenga, 2017) under the control of others who are older street children or gangs (Alem & Laha, 2016). Unprotected, they also encounter problems and unwanted experiences in life, such as bullying, poverty, abuse, lack of entertainment, and drug taking (Ijaz et al., 2019; Zhang et al., 2008).

Previous research on socially disadvantaged children

Some educational studies raised concerns about the environment, parents, and teachers as influences on socially disadvantaged children. For instance, the national project by Liddell et al. (2013) reported the relationship between children and parents. Concerning the potential problems encountered by socially disadvantaged children, the researchers suggested introducing parenting courses to the parents of this social group of children. Accordingly, the parent should be considered the first teacher in a child’s life. They need to guide their children’s behaviour. As the parent-child relationship is important in helping parents successfully influence children in their early life, this relationship should be strengthened. This recommendation was taken into consideration in Israel, Turkey, Australia, and several other countries (Liddell, 2013). The study by Šafránková and Kocourková (2013) highlighted the importance of the school environment and teachers on the education of socially disadvantaged children. Accordingly, children are directly or indirectly influenced by the classroom and school atmosphere. Teachers, as educational agents, are a determinant of this social class. Teachers should understand the programme and the needs of children. This suggestion was confirmed by Fives et al. (2015).

A few social studies found difficulties encountered by socially disadvantaged children and provided implications for policymakers and educators. First, from observations, Hermanussen and Bogin (2018) and Scheffler et al. (2021) found that socially disadvantaged children faced emotional deprivation, which affected children’ growth. According to Black et al. (2013) and Hermanussen and Bogin (2014), children in socially disadvantaged families generally suffer from energy deficit or malnutrition. Rogol (2020) found that emotional deprivation was associated with malnutrition and health problems. In particular, emotional deprivation may hinder the metabolism and, in turn, slower neurobehavioral and mental development.

A few psychological studies provided results about emotional and psychological trauma in socially disadvantaged children. For instance, Kliethermes et al. (2014) conducted a study on children who suffered neglect and abuse. The researchers found interpersonal trauma in these children, resulting in their withdrawal from the community. They even felt unsecured by their caretakers. From their studies, Van der Kolk (2017) and Lannaman and McNamee (Lannamann & McNamee, 2020) proposed psychiatric diagnoses and systematic treatment of trauma children as a complex psychological problem that may lead to personality and stress disorders. Cobbett (2021) suggested an alternative to clinical treatment. Instead, therapists can integrate multiple methods, such as physical activities, care and attachments, and social engagement, to help socially disadvantaged children recover.

Some studies explored the situation and difficulties encountered by disadvantaged children (Alem & Laha, 2016; Gordon & Pantazis, 2003; Ijaz et al., 2019; Long & Bolton, 2015; Machin, 2006; Zhang et al., 2008). No such study applied self-evaluation theory to discover the psychological issues of this social group to give educational implications.

There is a lack of research exploring the situation and difficulties encountered by disadvantaged Vietnamese children. In Vietnam, the national and local governments have built institutions to rehabilitate socially underprivileged children. Some non-profit groups have also built modest facilities with comparable services for this socioeconomic group. However, as in other impoverished nations in Asia, the assistance is modest and primarily used to cover food and living expenditures. Children would have the option of attending state-funded schools or these facilities. The caretakers have several roles, including caretaker, supervisor, and educator.

The current study explores psychological problems encountered by abandoned, runaways, and HIV/AIDS infected children living in state-financed centres in Vietnam. It mainly concentrates on three aspects: physical characteristics, learning capacity, and socialization. The study aims to answer the following research questions:

RQ1.

To what extent do socially disadvantaged children evaluate their physical characteristics, learning capacity, and socialization?

RQ2.

Are socially disadvantaged children’s self-evaluation of their physical characteristics, learning capacity, and socialization aligned with the evaluation by caretakers?

Self-evaluation framework

This study rested on a self-evaluation framework. The self-evaluation results demonstrate individuals’ failure and achievements (Butler, 1988; Flethcher & Clark, 2003; Kostons et al., 2012; Sadeghi & Abolfazli, 2015). Accordingly, individuals with high self-evaluation results show more positive thinking than those with low self-evaluation results. Accordingly, SE can significantly influence relationships between individuals and the community. Children with low SE often have problems with peers or experience psychological disturbances, such as depression (Bauer et al., 2008; Beer et al., 2013). According to Faith et al. (2019), a social group with psychological problems usually demonstrates a lack of confidence by rating themselves less positively. It may be necessary for researchers to use social comparison, a process of self-evaluation, to triangulate data about a specific social group, from which researchers can compare different groups’ evaluation of the target individuals (Brady, 2016; Sadeghi & Abolfazli, 2015).

Research methodology

Research design

This study employed a mixed-methods research design in which qualitative data (interviews and observations) were collected after the quantitative data (questionnaires) were administered to socially disadvantaged children and authorities (caretakers and managers) in six state-funded centres located in urban areas in Vietnam, an underexplored context in Asia. These centres were typical of their state-funded type.

Participants and sampling

As this study aimed to include as many children at the centres as possible to increase generalizability, it applied a convenience sampling strategy to select participants (Salkind, 2012). The questionnaires were administered to 202 teenagers and 65 caretakers (nearly 90% of the children and caretakers) at six state-funded centres for socially disadvantaged children. Forty-four participants (35 children and nine caretakers), randomly stratified from the respondents’ ratings in the questionnaires, and six managers were invited to participate in interviews. The inclusion of the managers was to triangulate the data collected from the children and caretakers as well as to uncover macro-level problems at the surveyed centres.

The six centres were founded by the government to house socially disadvantaged children who were runaway and abandoned children. Located across the country, these centres mainly depended on the government’s funding to support local socially disadvantaged children. There were almost no other sources of financial aids. Only a small proportion of the children (5–10%) went to local schools and returned to the centres at around 4 pm everyday. For those children who went to local schools, the caretakers played the roles of parental guidance and supervised their academic success by contacting their school teachers. The other children who refused to go to school in the districts attended formal schooling organized at the centres where the caretakers were also the teachers as they. The selected caretakers and managers had been working in the surveyed centres for at least four years.

The measures

The questionnaires delivered to the children and authorities had the same framework which was based on the scale Perceived Competence Scale for Children (Harter, 1982, 2012; Nagai et al., 2014). The questionnaires consisted of two main parts: (1) participants’ demographic information and (2) evaluation (see Appendices 1 and 2). The participants’ demographic information (from Part 1) was used to triangulate with other sources of information, and the data evaluation (from Part 2) was subject to main data analysis. As mentioned above, Part 2 of the questionnaire was composed of three main categories: physical characteristics, academic performance, and social interaction (see Table 1). The questionnaire for socially disadvantaged children was first developed and then rephrased to make the questionnaire for managers and, caretakers. After the pilot study, some questionnaire items were paraphrased for language clarity to increase the reliability of participants’ responses. The revised questionnaires each contained 38 items in a Likert-scale of 1–5. The question items were coded as 1 = absolutely disagree and 5 = absolutely agree. However, some items were reversely coded as 1 = absolutely agree and 5 = absolutely disagree. The items were then randomized. These attempts were to increase the reliability and validity of this study (Sybling, 2023).

Table 1. Questionnaire item distribution.

	Category	Item
1	Appearance (A)	1, 3, 4, 5, 8
2	Health (H)	2, 6, 7, 9
3	Learning capacity (LC)	10, 13, 17, 19, 22
4	Learning efforts (LE)	11, 16, 18, 21
5	Learning attitudes (LA)	12, 14, 15, 20
6	Communication skills (CS)	27, 29, 33, 36, 38
7	Relationship building (RB)	23, 26, 31, 32
8	Relationship maintaining (RM)	24, 25, 28, 30, 34, 35, 37

Data collection procedure

As the target children participating in the survey were often too shy to interact with others, the centres’ managers organized a socialization event to help the researchers to contact the target children, providing a basis to obtain consent. The researchers and the centres’ managers attempted to create a comfortable and relaxing atmosphere with diverse activities. The questionnaires (Appendices 1 and 2), written in Vietnamese, were administered to the children and caretakers to collect statistical data for quantitative comparisons.

The interviews were conducted in Vietnamese. We used in-depth interviews to ensure the confidentiality of the participants’ responses and increase their privacy and confidence in the interviews (Khoa et al., 2023). In the interviews, we used an interview protocol (Appendices 3 and 4) with such guiding questions as ‘How’ and ‘Why’ to collect rich data about the asked issues. In the interviews with the children, we attempted to triangulate data by asking about their ratings in the questionnaire. The interviews with the caretakers were conducted on a pairing basis. That is, we compared the children’s and caretakers’ responses and ask the caretakers about the children interviewed. For example, we asked Caretaker 3 ‘What do you think about Child 9’s communication? Why?’

Data analyses

Quantitative and qualitative data were analysed separately.The quantitative data collected from the questionnaires were processed by SPSS 25 and Amos 24 package (IBM Corporation, NY). One of the researchers first cleaned them to invalid ratings (more than one choice for each item). Then, we recoded the data regarding reversely coded items by applying reverse scoring (1 for ‘absolutely disagree’ changed to 5 ‘absolutely agree’ and vice versus; 2 for ‘disagree’ changed to 4 ‘agree’ and vice versus) (Sybling, 2023). Afterwards, we generated descriptive and deductive statistics, such as mean scores and standard deviations.

We checked the reliability and validity of the scales. The Cronbach’s alpha, Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO), Bartlett tests, an exploratory factor analysis (EFA), and a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) were computed. We performed EFA using principal component analysis as the extraction method and varimax rotation to identify the underlying structure of our dataset (Russell, 2002). CFA has been tested to determine whether the present data verified the model created through previously acquired information (Pohlmann, 2004). In CFA, the structural suitability of the scale was evaluated using the comparative fit index (CFI), Good Fit Index (GFI), Tucker – Lewis index (TLI), and root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) (Byrne, 2013; Goretzko et al., 2024). As the questionnaires and interviews applied the same framework, the qualitative data collected from the interviews were analysed into themes predetermined in the questionnaires. The qualitative data were transcribed, analysed, and coded into these themes (Khoa et al., 2023).

Ethics and consents

As this study aimed primarily at children, the researchers obtained the consent from the board of directors and caretakers at the surveyed centres. Consents are available on request. During the survey, the children, caretakers, and managers had the right to refuse to participate. All data collected remained confidential and was not used for other but academic purposes.

Results

The questionnaire was first explored by the reliability scale of each factor, which was repeated several times. To determine the scale’s reliability and internal consistency, Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficient was calculated for each factor, and results showed that items 3, 19, 27, 28, and 37 were removed because corrected Item – total correlation values were smaller than .3 (George & Mallery, 2019). The results are shown in Table 3, the Cronbach’s alpha coefficients for each factor were greater than .7 which indicates that the scale has good internal consistency (Taber, 2018). EFA with Eigenvalue then explored the remaining 34 items greater than 1 and with 60.338% of the total variance explained; KMO Measure of sampling adequacy was greater than .5 and p < .001 (Russell, 2002).

Table 2 shows that the average variance extracted (AVE) exceeded the threshold of 0.5, and the composite reliability (CR) exceeded 0.7. Furthermore, the standardized factor loadings consistently exceeded the value of 0.5 (Table 3); These results indicate satisfactory convergent validity (Hair et al., 2010). In addition, discriminant validity was checked through an assessment that determined whether the square root of the AVE for each construct was superior to its correlation coefficients with other constructs; results showed discriminant validity is guaranteed (Hu & Bentler, 1999).

Table 2. Validity measures analysis.

	CR	AVE	LE	LC	RM	RB	H	CS	LA	A
LE	.827	.565	.752
LC	.818	.553	.028	.743
RM	.776	.505	.211	.207	.71
RB	.791	.516	.085	.023	.039	.718
H	.760	.524	−.001	.062	.1	−.014	.724
CS	.775	.503	.191	.157	.191	.243	−.044	.709
LA	.763	.514	.039	.139	.245	.126	.071	.121	.717
A	.725	.501	.163	.148	.195	.153	−.223	.193	.182	.707

Table 3. Factor loadings and other values for evaluation of socially disadvantaged children.

Observed Variable	M	SD	Item corre.	α if item deleted	Exploratory factor analysis	Cronbach’s alpha
Appearance (M = 3.99, SD = .613)
Q1	3.90	.807	.583	.623	.720	.724
Q4	4.03	.812	.488	.678	.569
Q5	3.89	.836	.499	.676	.567
Q8	4.08	.781	.491	.677	.668
Health (M = 3.71, SD = .561)
Q2	3.69	.709	.567	.702	.692	.762
Q6	3.69	.745	.518	.726	.612
Q7	3.74	.784	.587	.688	.725
Q9	3.70	.728	.567	.702	.648
Learning capacity (M = 3.68, .525)
Q10	3.70	.719	.623	.776	.704	.819
Q13	3.58	.706	.638	.771	.708
Q17	3.67	.705	.649	.766	.756
Q22	3.78	.711	.640	.768	.749
Learning efforts (M = 4.02, SD = .582)
Q11	4.00	.725	.675	.772	.779	.826
Q16	3.99	.725	.644	.786	.717
Q18	4.00	.740	.687	.767	.786
Q21	4.08	.745	.605	.802	.676
Learning attitudes (M= 4.00, SD = .563)
Q12	4.08	.774	.582	.696	.684	.764
Q14	4.03	.714	.559	.708	.655
Q15	3.92	.767	.547	.715	.652
Q20	3.99	.812	.561	.707	.686
Communication skills (M = 3.96, SD = .554)
Q29	3.91	.744	.587	.715	.677	.776
Q33	3.99	.727	.613	.702	.723
Q36	3.92	.720	.527	.746	.629
Q38	4.04	.746	.585	.716	.693
Relationship building (M = 3.62, SD = .565)
Q23	3.68	.723	.610	.731	.718	.791
Q26	3.64	.728	.569	.751	.651
Q31	3.58	.731	.572	.752	.668
Q32	3.61	.762	.641	.716	.748
Relationship maintaining (M= 3.71, SD = .554)
Q24	3.72	.779	.535	.737	.596	.776
Q25	3.60	.757	.504	.748	.585
Q30	3.65	.783	.591	.718	.698
Q34	3.79	.794	.554	.733	.659
Q35	3.77	.814	.554	.733	.672

The obtained model fit was found satisfactory with CMIN/DF = 1.204 (p = .001), GFI = .917, TLI = .972, CFI = .975, and RMEA = .023 (Byrne, 2013). These statistical measurements demonstrated a competent approximation of the sample data (Hu & Bentler, 1999). According to Goretzko and Siemund (Goretzko et al., 2024), the statistics satisfy the statistical standards; therefore, we moved on to descriptive statistics.

RQ1. To what extent do socially disadvantaged children evaluate their physical characteristics, learning capacity, and socialization?

Table 3 describes the socially disadvantaged children’s self-evaluation of their appearance, health, learning capacity, learning efforts, learning attitudes, communication skills, relationship building and relationship maintaining. In general, the children evaluated themselves average, greater than 3.60, at all the surveyed areas. They evaluated their relationship building and learning capacity the lowest, with 3.62 and 3.68 respectively. the two catogories which the children evaluated the highest were learning attitudes and learning efforts, with 4.00 and 4.02 respectively. Of the two aspects of physical characteristics, they evaluated their health worse than appearance. Regarding academic issues, they evaluated their learning capacity as the lowest, with 3.68 while learning efforts and learning attitudes were rated as the highest of all the surveyed constructs. Of all the three aspects of socialization, they evaluated their communication the best, with 3.96.

The participants’ responses in the interviews provided in-depth information and explained their ratings in the questionnaire. First all all, many children revealed that they had never been educated in taking care of their health and socialization skills. Most of them experienced health check periodically when the medical general practitioner gave them advice on their health problems. Only those children with a chronic disease had opportunities to see the doctor once a month. In most cases, the caretakers were the ones who could give them advice on their health. Also, the funding for health examination was limited. The children rarely went out but did common physical activities at the centres. They explained their ratings in the questionnaire that they mostly based on factual information from health examination.

We often play football and do basic exercise required by the center in the morning. Sometimes we do shuttlecock kicking or play badminton in the evening. Some of us like to go swimming, but the center does not fund it. Doing the same physical activities is sometimes boring. My health is good, but working out with modern equipment may make me have a better shape. The caretakers offer us good advice on health care. (Child 6, center 3)

The physical activities that I do here every day are very simple. We are required to do simple exercise in the morning with the caretakers in the yard, like stretching, bending,… The caretakers do not take us to the stadium or parks. The physical activities offered by the center should be diverse. The center has not offered any course in health care. We see the medical practitioner annually or in case we have a health problem, from which we learn how to take care of our health from the practitioner informally. (Child 3, center 1)

We have relatively limited funding for physical activities. We often organize intramural physical activities. We do not have sufficient funding to take the children out for entertainment and further physical practice regularly. The donation that the center receives cannot meet the needs of the center. The caretakers and employees here also get low pay. They serve the children basically because they love them. Some of them are untrained. They need further training to serve the children. (Manager, center 4)

The interviews also revealed communication problems which the socially disadvantaged children encountered. Some of them, especially new comers, were too shy to interact with others and speak out their needs. Some were too shy to ‘ask for necessities, such as soap and shampoo’ (Child 5, centre 5) on the first days they came to the centres. Bullying was discovered among boys although it was rare. However, whenever it took place, it was quite serious with vulnerable children, particularly juniors and newcomers who were unable to defend themselves. They were not educated in communication and problem-solving skills.

Bullying sometimes takes place, especially to newcomers and vulnerable children who cannot defend themselves. Children here are not educated in communication skills and etiquette, so misunderstanding sometimes takes place. Some manners are considered impolite. Many children here are orphans, and they can unintentionally hurt others or behave naturally. Some children do not know how to solve problems when they arise because we have not received any training in problem-solving skills. We merely react in a way that we think it is right. (Child 2, center 3)

Newcomers are often too shy, so they do not often speak out their needs and seek for help from seniors or caretakers. The caretakers here often pay more attention to them and give them essential guidance and orientation. However, unexpected problems may arise in a child’s personal life. Caretakers cannot always be with the children here all the time. (Caretaker 3, center 6)

The center has guidelines for caretakers and instructions for children. Caretakers are required to provide orientation and guidance when a new child is accepted at the center. Problems among children can emerge from peer interaction or in personal moments that the caretakers could not manage. We have to admit a fact that some children here are hard to deal with. They had developed their own living strategies from the hardships they had experienced before they were accepted at the center. We did make efforts to educate them, but effectiveness comes slowly. (Manager, center 6)

The socially disadvantaged children exposed their unconfidence when asked about their appearance, academic issues, and socialization. Some children avoided evaluating their appearance, and some others linked the concept of beauty to wealth. They thought that wealth could make them better-looking as artificial beauty from ‘expensive clothes, cosmetics, and accessories’ (Child 3, centre 2) were assumed to enhance their ‘beauty and build up (their) confidence in public’ (Child 5, centre 1). That means, they did not really (?) the true value of their appearance but reflected their financial status in their self-evaluation of appearance.

When it comes to academic issues, the children generally reported their high efforts but the lowest evaluation of their learning competencies. Some attempted to gain high achievements because they did not ‘want to be derogated by classmates’ (Child 4, centre 6). Some others wanted to get a good job later in their adulthood as they believed they would get credited from their academic record to have a better life by ‘continuing education’ (Child 4, centre 3) or getting ‘a well-paid job’ (Child 2, centre 4). However, one problem was that only a small proportion of the children went to local schools, and most of them received formal schooling right in the centre. One reason was that ‘many children refused to attend local schools’ (Caretaker 2, centre 1) because they would have had to learn with younger children from their discontinued education. Also, the centres were ‘unable to afford all the children’s tuition fees’ (Caretaker 1, centre 5). Another problem was the centres could only offer fundamental courses in elementary and junior secondary schools, and many teachers were also the caretakers. The managers admitted that these teachers ‘should have received better training to improve their teaching’ (Manager, centre 2).

In terms of building and maintaining relationships, most surveyed children reported their problems in socializing, particularly with peers. Many children, especially girls, could not ‘start a conversation with other children at the centre over the first months of relocation’ (Child 1, centre 5) in the centre. Some others appeared to disregard friendships. They mainly communicated with a few people whom they trusted. The managers and caretakers only confirmed such information. They responded, ‘It is common that newcomers cannot merge with other children’ (Caretaker 1, centre 2) at the centre; however, socializing was harder for some children. It could last even some months. They seemed to ‘isolate themselves’ and caretakers had to be ‘sensitive enough to identify this problem’ (Caretaker 2, centre 4). The heavy workload at these centres was the main problem. The caretakers could not spend much time taking care and paying attention to individuals.

RQ2. Are socially disadvantaged children’s self-evaluation of their physical characteristics, learning capacity, and socialization aligned with the evaluation by caretakers?

The analyses of ratings by the children and caretakers show a significant difference in the mean scores in every category surveyed, except for health (see Table 4). While the caretakers’ ratings for the children’s health were relatively high (M = 3.79, SD = .602), the socially disadvantaged children’s self-evaluation rated their health slightly lower (M = 3.71, SD = .561, resulting an insignificant difference mean score (Mean difference = .08, p =.184).

Table 4. Comparisons of children’s SE and caretakers’ evaluation.

Variable	Caretaker		Children		Mean Difference	p
	Mean	SD	Mean	SD
Appearance
Q1	4.36	.732	3.90	.807	.47	.000
Q4	4.50	.650	4.03	.812	.48	.000
Q5	4.35	.870	3.89	.836	.45	.000
Q8	4.33	.684	4.08	.781	.25	.004
Total	4.38	.398	3.99	.613	.39	.000
Health
Q2	3.68	.760	3.69	.709	−.01	.895
Q6	3.86	.806	3.69	.745	.17	.051
Q7	3.86	.794	3.74	.784	.12	.169
Q9	3.77	.734	3.70	.728	.06	.445
Total	3.79	.602	3.71	.561	.08	.184
Learning capacity
Q10	4.21	.714	3.70	.719	.52	.000
Q13	4.16	.754	3.58	.706	.58	.000
Q17	4.11	.718	3.67	.705	.44	.000
Q22	4.21	.727	3.78	.711	.44	.000
Total	4.18	.640	3.68	.525	.50	.000
Learning efforts
Q11	4.29	.701	4.00	.725	.29	.000
Q16	4.20	.693	3.99	.725	.21	.011
Q18	4.24	.750	4.00	.740	.24	.005
Q21	4.33	.684	4.08	.745	.24	.003
Total	4.26	.596	4.02	.582	.24	.000
Learning attitudes
Q12	4.27	.708	4.08	.774	.20	.024
Q14	4.32	.708	4.03	.714	.29	.000
Q15	4.20	.770	3.92	.767	.28	.002
Q20	4.24	.867	3.99	.812	.25	.008
Total	4.26	.628	4.00	.563	.26	.000
Communication skills
Q29	4.33	.641	3.91	.744	.42	.000
Q33	4.26	.678	3.99	.727	.28	.001
Q36	4.18	.656	3.92	.720	.26	.001
Q38	4.25	.660	4.04	.746	.22	.009
Total	4.25	.525	3.96	.554	.29	.000
Relationship building
Q23	4.07	.736	3.68	.723	.40	.000
Q26	4.11	.705	3.64	.728	.48	.000
Q31	3.96	.788	3.58	.731	.39	.000
Q32	4.04	.835	3.61	.762	.43	.000
Total	4.05	.589	3.62	.565	.43	.000
Relationship maintaining
Q24	4.45	.587	3.72	.779	.73	.000
Q25	4.43	.715	3.60	7.57	.83	.000
Q30	4.42	.701	3.65	.783	.77	.000
Q34	4.55	.563	3.79	.794	.76	.000
Q35	4.49	.635	3.77	.814	.71	.000
Total	4.47	.525	3.71	.554	.76	.000

The three constructs of academic issues (learning capacity, learning efforts, and learning attitudes) and the three constructs of socialization (communication skills, relationship building, and relationship maintaining) were rated above 4.0 by the caretakers. The highest categories evaluated were relationship maintenance (M = 4.47) and appearance (M = 4.38), followed by learning efforts and learning attitudes, with the same mean score of 4.26. However, the caretakers gave the lowest evaluation of children’s health and relationship building, with M = 3.79 and M = 4.05, respectively.

The differences in the mean scores between the children’s SE and caretakers’ evaluation in the constructs of appearance, academic issues, and socializations were significant, with p < .05. The highest discrepancies in ratings between the children’s SE and caretakers’ evaluation were found in relationship maintaining and learning capacity, with the mean differences of .76 and .50 respectively, followed by relationship building, with .43, and appearance, with .39. The discrepancies in the mean score between children’s SE and caretakers’ evaluation of learning efforts and learning attitudes were nearly the same, with .24 and .26.

The analyses of the interviews and observations provided interpretive information. First, while they based mainly on factual information from periodic health check and status to rate the construct of health, the children’ SE in the other constructs was quite subjective. The children’s and caretakers’ responses confirmed the lowest mean scores of children’s health from the quantitative data analyses. All the managers and caretakers revealed that funding for children’s health care and improvement were limited. All of the children were in need of further nurturing. Second, many children appeared to be unconfident in public, even communicating with familiar people in the centres.

Observations of the children’s daily activities also confirmed this. Most of the children possessed depressive symptoms. Many of them showed examples of vulnerability, especially girls; however, some boys exposed juvenile delinquent traits. They were at great risk of emotional and behavioural difficulties with detrimental impacts on the children’s well-being.

Discussion

The current study investigated socially disadvantaged children’s problems by comparing their self-evaluation results and the evaluation of caretakers. The study showed interesting results about the self-evaluation theory and its implications for this social group’s education. First, the results showed that the participants’ ratings did not always show their comments or opinions on their features. In other words, the ratings by individuals can be based on facts and do not reflect their views. In this study, the children’s ratings demonstrated their own evaluation of most factors, except health. We argue that self-evaluation should employ research data or people triangulation, in which data can be achieved from different sources. This finding gives implications to modify the self-evaluation theory.

The results showed that the SE of the child’s physical characteristics was the lowest compared to the level of SE of social interaction and learning capacity. This finding demonstrates their lack of confidence in physical traits. Also, it was difficult to ensure adequate nutrition in children’s meals due to the limited funding provided by the government. Although centres often called for sponsorships for update the available facilities and purchase needed facilities to look after children’s lives, the results are remained limited and unstable. We argue for the responsibility of managers and governmental agencies in charge of these state-funded centres. As children are the country’s future, it is necessary to nurture them spiritually and physically. We cannot deny the importance of nutrition in children’s lives as it contributes to children’s physical and mental health.

Comparisons of the children’s self-evaluation and caretakers’ evaluation results showed that the children’ ratings were mostly significantly lower in most included aspects. Also, some children preferred joining formal schooling right in the centres to going to local schools. The results showed the children’ access to the outside world was relatively limited so their communication ability was affected to some extent. Also, the children rated their relationship building at the lowest range due to the lack of real-world experience in socialization. The children were quite reserved and timid in meetings with strangers. They could only be comfortable and happy after a time of interacting with and getting to know other people. According to Bowlby (1969), maternal attachment or primary caretaker – child relationship plays a crucial role affected a child’s romantic and social relationships in the future. Secure attachment, insecure ambivalent attachment, avoidance attachment, and disorganized attachment had been listed as four main styles (Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991). In the Internal Working Model, the finding that ambivalent – avoidance individuals viewed themselves and others with negativity, less trustworthy, unloved and afraid to be rejected leads the children to obstacles to build an adult relationship (Bowlby, 1979; Paula & Lisa, 2000). This explains the reality that young individuals living in centres for socially disadvantaged children in this study underrated their relationship building and maintaining. Besides, in a view of caretakers, they rated the children’s communication skills in a much higher grade (M = 4.26) because they have observed the transformation of children since they just arrived at the centres until the present. Going through years of nurturing and educating the children, the caretakers noticed their behaviours and attitudes developed. For instance, they gradually behaved as educated individuals with culture, less cursing, and more politeness and respectfulness. Hence, the caretakers tended to rate their children’s communication skills in a higher range, which is absolutely reasonable and considerable.

In general, the results of this study were similar to those of previous studies. However, this study shows that children did not always self-evaluate higher than reality, especially in physical characteristics and social interaction. The study provides important scientific data for managers and educators at centres for socially disadvantaged children to organize activities to improve children’s ability to communicate and enhance their academic performance. Also, it is essential to construct the relationship between children and caretakers without misunderstanding, overestimation, or underestimation (NeJaime, 2020). The difference in data deviation is acceptable. However, the resulting gap should place in a tolerable range while caretakers are the solely trusted foundation for them to lean on and to be understood during their childhood.

Conclusion

This study shows that the overall level of children’s SE at centres for socially disadvantaged children was average. Children’s SE on physical characteristics, socialization at average level and child’ SE on learning capacities at high level. It demonstrates in our data that children living in social disadvantage have a tendency to label themselves are highest in learning capacities, at a middle range in physical characteristics, and are lowest in socialization.

Regarding the appropriateness of the children’s SE with that of their caretakers, the children rated high on their learning capacities and social interactions. They rated low on their physical characteristics compared to that of their caretaker’s evaluation. However, there is only a statistically significant difference when evaluating physical characteristics and learning capacities. The difference between children’s evaluation and that of their caretakers of social interaction is not statistically significant.

This study demonstrates several implications. SE is an important category of human psychological life, influencing individual development. Therefore, managers and caretakers at centres for socially disadvantaged children need to be aware of SE’s role to help children evaluate themselves more objectively, accurately, and positively about themselves. Managers at centres for socially disadvantaged children should regulate to establish more self-evaluation activities for young children in their educational programmes and seminars at their centres. Systematically, these contents need to be organized within a fixed period of time to help children enhance acknowledgement about their capabilities and develop their advantages. While raising social disadvantaged children in the centres, caretakers’ responsibilities not only teaching and taking care of them, but also providing love and support to their positive behaviours, talking, and sharing with them to release their negative emotions.

This study showed several limitations. First, it only focused on three aspects of the children’s SE namely physical characteristics, social interaction and learning capacity. Consequently, a few other aspects in children’s SE measures were not explored in this study such as evaluation in emotion and mental states, evaluation in morality and moralistic awareness. Future investigations can explore other aspects of socially disadvantaged children’s lives. Second, the current study confined itself to understanding problems encountered by socially disadvantaged children in state-funded centres in Vietnam. Future research can investigate problems in other contexts. Regarding the necessity of in-depth analysis of qualitative data, this study had a shortage of participants’ demographic background (e.g. gender, age). Further explorations can include these variables to examine if they have any effects on children’s self-evaluation. Finally, as most of the centres included in this study were quite small, the results showed that the self-evaluation theory should be modified; however, the caretakers and managers involved in this study to triangulate data were limited. That means, self-evaluation theory can be further tested in future investigations including a large sample.

Author contributor

In this study, the first author developed the theoretical framework. The second author analysed data. They contributed equally to data collection and the writing of this paper. All the voluntary participants were treated with sincerity, honesty and respect. The researchers considered and followed national ethics policy. There is no conflict of interest regarding the publication of this article. It has not been published anywhere. The authors also claim that this manuscript is original, of which the contents have been written themselves, except where proper citations are made.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Funding

The work was supported by the Ministry of Education and Training of Vietnam [B2023_TNA_01]

Appendices

Appendix 1:

Questionnaire for children

This study compares socially disadvantaged children’s self-evaluation and caretakers’ evaluation of different aspects of socially disadvantaged children’s life. As your answers are very important to the success of the study, please provide responses as accurately as possible. Your answers will be kept confidential. Your participation in this study is voluntary. You can refuse to answer the following questions.

Personal information (optional)

Full name:… … … … … … … … … … … … Year of joining the centre: … … … … … … … …

Year of birth: … . … … … . Caretaker’s name: … … … … … … … … … … … . … … … … … .

Please make ONLY ONE CHOICE:

1=absolutely disagree, 2=disagree, 3=neither agree or disagree, 4=agree, 5=absolutely agree

Table

	Statement	Rating
1	I have a good shape/body build.	1	2	3	4	5
2	I have nothing to complain about my health.
3	I am beautiful.
4	My complexion is beautiful.
5	My face is good-looking.
6	I have good health.
7	I am diligent in doing physical activities (football, jogging, shuttlecock kicking, swimming…)
8	I am confident about my appearance in public.
9	I rarely get sick.
10	I am able to solve difficult tasks assigned by my teachers.
11	I always try to study to improve my academic performances.
12	For me, it is easy to study well.
13	I am able to remember the target input and readings long.
14	Schooling is important to me.
15	I really like learning.
16	I always volunteer in class.
17	I am able to study all subjects well.
18	I always consult my teachers and classmates when I face difficult tasks.
19	I am able to answer difficult questions right after the teacher asks them.
20	I will surpass my classmates in academic results.
21	I always pay attention to the teacher’s instruction in class.
22	I always finish my homework.
23	I am confident to socialize with strangers.
24	My friends often console with me when they face trouble.
25	I am always friendly with acquaintances.
26	I know how to make a conversation interesting.
27	I am able to maintain interesting conversations and talks.
28	I am available to help acquaintances in need when I can.
29	I am a good listener.
30	I get along with other people.
31	I can make friends easily.
32	I have no difficulty in interacting with strangers.
33	I am able to make other people understand what I say.
34	I have friends to share my feelings with.
35	I feel comfortable when I interact with my friends.
36	I am able to make good impressions on other people in conversation.
37	My friends are usually nice to me.
38	I always encourage other people.

Appendix 2:

Questionnaire for caregivers

This study compares socially disadvantaged children’s self-evaluation and caretakers’ evaluation of different aspects of socially disadvantaged children’s life. As your answers are very important to the success of the study, please provide responses as accurately as possible. Your answers will be kept confidential. Your participation in this study is voluntary. You can refuse to answer the following questions.

Personal information (optional)

Full name:… … … … … … … … … … … … Year of joining the centre: … … … … … … … …

Year of birth:… . … … … . Caretaker’s name: … … … … … … … … … … … . … … … … … .

Please make ONLY ONE CHOICE:

1=absolutely disagree, 2=disagree, 3=neither agree or disagree, 4=agree, 5=absolutely agree

Table

	Statement	Rating
1	The children have a good shape/body build.	1	2	3	4	5
2	The children have nothing to complain about my health.
3	The children am beautiful.
4	The children’s complexion is beautiful.
5	The children’s faces are good-looking.
6	The children have good health.
7	The children are diligent in doing physical activities (football, jogging, shuttlecock kicking, swimming…)
8	The children are confident about their appearance in public.
9	The children rarely get sick.
10	The children are able to solve difficult tasks assigned by my teachers.
11	The children always try to study to improve my academic performances.
12	The children encounter no difficulty in their studies.
13	The children are able to remember the target input and readings long.
14	Schooling is important to the children.
15	The children really like learning.
16	The children always volunteer in class.
17	The children are able to study all subjects well.
18	The children always consult my teachers and classmates when they face difficult tasks.
19	The children are able to answer difficult questions right after I ask them.
20	The children will surpass their classmates in academic results.
21	The children always pay attention to the teacher’s instruction in class.
22	The children always finish my homework.
23	The children are confident to socialize with strangers.
24	The children often console with each other when they face trouble.
25	The children are always friendly with acquaintances.
26	The children know how to make a conversation interesting.
27	The children are able to maintain interesting conversations and talks.
28	The children are available to help acquaintances in need when they can.
29	The children are good listeners.
30	The children get along with other people.
31	The children can make friends easily.
32	The children have no difficulty in interacting with strangers.
33	The children are able to make other people understand what they say.
34	The children have friends to share my feelings with.
35	The children feel comfortable when they interact with my friends.
36	The children are able to make good impressions on other people in conversation.
37	The children are usually nice to each other.
38	The children always encourage each other.

Appendix 3:

Interview protocol for children

Lead-in:

How are you today? May I ask some questions about you? Your participation is voluntary, and your identity and responses will be kept confidential. You can ask to cease the interview when you wish to.

Interview protocol:

1. What do you think about your appearance? Why do you think so?

2. How is your health? How often do you have a health check? What do doctors say about your health?

3. Could you tell me about your academic issues?

- Learning abilities

- Learning efforts

- Learning attitudes

1. Do you have any communication problems with other people? Why? How are your communication skills? What do you often do when you have a communication problem with other people?

2. Do you get along with other people?

- Do you have many friends? How do you maintain friendship?

- How do you feel when you meet with a stranger?

- Do your friends often seek help from you? Do you help them? When was the last time you helped a friend?

Appendix 4:

Interview protocol for caretakers

Lead-in:

How are you today? May I ask some questions about the centre’s children? Your participation is voluntary, and your identity and responses will be kept confidential. You can ask to cease the interview when you wish to.

Interview protocol:

1. What do you think about the appearance of Child … ? Why do you think so?

2. How often do the children have a health check? Does Child … have any health problems? What does the doctor say about his/her health?

3. Could you tell me about Child … .’s academic issues?

- Learning abilities

- Learning efforts

- Learning attitudes

1. Do the children here often have any communication problems with other people? What are the common causes of communication problems? How about Child … .? How does this child solve problems emerging from communication with other people?

2. Do you the children get along with each other and with the caretakers? How about Child … ?

- Does he/she have many friends? How does he/she maintain friendship?

- How does he/she feel when he/she meet with a stranger?

- Do he/she often help friends? What problems does he/she often offer to help with?