Klaipėdos universitetas

The article analyses the independence of children with mental and behavioural disorders, and the importance of its development and background, which creates the preconditions for a better quality of life. Psychomotor development and building up the independence of children with disabilities basically predetermine better conditions for the child’s integration into the community, the reduction of stress and dependence on family members, and better harmony in the family. The child’s psychomotor development covers major areas of child development: gross motor skills, fine motor skills, cognition, perception of language, verbal expression, self-regulation, and social and emotional development. But in terms of mental and behavioural disorders, the formation of skills proceeds in a more complex way. This disorder often manifests itself together with sensory problems: too high/low response, high stress felt, anxiety, and detachment from specific activities/measures, which may result in the delayed formation of independence skills. The development of the independence of a child with a disability is very important when individually selecting a suitable environment and factors that increase the motivation to learn, seek and interiorise newly acquired skills. These skills predetermine the possibilities for a person with a disability to feel independent in their daily activities in the future. Engagement in social interaction is an inevitable and important element of a high-quality daily life. Children with a disability face increased difficulties in their daily routines. Children with poorer social skills undergo social exclusion, and experience more difficulties in perceiving the feelings of other people, recognising and expressing emotions, complying with regulations and norms, and respecting themselves and others.

This article offers a comparative analysis of how the First World War affected emerging Estonian, Latvian and Lithuanian nationalisms. There has been a clear tendency to treat the three states declared by these national movements in 1918 as a single ‘Baltic’ grouping created as a result of common factors and processes. Yet, such a characterisation downplays differences which arise due to the position of the region at the very frontline of the war in the East, which brought a variety of jurisdictions and political contexts. A further tendency has been to retrospectively portray the nationstate framework ultimately created in all three cases as the realisation of the long-cherished goal of the pre-1918 national movements. Such an understanding of national self-determination, however, only emerged much later, and federalist thinking continued to shape both external and internal conceptions of sovereignty during and immediately after the war. How statehood was conceived, moreover, had a lot to do with which side of the line a region was located during the conflict, with key points of difference being discernible between the Estonian and Lithuanian cases in particular.