ISPCAN Child Abuse Screening Tool Children's Version (ICAST-C): Instrument development and multi-national pilot testing

ObjectiveTo develop a child victimization survey among a diverse group of child protection experts and examine the performance of the instrument through a set of international pilot studies.MethodsThe initial draft of the instrument was developed after input from scientists and practitioners representing 40 countries. Volunteers from the larger group of scientists participating in the Delphi review of the ICAST P and R reviewed the ICAST C by email in 2 rounds resulting in a final instrument. The ICAST C was then translated and back translated into six languages and field tested in four countries using a convenience sample of 571 children 12–17 years of age selected from schools and classrooms to which the investigators had easy access.ResultsThe final ICAST C Home has 38 items and the ICAST C Institution has 44 items. These items serve as screeners and positive endorsements are followed by queries for frequency and perpetrator. Half of respondents were boys (49%). Endorsement for various forms of victimization ranged from 0 to 51%. Many children report violence exposure (51%), physical victimization (55%), psychological victimization (66%), sexual victimization (18%), and neglect in their homes (37%) in the last year. High rates of physical victimization (57%), psychological victimization (59%), and sexual victimization (22%) were also reported in schools in the last year. Internal consistency was moderate to high (alpha between .685 and .855) and missing data low (less than 1.5% for all but one item).ConclusionsIn pilot testing, the ICAST C identifies high rates of child victimization in all domains. Rates of missing data are low, and internal consistency is moderate to high. Pilot testing demonstrated the feasibility of using child self-report as one strategy to assess child victimization.Practice implicationsThe ICAST C is a multi-national, multi-lingual, consensus-based survey instrument. It is available in six languages for international research to estimate child victimization. Assessing the prevalence of child victimization is critical in understanding the scope of the problem, setting national and local priorities, and garnering support for program and policy development aimed at child protection.     

Determinants of foster care placement for the maltreated child

This study examined the records of the North Carolina Central Registry of Child Abuse and Neglect to determine which social, family, and child characteristics were most influential in the decision to place a child in foster care. These records contained all theoretically relevant factors as well as demographic data. Analysis included the computation of odds ratios for foster care for each of 250 variables. A maximum likelihood logistic regression model was constructed to obtain the independent and cumulative contribution of each factor. Some expected variables such as parental stress factors (substance abuse) and types of abuse (burns and scalds) placed a child at a significant risk for placement in foster care (p < 0.01). However, less obvious factors such as referral source (law enforcement agencies) or geographic area also placed children at risk. Overall, the model explained little of the variance of these decisions (R² = 0.168) and poorly predicted placement (sensitivity 66.3 per cent, specificity 74.6 per cent). Using existing data. we were unable to adequately describe the decision process in selecting foster care.     

On defining distance education

Four generally accepted definitions of distance education are analysed and from them six components of a comprehensive definition are chosen. The forms of education that are considered to fall within the concept of distance education as outlined are considered from the point of view of choice of medium, institutional type and didactic model. Various forms of education that bear some similarities to distance education but are not to be identified with it are described. The term ‘distance education’ is proposed as the most satisfactory solution to the problem of terminology.

The term ‘distance education’ covers the various forms of study at all levels which are not under the continuous, immediate supervision of tutors present with their students in lecture rooms or on the same premises, but which, nevertheless, benefit from the planning, guidance and tuition of a tutorial organisation.

(Holmberg,1977:9)

Distance education is education which either does not imply the physical presence of the teacher appointed to dispense it in the place where it is received or in which the teacher is present only on occasion or for selected tasks.

(Loi 71.556 du 12 juillet 1971)

Distance teaching/education (Fernunterricht) is a method of imparting knowledge, skills and attitudes which is rationalised by the application of division of labour and organisational principles as well as by the extensive use of technical media, especially for the purpose of reproducing high quality teaching material which makes it possible to instruct great numbers of students at the same time wherever they live. It is an industrialised form of teaching and learning.

(Peters, 1973:206)

Distance teaching may be defined as the family of instructional methods in which the teaching behaviours are executed apart from the learning behaviours, including those that in a contiguous situation would be performed in the learner's presence, so that communication between the teacher and the learner must be facilitated by print, electronic, mechanical or other devices.

(Moore, 1973:664)     

Psychometric properties of a youth self-report measure of neglectful behavior by parents

Objective

This study aimed to empirically assess psychometric properties of a multi-dimensional youth self-report measure of neglectful behavior by parents.

Method

Data were gathered from 593 12-year-old youth participating in the Longitudinal Studies of Child Abuse and Neglect (LONGSCAN) consortium; 272 also had data at age 14. Youth responded to a 25-item measure of their experiences of neglect. Expert raters classified items into 4 factors, followed by confirmatory factor analyses. We evaluated cross group measurement equivalence by gender and longitudinal measurement equivalence from age 12 to age 14. Validity was assessed by the relationships between factor scores and (1) neglect reports to child protective services (CPS), (2) quality of parent-child interactions, and (3) parental monitoring.

Results

A 3-factor model (Physical Needs, Emotional Support, and Parental Monitoring) of neglect was obtained, with equivalence across gender and longitudinally (age 12-14). The pattern of correlations between the factor scores, CPS reports, and measures of the parent-child relationship offered modest to moderate support for convergent validity.

Conclusions

The findings suggest a promising and relatively brief youth self-report measure of neglect to help advance research in this area.     

ISPCAN Child Abuse Screening Tools Retrospective version (ICAST-R): Delphi study and field testing in seven countries

ObjectivesTo gain consensus among an ethnically and linguistically diverse group of international child protection experts on the structure and content of a new survey tool for retrospective measurement of child abuse, and to determine the performance of the instrument through an international field trial with young adults.MethodsThe questionnaire was developed through focus group discussions with international experts, and then subjected to a Delphi study in two waves to determine the perceived importance and translatability of items. The resultant questionnaire was translated into six languages and field tested in seven countries with convenient samples of young adults aged 18–26 years (N = 842).ResultsChild maltreatment experts from 28 countries provided input to questionnaire development. Satisfactory agreement on draft item inclusion and exclusion and the translatability of items was gained. The tool includes 15 primary questions about potentially abusive physical, sexual and emotional events, with follow-up questions about perpetrator characteristics, frequency of acts and periods in childhood when the recalled abuse occurred. The field test revealed lifetime prevalence per item usually exceeded 10% (11/15 items; range 2.1–49.5%). Internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha) was moderate to high for each of three item sub-sets (between .61 and .82) and the rates of missing data were low (less than 1.5% for 14 of 15 items). The great majority of respondents nominated either peer and/or adult perpetrators (between 82.3% and 98.2% depending upon the item), and among these, child/adolescent peers and non-family adults (including teachers for emotional and physical acts) were nominated often.ConclusionsThe ICAST-R is based on consensus from international experts, translates clearly and has satisfactory properties for adoption as a survey tool to estimate prevalence and describe perpetrators and other contextual aspects of child abuse.Practice implicationsThis tool can be utilized in a broad range of cultures and languages and may contribute to improved research practice. Although the core items are limited to just 15 acts of maltreatment, if these behaviorally specific questions are adopted as key indicators and incorporated into comprehensive local, national or regional surveys, eventually there should be greater comparability in survey estimates.