The dimensions of maltreatment: introduction

Child Abuse & Neglect 29 (2005) 441–460

The dimensions of maltreatment: Introduction夽 Diana J. English a,∗ , Shrikant I. Bangdiwala b , Desmond K. Runyan c a

The Washington State Department of Social and Health Services, Office of Children’s Administration Research, 4045 Delridge Way SW, Suite 400, N17-2, Seattle, WA 98106, USA b Department of Biostatistics, UNC School of Public Health and the UNC Injury Prevention Research Center, Chapel Hill, NC, USA c Departments of Social Medicine and Pediatrics, UNC School of Medicine and the UNC Injury Prevention Research Center, Chapel Hill, NC, USA Received 12 April 2002; received in revised form 21 August 2003; accepted 26 September 2003

Abstract This special issue includes an introduction and seven papers exploring dimensions of maltreatment including type, severity, chronicity, and substantiation status of referrals to CPS, utilizing a subsample of the LONGSCAN studies. Each paper examines one of the dimensions of maltreatment from various perspectives to determine if different conceptualizations of a dimension, examined in isolation, account for different amounts of variation in child outcomes. A final paper assesses the relationship of the combined maltreatment dimensions, including interactions, on a single sample of maltreated children from the LONGSCAN study. This final paper explores the individual contribution of the “best” conceptualizations of the maltreatment dimensions in relation to each other, and to the 10 child outcomes of interest. Implications of the findings from these papers for future research on dimensions of child maltreatment are discussed in two independent commentaries. © 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Keywords: Maltreatment definitions; Child abuse/neglect; Dimensions of maltreatment

夽

This paper was made possible by Grant 90CA1679 from the Children’s Bureau, Administration for Children, Youth, and Families, US Department of Health and Human Services and Grant 5 R01 HD39689-03 from the National Institutes of Health, Institute for Child Health and Development. The contents are solely the responsibility of the authors and do not represent the official views or policies of the funding agency. Publication does not in any way constitute an endorsement by the Department of Health and Human Services. ∗ Corresponding author. 0145-2134/$ – see front matter © 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.chiabu.2003.09.023

442

D.J. English et al. / Child Abuse & Neglect 29 (2005) 441–460

Introduction During the last 20 years, there has been significant progress in the development of complex theoretical models offering explanations for both the antecedents and consequences of maltreatment (Egeland, Sroufe, & Erickson, 1983; Kaufman & Cicchetti, 1989; Waters & Sroufe, 1983). Less attention has been paid to the operationalization and quantification of the major independent variable, that is, maltreatment. In the past, maltreatment has typically been treated as a dichotomous variable, yes/no, or as a single type of child abuse/neglect despite the heterogeneous nature of maltreatment (Crouch & Milner, 1993; Manly, Cicchetti, & Barnett, 1994; Paget, Philip, & Abramczyk, 1993; Silverman, Reinherz, & Giaconia, 1996; Tebbutt, Swanston, Oates, & O’Toole, 1997). Some attention has been paid to the multidimensional nature of child maltreatment; however, researchers have not agreed upon a systematic procedure for describing a child’s maltreatment experience, especially from a longitudinal perspective (Cicchetti & Manly, 2001; Kinard, 1998). While there are no commonly accepted systematic procedures for describing the maltreatment experience, there is an emerging consensus on the dimensions of maltreatment that need further explication and examination. These dimensions include severity, frequency, chronicity, duration, type, age of onset, and perpetrator type (Barnett, Manly, & Cicchetti, 1993; Hanson, Smith, Saunders, Swenson, & Conrad, 1995; National Research Council, 1993). In their 1993 review of the status of research on child maltreatment, the National Research Council (NRC) recommended longitudinal and developmental research, examining the timing, duration, severity and nature of maltreatment over the child’s life course. Furthermore, the NRC recommended that there should be a consensus on research definitions for each form of maltreatment as well as reliable and valid measurement tools to operationalize maltreatment. Finally, the NRC recommended research that assesses the outcomes of specific and combined types of maltreatment dimensions. This special issue examines different conceptualizations of the dimensions of maltreatment and their relationship to child outcomes in an effort to build on the work of others to further the process of developing adequate measurement of this complex construct, and to help the field move toward an agreed upon method of characterizing maltreatment dimensions.

Dimensions of maltreatment In order to examine dimensions of maltreatment, it is necessary to have adequate language to describe the maltreatment experience, and an adequate sample size to examine the heterogeneous experience of a large enough group of children to detect differences. In the past, research samples have been composed of children who have experienced heterogeneous forms of maltreatment, based on the assumption that all forms of maltreatment affect children in a homogeneous fashion (Cicchetti & Rizley, 1981). However, there is emerging consensus that different types of maltreatment need to be examined separately, as each appears to have distinct antecedents and consequences (Crittenden, Claussen, & Sugarman, 1994; Egeland & Sroufe, 1981; Higgins & McCabe, 2000; Hildyard & Wolfe, 2002). Type is further complicated when examining several episodes of maltreatment over time (Kinard, 1998). For example, how is type to be classified if a child experiences physical abuse, neglect and emotional abuse in the same or different episodes over time? The issue of classification becomes even more complex when children experience multiple types with varying levels of severity, or when children experience maltreatment types of varying duration or during different developmental periods.

D.J. English et al. / Child Abuse & Neglect 29 (2005) 441–460

443

Distinctions regarding outcomes associated with type and severity of maltreatment have also been identified as important (Brown & Kolko, 1999; Chaffin, Wherry, Newlin, Crutchfield, & Dynkman, 1997; Crouch & Milner, 1993; Manly, Kim, Rogosch, & Cicchetti, 2001). Some argue that different standards of severity should be utilized for different types of maltreatment (Bolger, Patterson, & Kupersmidt, 1998; McGee, Wolfe, Yuen, Wilson, & Carnochan, 1995) or that severity should be assigned based upon the developmental period in which the child experienced the maltreatment (Cicchetti, 1989). Typically, longitudinal experiences of maltreatment, if examined at all, are accounted for by including a “lifetime” count (or frequency) of maltreatment (Hanson et al., 1995). This approach does not account for the timing or the pervasiveness of the maltreatment experience across developmental periods (Bolger & Patterson, 2001; Manly et al., 2001). Nor does a frequency approach account for differences that may be related to one-time incidents versus ongoing chronic maltreatment. Despite the identification of issues and delineation of potential dimensions of maltreatment, and progress in constructing clear, reliable, valid, and useful definitions of child maltreatment, there is, as yet, no consensus on the measurement of maltreatment dimensions. This special issue contributes to this discussion by exploring different dimensions of maltreatment, utilizing subsamples of maltreated and nonmaltreated children from the LONGSCAN study. The papers build upon the theoretical work cited above, utilizing levels of behavioral and emotional functioning as assessed by caregivers and the children themselves to determine the individual impact of maltreatment dimensions on child functioning.

LONGSCAN The Longitudinal Studies of Child Abuse and Neglect (LONGSCAN) is a multisite, longitudinal study exploring the antecedents and consequences of child maltreatment over time. LONGSCAN includes a consortium of a Coordinating center and five independent prospective longitudinal studies of child maltreatment (see Runyan et al., 1998). The Consortium consists of three urban sites, Eastern (EA), Midwest (MW), and Northwest (NW), one suburban site in the Southwest (SW), and one Southern statewide site that includes urban, suburban, and rural communities (SO). The LONGSCAN Consortium is linked through a coordinating center (University of North Carolina) and an agreement to share objectives, use uniform data collection strategies, and coordinate data management. The LONGSCAN studies incorporate a longitudinal design that begins with children at 4 years of age or before and follows them at regularly scheduled intervals (age 4, 6, 8, 12, 14, 16, 18, and 20). Data collection is designed to measure outcome variables, as well as intervening variables that may influence the link between risk status and outcome. Samples differ by site and were carefully chosen to vary by levels of exposure to maltreatment. Salient features of the samples are displayed in Table 1 and described in greater detail in Runyan et al. (1998). At one end of the spectrum, the SW site recruited children who had already been maltreated, removed from parental custody and placed in foster care. The children in the SW site may or may not remain in foster care after recruitment. The NW site recruited children who had been reported to Child Protective Services (CPS) and were judged to be at moderate or high risk for maltreatment based on a CPS risk assessment process. The NW children may or may not have been substantiated for maltreatment at the time of recruitment. The MW site includes three groups of children. Two groups had been reported to CPS, one group was in a therapeutic intervention program and the other was receiving standardized care. A third MW group was recruited from nonmaltreated neighborhood children, matched on children’s age,

444

D.J. English et al. / Child Abuse & Neglect 29 (2005) 441–460

Table 1 Brief description of the LONGSCAN samples at recruitment Site (n), 1435

Cohort birth year

Race/ethnicitya (%)

Geographic location (%)

SW (330)

1989–1991

A-A White Hisp. Mixed Other

38 28 17 16 2

Urban

100

Early foster (n = 330)

NW (261)

1988–1994b

A-A White Hisp. Mixed Other

21 50 3 24 3

Urban Rural

90 10

CPS report (n = 261)

CPS report/moderate high risk

SO (243)

1986–1987

A-A White Mixed Hisp.

63 36 1 0

Urban Suburban Rural

53 24 23

Reported to CPS by age 4 years (n = 74)

Not reported to CPS (n = 169)

NE (282)

1988–91

A-A

93

Urban

100

(1) Nonorganic failure to thrive (n = 123) or (2) High risk for hiv infection (n = 83)

Pediatric primary care (n = 116)

Urban

100

Family reported to CPS & (1) 6 mo. family Rx or (2) usual CPS care (n = 219)

Neighborhood trols (n = 100)

MW (319)

1991–1994b

White Mixed Hisp. Other

5 1 0 1

A-A White Hisp. Mixed Other

49 14 14 20 2

Risk groups

Comparison group(s) care

1/3 of foster children have returned home by age 4

con-

Note. Throughout this report the names of our LONGSCAN Sites will be used as follows: EA: East/Eastern, MW: Midwest/Midwestern, SO: South/Southern, SW: Southwest/Southwestern, NW: Northwest/Northwestern, A-A: African-American, Hisp.: Hispanic. a Hispanics may be any race. b These cohorts were identified and recruited following the 1990 onset of LONGSCAN funding.

ethnicity, and family socioeconomic status. All the SO site children were recruited from a statewide high priority infant program, which defines risk status based on medical and sociodemographic factors. The SO sample varies on CPS status, including some children reported to CPS and others who have not been reported. The EA site consists of low-income children recruited from primary health care clinics, independent of their involvement with CPS. The EA site recruited three groups of children: (1) children with nonorganic failure to thrive; (2) children at risk for HIV infection; and (3) low-income children attending an urban pediatric primary care clinic. Although there were some early differences between site-specific cohorts, and while we expect some differences by original cohort to remain, several recent analyses examining children’s experiences with

D.J. English et al. / Child Abuse & Neglect 29 (2005) 441–460

445

violence and their family circumstances have noted few significant site differences. We predict that these original differences between site-specific cohorts will continue to diminish in importance in the cross-site and replication analyses of risk and protective factors related to maltreatment. The LONGSCAN studies are in a unique position to respond to the NRC recommendations regarding the exploration of dimensions of maltreatment. The size and diversity of the LONGSCAN sample and the longitudinal nature of the study enable LONGSCAN to examine the relative impact of various dimensions of maltreatment singly, and in combination with each other.

Description of papers A number of researchers have concluded that reliance on CPS classification of maltreatment from administrative data is simplistic and may result in misleading classifications of a child’s experience of maltreatment (Ards & Harrell, 1993; Brown, Cohen, Johnson, & Salzinger, 1998; Finkelhor & DzurbaLeatherman, 1994; Jones & McCurdy, 1992; Knutson, 1995; McGee et al., 1995; National Research Council, 1993; Wells, 1994). The LONGSCAN study provides an opportunity to address this question by examining CPS classification of abuse/neglect for 545 children referred to CPS, comparing this classification to two other maltreatment classification systems. In the LONGSCAN study, a child’s maltreatment reports are coded using three different methods: (1) a modified version of the Maltreatment Classification Scheme (MCS) developed by Barnett et al. (1993), hereinafter referred to as MMCS; (2) the maltreatment classification scheme utilized in The National Incident Study (NIS-2), developed by Sedlak (1991); and (3) CPS classification as assigned by the State CPS system. The paper titled “Describing maltreatment: Do child protective service reports and research definitions agree?” examines the similarities and differences between these three maltreatment coding systems. This paper also compares the ability of each of these three ways of classifying a child’s maltreatment experience to predict child outcomes. Considerable discussion regarding bias in official reporting, investigation bias, and bias as to which reports are substantiated, raise concern about the use of substantiation as a measure of maltreatment (Eckenrode, Powers, Doris, Munsch, & Bolger, 1988; English, Marshall, Coghlan, Brummel, & Orme, 1999; Hampton & Newberger, 1985; O’Toole, Turbett, & Nalepka, 1983; Wells, 1985; Widom, 1988). The paper “Defining maltreatment according to substantiation: Distinction with a difference?” examines the question of whether outcomes are different for a sample of LONGSCAN children who are reported and substantiated for maltreatment, children who are reported and not substantiated as maltreated, and children who are not reported for maltreatment. The type or form of maltreatment experienced by the child victim, and the relationship of type to outcome, has received more attention in the literature than other identified “dimensions.” Three papers in this special issue specifically examine the maltreatment type dimension. The first paper “Defining child neglect based on child protective services data” examines the classification of neglect, including subtypes of neglect, and the relationship of these different subtypes of neglect to child outcomes. Several authors (Garbarino, Eckenrode, & Bolger, 1997; Hart, Brassard, & Karlson, 1996) have identified emotional maltreatment (EMT) as an underlying component of all maltreatment. The paper titled “Do allegations of emotional maltreatment predict developmental outcomes beyond that of other forms of maltreatment?” examines allegations of emotional maltreatment by themselves and in association with allegations of other types of maltreatment in relationship to child outcomes. The final paper on type “What’s in a name?

446

D.J. English et al. / Child Abuse & Neglect 29 (2005) 441–460

A comparison of methods for classifying the predominant type of maltreatment” compares and contrasts different methods of classifying a “predominant type of maltreatment,” including multiple types, and the relationship between these type classifications and child outcomes. One “dimension” of maltreatment that has received some attention, but little resolution, is the issue of severity (Bolger & Patterson, 2001; Chaffin et al., 1997; Manly et al., 1994). Several researchers have argued that severity is an important dimension of maltreatment, and may have important implications for understanding child outcomes (Brown & Kolko, 1999; Bryant & Range, 1997; Kaufman, Jones, Stieglitz, Vitulano, & Mannarino, 1994; McGee et al., 1995). Some argue that severity ratings should be based on parent behavior, not child outcomes (McGee & Wolfe, 1991a, 1991b) and that different standards of severity should be developed for different types of maltreatment (Bolger et al., 1998; McGee et al., 1995). The paper “Measuring the severity of child maltreatment” examines the construct of severity of maltreatment and child outcomes utilizing several different conceptualizations of severity. Chronicity as a dimension of maltreatment also must be considered. Several researchers have argued that the duration of a child’s maltreatment experience is related to child outcomes (Bolger & Patterson, 2001; Bolger et al., 1998; Crittenden, 1988; Egeland et al., 1983; Manly et al., 2001). Furthermore, it is hypothesized that the duration of maltreatment across developmental stages is a key factor in understanding maladaptive behavior across the life course and that maltreatment in one developmental stage can affect later development (Aber, Allen, Carlsen, & Cicchetti, 1989; Cicchetti & Carlsen, 1989; Coster, Beeghly, Gersten, & Cicchetti, 1989; Herrenkohl & Herrenkohl, 1981; Toth & Cicchetti, 1993). Age of onset is also a key issue, since age at which the child first experiences maltreatment can affect chronicity definitions and an understanding of developmental impact (Bolger et al., 1998; McGee et al., 1995). The paper titled “Defining maltreatment chronicity: Are there differences in child outcomes?” examines the relationship of age of onset and three different conceptualizations of chronicity of maltreatment on child outcomes. It has been argued that studying maltreatment dimensions in isolation may obscure or oversimplify relationships of maltreatment relative to child outcomes. Maltreatment dimensions in combination and interactions between dimensions of maltreatment may be important. The final paper in this special issue “Maltreatment’s wake: The relationship of maltreatment dimensions to child outcomes” examines the relationship of four key maltreatment dimensions—age of onset, type, severity, and chronicity and their interactions—to child outcomes for a sample of maltreated children in the LONGSCAN study.

Methods Study sample description The total LONGSCAN sample includes 1435 “at risk” children who were enrolled in the study from birth to age 4. The papers in this special issue utilize varying subset samples of the larger LONGSCAN sample. Inclusion criteria are: (1) the children and/or their caregivers must have completed an age 4 and an age 8 interview; and, (2) the children’s CPS maltreatment records must have been reviewed from birth to the date of their age 8 interview. Figure 1 provides a flow chart outlining the selection process for the different samples included in this set of papers. Figure 1 demonstrates that the selection criteria at each stage resulted in a successively smaller number of LONGSCAN children being included in the final study sample. Some children (N = 270) were excluded

D.J. English et al. / Child Abuse & Neglect 29 (2005) 441–460

447

Figure 1. Study Sample Description. (1) The difference between 1435 and 806 is due to subjects who did not meet inclusion criteria including 78 with pre age 4 and no age 4 interview, 128 children added at age 6, 175 children whose CPS records were not reviewed at age 8, and 270 children whose age 8 interview was not complete at the time of the study. (2) The four-site attrition rate (excluding MW site, which was not used in the study) between baseline and Visit 8 was 16.7% (185 of 1109). Attrition analyses, comparing the two groups on race/ethnicity, gender, and various caregiver measures (Vineland, Battelle, Caregiver Depression, Years of Parent Education, and CBCL) indicate no significant differences between the attritted and nonattrited samples between baseline and Visit 8.

because they have not yet completed their age 8 interview (e.g., the MW sample). Other children (N = 175) were excluded because their CPS records have not yet been reviewed through age 8. Based on our exclusion criteria, a total of 806 maltreated and nonmaltreated children from the LONGSCAN sample were eligible for inclusion in the sample used for this series of papers. Of these 806 children, 261 do not have reports of maltreatment, and 545 children had reports to CPS; however, only 519 of the children reported to CPS had specific, codeable maltreatment allegations. Papers in this special issue use different subsamples from the overall sample of 806 based on the research question of interest. Details of the sample selection process and individual research questions are included in the methods section of each individual paper.

Study procedures Common standardized measures and protocols were selected by the LONGSCAN Consortium to examine questions related to the antecedents and consequences of child maltreatment. The interview protocols, data collection procedures, training of research assistants, and data definitions were identical across all of the LONGSCAN sites. Each site submits the age specific interview protocol to their respective institutional review boards for approval. Data collectors are required to achieve a 90% inter-rater reliability on the interview protocol and maltreatment record review prior to data collection. A set of common measures are administered at each site to caregivers and children. The caregiver face-to-face interview averaged approximately 2 hours and included measures of child, caregiver and family functioning, as well as neighborhood context, stressors and supports. The child face-to-face interview averaged 45 min and included measures of the child’s behavioral, emotional, social and adaptive functioning. Caregivers and

448

D.J. English et al. / Child Abuse & Neglect 29 (2005) 441–460

children were reimbursed for the time and effort involved with the interview. Data were entered locally using a common data entry system and were processed at the LONGSCAN Coordinating Center at the University of North Carolina. Random data entry checks were conducted, and a random sample of 10% of the interviews were re-entered to verify data entry procedures and coding. Crosschecks for invalid or inconsistent responses were also conducted. Specific procedures for each paper are described individually in the specific paper methods section. In this study we use allegations of maltreatment (contained in CPS reports) as opposed to substantiated CPS reports as a basis for the maltreatment variables. Research suggests there is little distinction between substantiated and unsubstantiated referrals (Leiter, Myers, & Zingraff, 1994), and that whether or not a CPS referral is substantiated may have more to do with CPS systems issues than whether or not abuse/neglect actually occurred (see English, Graham, Brummel, & Coghlan, 2002; English, Marshall, Brummel, & Coghlan, 1998). CPS allegations from birth to age 8 for the children in this study were classified using a modified version of the Maltreatment Classification Scheme developed by Barnett et al. (1993).

Independent variables The Maltreatment Classification Scheme (MCS) originally developed by Barnett et al. (1993) was adopted and modified in 1994 for use in the LONGSCAN Study. The MCS was developed as a method of collecting information from Child Protective Service (CPS) records using systematic and reliable criteria. The dimensions of maltreatment included in the MCS are severity of incidents within each subtype, the frequency and chronicity of maltreatment reports, length of time of CPS involvement, the developmental period during which the maltreatment occurred, the type and number of placements outside the home, and the perpetrators of the incident. In the LONGSCAN Modified Maltreatment Classification Scheme (MMCS), we retained type, severity, frequency and perpetrator. LONGSCAN did not specifically code to developmental periods as specified in the MCS, but did collect information on the dates of referrals so that the timing of maltreatment could be derived from the LONGSCAN data set. Data on child placement is derived from other CPS record sources. Finally, we did not collect chronicity data based on length of time a CPS record is open for service. Research in recent years suggests that the length of time a CPS case is open may be more of a reflection of CPS system issues than a child’s experience of maltreatment (see Drake, 1996; English, Brummel, Coghlan, Novicky, & Marshall, 1998; English, Brummel, Graham, Clark, & Coghlan, 2002). Greater details on the operationalization of the chronicity construct are found in the paper by English, Graham, Litrownik, Everson, and Bangdiwala (2005), in this issue. As presented in Table 2, specification of subtypes of maltreatment within the major abuse/neglect type categories allows for greater specification of a child’s alleged or actual maltreatment experience. The MCS, and subsequently the MMCS, includes specification of subtypes of abuse/neglect within the broader, more common categories of maltreatment. For example, Neglect as a type of maltreatment is further classified as Lack of Supervision, or Failure to Provide. Then, within each of these subtypes the MMCS provides a mechanism for coding specifics of Neglect/Failure to Provide such as whether the omissions were related to food, clothing or shelter. Furthermore, the MMCS provides a mechanism for assigning a level of severity within type and subtype of maltreatment.

D.J. English et al. / Child Abuse & Neglect 29 (2005) 441–460

449

Table 2 Modified Maltreatment Coding Scheme (MMCS)

Note. Modified from the original Maltreatment Classification Coding Scheme developed by Barnett et al. (1993). Modification consists of the addition of codes to allow separate analyses of type and subtype, including severity.

The following provides an example of severity ratings for the subtype Neglect—Failure to Provide Food. Severity ratings for other subtypes are similar with severity level examples consistent with maltreatment types: Neglect—Failure to Provide Food Each sub category within a subtype may have severity levels 1 (low) through 5 (high) Each severity code has specific meaning: 1. 2. 3. 4.

Severity 1 = Caretaker does not provide regular meals Severity 2 = Caretaker does not ensure that food is available Severity 3 = Child experiences pattern of frequently missed meals Severity 4 = Because of poor nutrition child fails to grow

450

D.J. English et al. / Child Abuse & Neglect 29 (2005) 441–460

5. Severity 5 = Infant weight loss; severe malnutrition The complete MCS is available in Barnett et al. (1993). The LONGSCAN version of the MMCS is available on [http://www.sph.unc.edu/iprc/longscan.jpg].

Dependent variables The dependent measures chosen for this study are ratings of child behavioral, adaptive and emotional functioning, and include reports made by the parent/caregiver and self-reports by the child. LONGSCAN has made a consistent effort to use established measures of child functioning. While many of the measures have shortcomings or are lengthy compared to what we might have constructed as a consortium, the NRC noted the shortcomings of measurement in the field and urged that standard or widely used measures be utilized in future research. Child behavioral functioning (caregiver report) The Child Behavior Checklist—Parent Report Form (CBCL ages 4–18) (Achenbach & Edelbrock, 1983) is a measure of children’s overall behavioral functioning as assessed by their primary caregiver (biological parent, foster parent, etc.). The measure is composed of 118 items asking about child behavior problems for children between the ages of 4 and 18. Each item is rated on a 0–2 rating scale, with 0 indicating that the item is not true, 1 is somewhat or sometimes true, and 2 is very true for the child. Testretest reliability assessment (over a 7-day period) resulted in Cronbach’s alpha coefficients ranging from .65 to .89. Among the 8 syndrome, Cronbach’s alpha values ranged from .76 to .92. This measure is widely used, and extensive content, construct and criterion-related validity and reliability are well documented (see Chapter 6, Manual for the Child Behavior Checklist and Revised Child Behavior Profile, for details). The CBCL has been used with both clinical and nonclinical populations of children (Achenbach, 1991). For the purposes of this study the standardized broadband scores for Internalizing, Externalizing and Total Problems score are utilized to provide assessments of child behavioral functioning. For Total Problems, Externalizing and Internalizing groupings, T scores less than 60 are considered in the normal range, while 60–63 represent borderline scores, and greater than 63 is considered in the clinical range. For the LONGSCAN sample as a whole, 30.4% of the children had borderline or clinical scores for Total Problems, 31.9% for Externalizing Problems, and 21.7% Internalizing Problems—at the time of their age 8 interview. Child adaptive functioning (caregiver report) The Vineland Screener (VSC) is derived from the Vineland Adaptive Behavioral Scales (VABS) (Sparrow, Balla, & Cicchetti, 1984). The VSC assesses the personal and social sufficiency of individuals from birth to 18 years of age. In these studies, the age-specific version for children ages 6–12 is used to measure Daily Living Skills (practical skills needed to take care of oneself) and Socialization (skills needed to get along with others). These 30 items were selected from the 261 items that comprise the total Vineland Adaptive Behavioral Scales. Each item is scored on a 3-point rating scale, with 2 indicating the activity is performed satisfactorily, 1 indicating the activity is emergent (adequate, but not habitual), and

D.J. English et al. / Child Abuse & Neglect 29 (2005) 441–460

451

0 indicating the individual is too young or immature to perform the activity. Raw scores are converted to age-equivalent scores for each domain, and derived scores are calculated. Sparrow, Carter, and Cicchetti (1993), report inter-rater reliability of lay interviewers at Cronbach’s α = .98. Correlations between the Vineland Screener (6–12) and the full Vineland are reported as: Daily Living Skills (r = .93), and Socialization (r = .92). The standard scores for the LONGSCAN sample as a whole for Daily Living Skills are x¯ = 92.44, SD 18.22; and for Socialization x¯ = 86.14, SD 16.98. Child emotional functioning (child report) The Trauma Symptom Checklist for Children (TSCC-A) is a shortened version of a child self-report measure of posttraumatic distress and related psychological symptomatology. It is intended for use in the evaluation of children who have experienced traumatic events, including child maltreatment. The TSCC-A consists of 54 items that yield two validity scales (under-response and hyper-response); five clinical scales (anxiety, depression, anger, posttraumatic stress, and dissociation). For each item the child records the frequency with which the statement pertains to her/him on a 4-point scale. The scale range of 0 indicates “never” and 3 indicates “almost all the time.” The measure is written at a level appropriate for the language and reading capabilities of children 8–16 years of age. Raw scores are transformed into standardized T scores based on the child’s gender and age. Subscale raw scores are derived by summing the response values of all items comprising the subscale, and dividing by the number of items within the subscale. The TSCC is scored by 4 age/sex combination conversion tables. The validation sample included 8-year olds. T scores at or above 65 are considered clinically significant. In addition, there is a derived variable based on a sum of scores in the clinical range on any of the subscales. Excellent internal consistency, reliability and concurrent validity are reported in the literature (Evans, Briere, Boggiano, & Barrett, 1994; Lanktree & Briere, 1990a, 1990b). Cronbach’s alpha for the TSCC subscales for the LONGSCAN sample ranges from .76 to .85. For the Total LONGSCAN sample at the age 8 interview, 23.7% scored in the clinical range for anxiety, 13% depression, 16.8% posttraumatic stress, 14.3% dissociation and 8.2% anger. However, the scores varied widely by site. Results of the TSCC when used with this study sample are congruent with those derived from similar measures including the CBCL, indicating good concurrent validity as well.

Analysis strategy The analytical approach taken in these papers is standard hierarchical regression, entering blocks of variables into the regression to determine how much variance is accounted by each successive block. All papers enter the blocks in the same order, as described in Figure 2. The specific variables included in the different ordered blocks were selected to inform the model building process by examining the relative importance of a set of variables, conditional on the inclusion of variables in prior blocks. As such, the changes in R2 at the different stages of model building are provided for descriptive purposes. Block 1 includes the basic demographic binary variables of age, gender and minority status. Block 2 includes the independent variables of primary interest in each particular paper. Two papers, based on the specific research question of interest, include a yes/no variable denoting maltreatment from birth to age 4 (variable A, Block 2) and child functioning at age 4 (variable B, Block 2). Variable C, Block 2 includes the individual maltreatment variables examined in each paper, for example,

452

D.J. English et al. / Child Abuse & Neglect 29 (2005) 441–460

Figure 2. Analysis strategy—variables of interest included in the analyses. variables of interest in the neglect paper.

(1)

Depends on the research question.

(2)

These are

those related to type, severity, chronicity, or substantiation status. Block 3 includes potential confounder covariates, an income variable in all papers and discretionary covariates including maternal depression at age 4 and family size at age 8 (variables of interest in the neglect paper). Finally, LONGSCAN study site is entered in Block 4, with the NW site as reference for the first seven papers. This analytical strategy was decided upon because sites are confounders of the relationship of the primary independent variable of interest with outcomes at age 8. Inclusion of site in Block 1 would prevent the interpretation during the model building process of the role of the independent variables of interest without handling design-specific confounding by attributing all of the shared variance in question to site. The final models all account for the potential confounding role of site, by its inclusion in the final block. The NW site was selected as reference because this site has the highest incidence of maltreatment compared to the other LONGSCAN study sites. Predictors of interest (the different ways of operationalizing maltreatment dimensions) are examined in an exploratory fashion in the hierarchical models by examining R2 change for each block, as well as the relative significance of these predictors in each final model when site is included. The final paper examining the maltreatment dimensions in combination uses a sample from only one site, the NW sample, so analytic methods for dealing with cross-site issues are unnecessary.

Sample description Table 3 provides comparative data on the sample demographics for the Total LONGSCAN sample, and the combined maltreated and nonmaltreated subsamples utilized in this series of papers. The samples used in these analyses differ from the overall LONGSCAN sample in that the two West Coast sites make up more of the final sample. The NW and SW children had been reported to CPS as

D.J. English et al. / Child Abuse & Neglect 29 (2005) 441–460

453

Table 3 Description of samples utilized in Individual Dimensions Paper compared to Total LONGSCAN sample Total sample, 1357

# Met inclusion criteria, 806

# With CPS reports, 545

# With codeable allegations, 519a

Nonmaltreated sample, 261

Child gender (%) Female

50.8

50.9

50.8

50.9

51.0

Child ethnic status (%) Majority Minority

26.5 73.5

28.7 71.3

31.9 68.1

31.8 68.2

21.8 78.2

Child age (years), x¯ (SD)

8.3 (.41)

8.2 (.38)

8.2 (.39)

8.2 (.39)

8.3 (.36)

Family geographic location (%) East (EA) 17.5 South (SO) 16.3 Southwest (SW) 23.5 Northwest (NW) 19.2 Midwest (MW) 23.5

24.9 21.3 27.2 26.6 N/A

12.1 10.3 39.8 37.8 N/A

12.7 10.2 38.0 39.1 N/A

51.7 44.4 .8 3.1 N/A

Family income

$15–19.9K

$15–19.9K

$15–19.9K

10–14.9K

$10–14.9K

a

Codeable allegations refer to specific allegations of maltreatment as opposed to referent stating concerns for the child without specifically alleging abuse/neglect.

a primary criterion for recruitment into the study. The MW site has children too young to be included and both the SO and EA sites had significant numbers of children who have never been reported for maltreatment. The various site samples included are quite comparable on gender and age distribution; differences noted in ethnic status and geographic location distribution are due to different recruitment cohorts and their times of inclusion into the study. Each paper presents more description on their respective samples. Table 4 provides an overview of the alleged maltreatment experience of the 519 children included in the maltreatment sample. (As noted earlier, only referrals with specific, codeable maltreatment allegations are included.) At the time of their age 8 interview, these 519 children were reported to CPS in 1,704 separate referrals containing 2,738 allegations of maltreatment. The data in Table 4 provide the number and percent of allegations within type and subtypes of maltreatment and by severity based on the MMCS. These maltreatment data serve as the basis for the different operationalizations of type, severity and chronicity of maltreatment examined in several of the papers in this special issue. In addition, the date on each maltreatment report and substantiation status is available and recorded in the database for use in the development of the CPS finding variable. Finally, the chronicity and age of onset constructs are developed using the dates of the referrals to CPS and the child’s birthdate to determine developmental age at time of each individual report to CPS. Table 5 provides data on the mean scores by site for the 10 outcome variables of interest, along with the overall sample mean scores. The SW and NW samples (the most maltreated) have higher scores on the CBCL Externalizing and Total Problem scores, and higher mean scores on the five Trauma Symptoms scales utilized in this study. The SW and NW sample had lower scores on the Vineland Daily Living and Socialization scores compared to the EA site; however, the SO sample had lower scores compared to the other three samples on the Daily Living and Socialization scales.

454

Table 4 MMCS allegations by severitiesa (519 subjects with 1,704 referrals, 2,738 allegations) Maltreatment types

MMCS severity level 1

2

Percent

Number

Percent

Number

Total Percent

Number

Percent

54 13 20 21 42 12 5 3 108

33.1 25.0 36.4 28.4 71.2 85.7 15.2 30.0 83.1

45 28 22 28 10 1 9 0 10

27.6 53.8 40.0 37.8 16.9 7.1 27.3 .0 7.7

57 7 11 17 7 1 17 6 6

35.0 13.5 20.0 23.0 11.9 7.1 51.5 60.0 4.6

6 3 1 8 0 0 2 0 6

3.7 5.8 1.8 10.8 .0 .0 6.1 .0 4.6

1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0

.6 1.9 1.8 .0 .0 .0 .0 10.0 .0

163 52 55 74 59 14 33 10 130

27.6 8.8 9.3 12.5 10.0 2.4 5.6 1.7 22.0

Physical Abuse Total

278

47.1

153

25.9

129

21.9

26

4.4

4

.7

590

100.0

Physical Neglect/Failure to Provide Food 131 Clothing 77 Shelter 117 Medical 35 Hygiene 139

42.1 63.1 43.2 12.4 49.8

116 45 65 43 28

37.3 36.9 24.0 15.2 10.0

38 0 32 116 62

12.2 .0 11.8 41.1 22.2

17 0 57 21 49

5.5 .0 21.0 7.4 17.6

9 0 0 67 1

2.9 .0 .0 23.8 .4

311 122 271 282 279

24.6 9.6 21.4 22.3 22.1

Failure to Provide Total

499

39.4

297

23.5

248

19.6

144

11.4

77

6.1

1265

100.0

Lack of Supervision Environment Substitute care

118 18 49

52.0 9.5 20.8

52 41 23

22.9 21.7 9.7

29 14 84

12.8 7.4 35.6

11 72 80

4.8 38.1 33.9

17 44 0

7.5 23.3 .0

227 189 236

34.8 29.0 36.2

Lack of supervision total

185

28.4

116

17.8

127

19.5

163

25.0

61

9.4

652

100.0

22 12

29.3 7.7

39 10

52.0 6.4

0 81

.0 51.9

6 50

8.0 32.1

8 3

10.7 1.9

75 156

100.0 100.0

D.J. English et al. / Child Abuse & Neglect 29 (2005) 441–460

Type of Physical Abuse Face Torso Buttocks Limbs Violent handling Choking/smothering Burns/scalding Shaking Nondescript

A modified version of the MCS developed by Barnett et al. (1993).

Number

5

Percent

a

Percent

4

Number

Moral/legal Sexual Abuse

Number

3

D.J. English et al. / Child Abuse & Neglect 29 (2005) 441–460

455

Table 5 Mean child functioning at age 8 interview (by site) on selected measures EAa (N = 66)

SOb (N = 53)

SWc (N = 197)

NWd (N = 203)

Overall mean (N = 519)

CBCL (behavior problems) Total CBCL 55.55 Internalizing 51.91 Externalizing 56.02

54.22 52.59 53.75

55.98 52.04 56.87

57.20 54.69 57.61

56.23 53.12 56.74

Vinelande Daily Living Socialization

93.94 89.94

85.96 78.49

90.97 82.10

91.10 83.45

90.91 83.27

Trauma symptoms Anxiety Depression Anger PTS Dissociation

52.00 49.54 44.77 53.08 53.12

52.42 50.65 47.38 52.10 51.06

57.31 54.75 46.92 56.23 55.88

57.37 53.77 48.15 56.06 54.68

56.16 53.29 47.16 55.35 54.59

a b c d e

EA = BA. SO = NC. SW = SD. NW = SE. Higher scores indicate higher adaptive functioning.

Finally, in this sample description section we present data on a comparison of the outcomes of interest for a matched sample of 203 maltreated and 203 nonmaltreated children from the larger study sample. Prior to the examination of specific dimensions of maltreatment, we wanted to determine whether or not there were significant differences between a sample of maltreated and nonmaltreated children in the LONGSCAN sample. For the purposes of this comparison, a sample of the NW cohort were matched to the greatest extent possible to nonmaltreated children in the EA and SO samples (the SW sample, and the MW sample are not included in this sample matching process based on the exclusion/inclusion criteria). Matching criteria included income, race/ethnicity and gender. The subsample of maltreated children were selected from the NW cohort for two reasons: (1) this sample is the most “referred” to CPS, and (2) the majority of children remain with their primary caregivers (unlike the SW sample). This NW maltreated sample is used in the “Maltreatment’s wake: The relationship of maltreatment dimensions to child outcomes” paper, which examines the contribution of the “best” dimensions of maltreatment. Table 6 provides data on the mean and standard deviation, variance, significance and R2 for the maltreated and nonmaltreated group on the 10 outcomes of interest. As seen in Table 6, mean scores on the CBCL Problems, Internalizing and Externalizing are significantly different; in each case, the maltreated children have higher mean scores compared to the nonmaltreated children. There is, however, no difference in variance for the behavioral outcome measures. There are significant differences between the maltreated and nonmaltreated groups on the Vineland Screener mean scores for Daily Living Skills and Socialization. For Daily Living, the nonmaltreated children have significantly higher scores (in this case better) and lower variance than the maltreated group (SD 15.38 vs. SD 19.36). As noted for the Socialization subscale, the nonmaltreated children have significantly higher mean scores, although, in this case there is more variation in scores for the nonmaltreated children. The maltreated children have significantly higher mean scores on all five of the Trauma Symptom subscale

456

D.J. English et al. / Child Abuse & Neglect 29 (2005) 441–460

Table 6 Differences in means of outcomes between maltreated (N = 203) and nonmaltreated groups (N = 203) Outcomes

Maltreated, mean (SD)

Nonmaltreated, mean (SD)

Significance, Levene’s Test: Equality of Variance (p-value)

Student’s t-test Equality of Means (p-value)

R-squared

CBCL Total Problem CBCL score for Internalizing CBCL score for Externalizing Daily Living Skill standard score Socialization standard score TSCC anxiety standard score TSCC depression standard score TSCC anger standard score TSCC P-traumatic stress standard score TSC dissociation standard score

57.20 (11.22) 54.69 (10.78) 57.61 (10.87) 91.10 (19.36)

50.86 (10.37) 49.63 (9.62) 51.92 (10.67) 94.76 (15.38)

.450 .143 .840 .013*

.000* .000* .000* .035*

.080 .058 .081 .011

83.45 (14.81) 57.29 (16.68) 53.66 (13.69)

89.73 (17.60) 49.29 (11.89) 46.04 (9.97)

.005* .000* .000*

.000* .000* .000*

.036 .072 .093

48.08 (12.78) 55.97 (13.88)

43.77 (9.31) 48.40 (10.32)

.000* .000*

.000* .000*

.036 .088

54.61 (13.17)

49.16 (10.46)

.001*

.000*

.050

∗

Significant at <.05 level.

measures, and significantly greater variation in each of the subscale scores. The differences in scores accounted for ranges from 1% of the variance (Vineland, Daily Living Skills) to 9% of the variance (TSCC, Depression). Clearly, the sample of maltreated children has significantly different (poorer) outcomes across the behavioral, adaptive and emotional functioning measures as compared to the nonmaltreated sample.

Summary During the past several decades, significant progress has been made regarding the understanding of the antecedents and consequences of child maltreatment. However, less progress has been made in the operationalization of the construct of child maltreatment. This special issue on the Dimensions of Maltreatment explores different conceptualizations of individual dimensions of maltreatment with the goal of identifying “best” fit constructs that might inform future research on child maltreatment.

References Aber, J. L., Allen, J. P., Carlsen, V., & Cicchetti, D. (1989). The effects of maltreatment on development during early childhood: Recent studies and their theoretical, clinical, and policy implications. In D. Cicchetti & V. Carlson (Eds.), Child maltreatment: Theory and research on the causes and consequences of child abuse and neglect (pp. 579–619). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Achenbach, T. M. (1991). Manual for the Youth Self-Report and 1991 Profile. Burlington, VT: University of Vermont Department of Psychiatry. Achenbach, T., & Edelbrock, C. S. (1983). Manual for the Child Behavior Checklist and Revised Child Behavior Profile. Burlington, VT: University of Vermont Department of Psychiatry.

D.J. English et al. / Child Abuse & Neglect 29 (2005) 441–460

457

Ards, S., & Harrell, A. (1993). Reporting of child maltreatment: A secondary analysis of the national incidence surveys. Child Abuse & Neglect, 17(3), 337–344. Barnett, D., Manly, J. T., & Cicchetti, D. (1993). Defining child maltreatment: The interface between policy and research. In D. Cicchetti & S. L. Toth (Eds.), Child abuse, child development, and social policy (pp. 7–74). Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Bolger, K. E., & Patterson, C. J. (2001). Developmental pathways from child maltreatment to peer rejection. Child Development, 72(2), 549–568. Bolger, K. E., Patterson, C. J., & Kupersmidt, J. B. (1998). Peer relationships and self-esteem among children who have been maltreated. Child Development, 69, 1171–1197. Brown, J., Cohen, P., Johnson, J. G., & Salzinger, S. (1998). A longitudinal analysis of risk factors for child maltreatment: Findings of a 17-year prospective study of officially recorded and self-reported child abuse and neglect. Child Abuse & Neglect, 22, 1065–1078. Brown, E. J., & Kolko, D. J. (1999). Child victims’ attributions about being physically abused: An examination of factors associated with symptom severity. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 27(4), 311–322. Bryant, S. L., & Range, L. M. (1997). Type and severity of child abuse and college students’ lifetime suicidality. Child Abuse & Neglect, 21(12), 1169–1176. Chaffin, M., Wherry, J. N., Newlin, C., Crutchfield, A., & Dynkman, R. (1997). The abuse dimensions inventory: Initial data on a research measure of abuse severity. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 12, 569–589. Cicchetti, D. (1989). How research on child maltreatment has informed the study of child development: Perspectives from developmental psychopathology. In D. Cicchetti & V. Carlson (Eds.), Child maltreatment: Theory and research on the causes and consequences of child abuse and neglect (pp. 377–431). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Cicchetti, D., & Carlsen, V. (Eds.). (1989). Child maltreatment: Theory and research on the causes and consequences of child abuse and neglect. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Cicchetti, D., & Manly, J. T. (2001). Editorial: Operationalizing child maltreatment: Developmental processes and outcomes. Development and Psychopathology, 13(4), 755–757. Cicchetti, D., & Rizley, R. (1981). Developmental perspectives on the etiology, intergenerational transmission, and sequelae of child maltreatment. In D. Cicchetti & D. Rizley (Eds.), New directions for child development, No. 11: Developmental perspectives on child maltreatment (pp. 31–55). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Coster, W. J., Beeghly, M., Gersten, M. S., & Cicchetti, D. (1989). Communicative functioning in maltreated toddlers. Developmental Psychology, 25, 1020–1029. Crittenden, P. M. (1988). Relationships at risk. In J. Belsky & T. Nezworski (Eds.), Clinical implications of attachment theory (pp. 136–174). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Crittenden, P. M., Claussen, A. H., & Sugarman, D. B. (1994). Physical and psychological maltreatment in middle childhood and adolescence. Development and Psychopathology, 6, 145–164. Crouch, J. L., & Milner, J. S. (1993). Effects of child neglect on children. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 20(1), 49–65. Drake, B. (1995). Associations between reporter type and assessment outcomes in child protective service referrals. Children and Youth Services Review, 17, 503–522. Drake, B. (1996). Unraveling unsubstantiation. Child Maltreatment, 1, 261–271. Eckenrode, J., Powers, J., Doris, J., Munsch, J., & Bolger, N. (1988). Substantiation of child abuse and neglect reports. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 56, 9–16. Egeland, B., & Sroufe, L. A. (1981). Developmental sequelae of maltreatment in infancy. In D. Cicchetti & R. Rizley (Eds.), New directions for child development, No. 11: Developmental perspectives on child maltreatment (pp. 77–92). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Egeland, B., Sroufe, L. A., & Erickson, M. F. (1983). Developmental consequence of different patterns of maltreatment. Child Abuse & Neglect, 7, 459–469. English, D. J., Brummel, S. C., Coghlan, L. K., Novicky, R. S., & Marshall, D. B. (1998). Decision-making in child protective services: A study of effectiveness. Final report. Phase II: Social worker interviews. Olympia, WA: State of Washington, Department of Social and Health Services, Children’s Administration, Office of Children’s Administration Research. English, D. J., Brummel, S. C., Graham, J. C., Clark, T., & Coghlan, L. (2002). Factors that influence the decision not to substantiate a CPS referral. Phase II: Client perceptions of investigation. Olympia, WA: State of Washington, Department of Social and Health Services, Children’s Administration, Office of Children’s Administration Research.

458

D.J. English et al. / Child Abuse & Neglect 29 (2005) 441–460

English, D. J., Graham, J. C., Brummel, S. C., & Coghlan, L. K. (2002). Final report: Factors that influence the decision not to substantiate a CPS referral. Phase I: Narrative and empirical analysis. Olympia, WA: Department of Social and Health Services, Children’s Administration, Management Services Division, Office of Children’s Administration Research. English, D. J., Graham, J. C., Litrownik, A. J., Everson, M., & Bangdiwala, S. I. (2005). Defining maltreatment chronicity: Are there differences in child outcomes? Child Abuse & Neglect, 29(5), 575–595. English, D. J., Marshall, D. B., Brummel, S. C., & Coghlan, L. K. (1998). Decision-making in child protective services: A study of effectiveness. Final Report, Phase I: Quantitative Analysis. Olympia, WA: Office of Children’s Administration Research, Management Services Division, Children’s Administration, Department of Social and Health Services. English, D. J., Marshall, D. B., Coghlan, L., Brummel, S., & Orme, M. (1999). Causes and consequences of the substantiation decision in Washington State Child Protective Services. Children and Youth Services Review, 21, 1–23. Evans, J. J., Briere, J., Boggiano, A. K., & Barrett, M. (1994, January). Reliability and validity of the Trauma Symptom Checklist for Children in a normal sample. Paper presented at the San Diego Conference on Responding to Child Maltreatment, San Diego, CA. Finkelhor, D., & Dzurba-Leatherman, J. (1994). Children as victims of violence: A national survey. Pediatrics, 94(4), 413–420. Fluke, J. D. (1992). National information for child and family services. Protecting Children, 8, 9–12. Garbarino, J., Eckenrode, J., & Bolger, K. (1997). The elusive crime of psychological maltreatment. In J. Garbarino & J. Eckenrode (Eds.), Understanding abusive families: An ecological approach to theory and practice (pp. 101–113). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Giovannoni, J. (1989). Substantiated and unsubstantiated reports of child maltreatment. Children and Youth Services Review, 11, 299–318. Hampton, R. L., & Newberger, E. H. (1985). Child abuse incidence and reporting by hospitals: Significance of severity, class, and race. American Journal of Public Health, 75(1), 56–60. Hanson, R., Smith, D., Saunders, B., Swenson, C., & Conrad, L. (1995). Measurement in child abuse research: A survey of researchers. APSAC Advisor, 8, 7–10. Hart, S. N., Brassard, M. R., & Karlson, H. C. (1996). Psychological maltreatment. In J. Brier, L. Berliner, J. A. Bulkley, C. Jenny, & T. Reid (Eds.), The APSAC handbook on child maltreatment (pp. 72–89). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications Inc. Herrenkohl, R. C., & Herrenkohl, E. C. (1981). Some antecedents and developmental consequences of child maltreatment. In D. Cicchetti & R. Rizley (Eds.), New directions for child development No. 11: Developmental perspectives on child maltreatment (pp. 57–76). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Higgins, D. J., & McCabe, M. P. (2000). Relationships between different types of maltreatment during childhood and adjustment in adulthood. Child Maltreatment, 5(3), 261–272. Hildyard, K. L., & Wolfe, D. A. (2002). Child neglect: Developmental issues and outcomes. Child Abuse & Neglect, 26(6/7), 679–695. Jones, E. D., & McCurdy, K. (1992). The links between types of maltreatment and demographic characteristics of children. Child Abuse & Neglect, 16(2), 201–215. Kaufman, J. (1991). Depressive disorders in maltreated children. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 30, 257–265. Kaufman, J., & Cicchetti, D. (1989). The effects of maltreatment on school-aged children’s socioemotional development: Assessments in a day camp setting. Development and Psychopathology, 25(4), 516–524. Kaufman, J., Jones, B., Stieglitz, E., Vitulano, L., & Mannarino, A. P. (1994). The use of multiple informants to assess children’s maltreatment experiences. Journal of Family Violence, 9, 227–247. Kinard, E. (1998). Methodological issues and practical problems in conducting research on maltreated children. Child Abuse & Neglect, 18, 645–656. Knutson, J. F. (1995). Psychological characteristics of maltreated children: Putative risk factors and consequences. Annual Review of Psychology, 46, 401–431. Lanktree, C. B., & Briere, J. (1990a, August). Early data on the Trauma Symptom Checklist for Children (TSC–C). Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychological Association, Boston, MA. Lanktree, C. B., & Briere, J. (1990). Further data on the Trauma Symptom Checklist for Children (TSC–C): Reliability, validity, and sensitivity to treatment. Santa Monica, CA: Stuart House, Santa Monica Hospital Medical Center.

D.J. English et al. / Child Abuse & Neglect 29 (2005) 441–460

459

Leiter, J., Myers, K. A., & Zingraff, M. T. (1994). Substantiated and unsubstantiated cases of child maltreatment: Do their consequences differ? Social Work Research, 18, 67–82. Manly, J. T., Cicchetti, D., & Barnett, D. (1994). The impact of subtype, frequency, chronicity, and severity of child maltreatment on social competence and behavior problems. Development and Psychopathology, 6, 121–143. Manly, J. T., Kim, J. E., Rogosch, F. A., & Cicchetti, D. (2001). Dimensions of child maltreatment and children’s adjustment: Contributions of developmental timing and subtype. Development and Psychopathology, 13, 759–782. McGee, R. A., & Wolfe, D. A. (1991a). Psychological maltreatment: Toward an operational definition. Development and Psychopathology, 3(1), 3–18. McGee, R. A., & Wolfe, D. A. (1991b). Between a rock and a hard place: Where do we go from here in defining psychological maltreatment? Development and Psychopathology, 3(1), 119–124. McGee, R. A., Wolfe, D. A., Yuen, S. A., Wilson, S. K., & Carnochan, J. (1995). The measurement of maltreatment: A comparison of approaches. Child Abuse & Neglect, 19, 233–249. NCCAN (National Center on Child Abuse and Neglect). (1988). Study findings: Study of national incidence and prevalence of child abuse and neglect: 1988. Washington, DC: US Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Human Development Services. National Research Council (NRC). (1993). Understanding child abuse and neglect. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. O’Toole, R., Turbett, P., & Nalepka, C. (1983). Theories, professional knowledge, and diagnosis of child abuse. In D. Finkelhor, R. J. Gelles, G. T. Hotaling, & M. A. Straus (Eds.), The dark side of families. Current family violence research (pp. 349–362). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. Paget, K. D., Philip, J. D., & Abramczyk, L. W. (1993). Recent developments in child neglect. Advances in Clinical Child Psychology, 15, 121–175. Runyan, D. K., Curtis, P. A., Hunter, W. M., Black, M. M., Kotch, J. B., Bangdiwala, S., & Dubowitz, H. (1998). LONGSCAN: A consortium for longitudinal studies of maltreatment and the life course of children. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 3, 275–285. Rutter, M. (1983). Statistical and personal interactions: Facets and perspectives. In D. Magnusson & V. Allen (Eds.), Human development: An interactional perspective. New York: Academic Press. Sedlak, A. (1991). The second national incidence study on child abuse and neglect. Washington, DC: National Center on Child Abuse and Neglect, Administration for Children, Youth and Families, US Department of Health and Human Services. Silverman, A. B., Reinherz, H. Z., & Giaconia, R. M. (1996). The long-term sequelae of child and adolescent abuse: A longitudinal community study. Child Abuse & Neglect, 20, 709–723. Sparrow, S. S., Balla, D. A., & Cicchetti, D. V. (1984). Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales: Interview edition, survey form manual. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service. Sparrow, S. S., Carter, A. S., & Cicchetti, D. V. (1993). Vineland Screener: Overview reliability, validity, administration, and scoring. New Haven, CT: Yale University. Tebbutt, J., Swanston, H., Oates, R. K., & O’Toole, B. I. (1997). Five years after child sexual abuse: Persisting dysfunction and problems of prediction. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 36, 330–339. Toth, S. L., & Cicchetti, D. (1993). Child maltreatment: Where do we go from here in our treatment of victims? In D. Cicchetti & S. L. Toth (Eds.), Child abuse, child development and social policy (pp. 399–438). Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Waters, E., & Sroufe, L. A. (1983). Social competence as a developmental construct. Developmental Review, 3(1), 79–97. Wells, S. J. (1985). Decision-making in child protective services intake and investigation: Executive summary. Washington, DC: National Legal Resource Center for Child Advocacy and Protection, American Bar Association. Wells, S. J. (1994). Child protective services: Research for the future. Child Welfare, 73, 431–447. Widom, C. S. (1988). Sampling biases and implications for child abuse research. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 58, 260–270.

R´esum´e Ce num´ero sp´ecial comporte une introduction et sept articles qui explorent les caract´eristiques de la maltraitance, incluant le type, la gravit´e, la chronicit´e, et la validation des signalements au Service de Protection Infantile, en utilisant un sous-´echantillon des e´ tudes LONGSCAN. Chaque article examine

460

D.J. English et al. / Child Abuse & Neglect 29 (2005) 441–460

une des caract´eristiques de la maltraitance de diff´erents points de vue, pour d´eterminer si des concepts diff´erents d’une caract´eristique, examin´es isol´ement, expliquent les variations dans les e´ volutions des enfants. Un article final d´etermine la relation des caract´eristiques combin´ees de maltraitance, y compris les interactions, sur un seul e´ chantillon d’enfants maltrait´es provenant de l’´etude LONGSCAN. Cet article final explore la contribution individuelle des “meilleurs” concepts des caract´eristiques de maltraitance en relation les unes avec les autres, et avec les e´ volutions int´eressantes de 10 enfants. Les implications des constatations de ces articles pour une recherche future sur les caract´eristiques de la maltraitance infantile sont discut´ees dans deux commentaires ind´ependants. Resumen Esta edici´on especial incluye una introducci´on y siete estudios explorando las dimensiones del maltrato incluyendo tipo, severidad, cronicidad, y nivel de confirmaci´on que tengan los referimientos al Servicio de Protecci´on Infantil, utilizando una submuestra de los estudios del LONGSCAN. Cada trabajo examina una de las dimensiones del maltrato desde varias perspectivas para determinar si diferentes conceptualizaciones de una dimensi´on, examinada de manera aislada, es responsable de diferentes grados de variaci´on en los efectos en el ni˜no. Al final, un trabajo eval´ua la relaci´on de las dimensiones del maltrato combinadas, incluyendo interacciones, en una sola muestra de ni˜nos maltratados del estudio de LONGSCAN. Este trabajo final explora la contribuci´on individual de las mejores conceptualizaciones de las dimensiones del maltrato en relaci´on a cada una de ellas, y a los 10 resultados de inter´es en los ni˜nos. Se comentan las implicaciones de los hallazgos de estos trabajos para futuras investigaciones sobre las dimensiones del maltrato infantil en dos comentarios independientes.