Systematic Review and Critical Appraisal of Five of the Most Recurrently Validated Child Maltreatment Assessment Instruments from 2010 to 2020

Child maltreatment in young adults with residential youth care background: Prevalence and post-placement trends

BACKGROUND

Young adults with residential youth care (RYC) background have often endured various forms of child maltreatment, impacting education, employment, health, mortality, and quality of life. There is limited research on the onset and duration of exposure to maltreatment before placement, as well as the prevalence of maltreatment occurring after children have been placed into out-of-home care.

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to investigate: (1) The sex-specific prevalence and age chronology of self-reported exposure to child maltreatment, and (2) whether the rate of these maltreatment forms differ between the year before and after first out-of-home placement by the Child Welfare Service.

PARTICIPANTS AND SETTING

This study is a part of VINGO, a Norwegian nation-wide 10-year follow-up examining the health and welfare of 157 (107 females) adults with RYC background.

METHODS

The Maltreatment and Abuse Chronology of Exposure Scale was administered as an online questionnaire, and mean scores and percentages of maltreatment forms were compared. Differences between groups were examined using t-tests and Pearson's Chi-Squared test.

RESULTS

Most participants, 154 of 157 (98 %), reported at least one form of child maltreatment. Females reported higher rates of sexual abuse than males (53 % vs. 22 %, p < .001). No other sex differences were found. A majority of participants (63 %) reported decreased maltreatment rates post-placement, while 37 % had stable or increasing rates.

CONCLUSIONS

Young adults with RYC background report high child maltreatment rates. Although out-of-home care provides protection, further development and improvement of initiatives aimed at reducing the risk of revictimization is likely needed.

Psychometric properties of instruments for measuring abuse of older people in community and institutional settings: A systematic review

Background

The examination of psychometric properties in instruments measuring abuse of older people (AOP) is a crucial area of study that has, unfortunately, received relatively little attention. Poor psychometric properties in AOP measurement instruments can significantly contribute to inconsistencies in prevalence estimates, casting a shadow of uncertainty over the magnitude of the problem at national, regional, and global levels.

Objectives

This review rigorously employed the Consensus-based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) guideline on the quality of outcome measures. It was designed to identify and review the instruments used to measure AOP, assess the instruments' measurement properties, and identify the definitions of AOP and abuse subtypes measured by these instruments, ensuring the reliability and validity of the findings.

Search Methods

A comprehensive search was conducted up to May 2023 across various online databases, including AgeLine via EBSCOhost, ASSIA via ProQuest, CINAHL via EBSCOhost, EMBASE, LILACS, ProQuest Dissertation & Theses Global, PsycINFO via EBSCOhost, PubMed, SciELO, Scopus, Sociological Abstract via ProQuest, Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Google Scholar and WHO Global Index Medicus. Additionally, relevant studies were identified by thoroughly searching the grey literature from resources such as Campbell Collaboration, OpenAIRE, and GRAFT.

Selection Criteria

All quantitative, qualitative (addressing face and content validity), and mixed-method empirical studies published in peer-reviewed journals or grey literature were included in this review. The included studies were primary studies that (1) evaluated one or more psychometric properties, (2) contained information on instrument development, or (3) examined the content validity of the instruments designed to measure AOP in community or institutional settings. The selected studies describe at least one psychometric property: reliability, validity, and responsiveness. Study participants represent the population of interest, including males and females aged 60 or older in community or institutional settings.

Data Collection and Analysis

Two reviewers evaluated the screening of the selected studies' titles, abstracts, and full texts based on the preset selection criteria. Two reviewers assessed the quality of each study using the COSMIN Risk of Bias checklist and the overall quality of evidence for each psychometric property of the instrument against the updated COSMIN criteria of good measurement properties. Disagreements were resolved through consensus discussion or with assistance from a third reviewer. The overall quality of the measurement instrument was graded using a modified GRADE approach. Data extraction was performed using data extraction forms adapted from the COSMIN Guideline for Systematic Reviews of Outcome Measurement Instruments. The extracted data included information on the characteristics of included instruments (name, adaptation, language used, translation and country of origin), characteristics of the tested population, instrument development, psychometric properties listed in the COSMIN criteria, including details on content validity, structural validity, internal consistency, cross-cultural validity/measurement invariance, reliability, measurement error, criterion validity, hypotheses testing for construct validity, responsiveness, and interoperability. All data were synthesised and summarised qualitatively, and no meta-analysis was performed.

Main Results

We found 15,200 potentially relevant records, of which 382 were screened in full text. A total of 114 studies that met the inclusion criteria were included. Four studies reported on more than one instrument. The primary reasons for excluding studies were their focus on instruments used solely for screening and diagnostic purposes, those conducted in hospital settings, or those without evaluating psychometric properties. Eighty-seven studies reported on 46 original instruments and 29 studies on 22 modified versions of an original instrument. The majority of the studies were conducted in community settings (97 studies) from the perspective of older adults (90 studies) and were conducted in high-income countries (69 studies). Ninety-five studies assessed multiple forms of abuse, ranging from 2 to 13 different subscales; four studies measured overall abuse and neglect among older adults, and 14 studies measured one specific type of abuse. Approximately one-quarter of the included studies reported on the psychometric properties of the most frequently used measurement instruments: HS-EAST (assessed in 11 studies), VASS-12 items (in 9 studies), and CASE (in 9 studies). The instruments with the most evidence available in studies reporting on instrument development and content validity in all domains (relevance, comprehensiveness and comprehensibility) were the DEAQ, OAPAM, *RAAL-31 items, *ICNH (Norwegian) and OAFEM. For other psychometric properties, instruments with the most evidence available in terms of the number of studies were the HS-EAST (11 studies across 5 of 9 psychometric properties), CASE (9 studies across 6 of 9 psychometric properties), VASS-12 items (9 studies across 5 of 9 psychometric properties) and GMS (5 studies across 4 of 9 psychometric properties). Based on the overall rating and quality of evidence, the psychometric properties of the AOP measurement instruments used for prevalence measurement in community and institutional settings were insufficient and of low quality.

Authors' Conclusions

This review aimed to assess the overall rating and quality of evidence for instruments measuring AOP in the community and institutional settings. Our findings revealed various measurement instruments, with ratings and evidence quality predominantly indicating insufficiency and low quality. In summary, the psychometric properties of AOP measurement instruments have not been comprehensively investigated, and existing instruments lack sufficient evidence to support their validity and reliability.

Let it go, let it go: Stop measuring child maltreatment as a binary yes/no

Numerous methods are used in the measurement of child maltreatment (CM) exposure. As a science, it is necessary that the field of CM research evaluate its measurement approaches periodically to ensure that the common approaches are the best approaches. A prominent method for measuring CM in research as a predictor variable is to conceptualize CM as a two-level, yes/no binary variable (e.g., 0 = No CM exposure, 1 = CM exposure). While there is no consensus on what method is the best approach for measuring CM, empirical evidence suggests that the binary measurement approach to CM has significant limitations. The current paper sought to progress the field of CM and trauma research forward by reviewing several lines of research demonstrating why the use of a binary yes/no CM measurement approach is problematic. As evidence for why a binary measurement of CM should be halted, this paper reviews research on: why the characteristics or details of CM exposure matter, risk of CM "contamination," and CM's relation with environmental or systemic factors. The ethical and clinical implications of a CM binary measurement approach are also discussed. Several recommendations for the field are provided on how researchers can improve the measurement of CM and ensure accurate and replicable studies are being published.

Trauma measures for use with psychosis populations: A systematic review of psychometric properties using COSMIN

Traumatic events play a key role in the development and course of psychosis. Psychotic symptoms themselves and coercive treatment practices can be inherently traumatic. Hence, reliable and valid methods of assessing trauma and its impact (i.e., Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) symptomology) are essential for use with people with psychosis. Many measures are available to select from, but this is the first review to appraise the psychometric properties of trauma measures to guide decision making regarding instrument use. The review was prospectively registered on Prospero (CRD42022306100). Evaluation of methodological and psychometric quality followed Consensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) guidance. Twenty-four articles were eligible, with sixteen trauma measures evaluated. Childhood Trauma Questionnaire- Short Form demonstrated the most robust evidence for assessing experience of trauma. The Trauma and Life Experience (TALE) checklist was the only measure to include specific psychosis and iatrogenic harm items. For PTSD measures, the Symptoms of Trauma Scale and PTSD Symptom Scale- Self Report had the highest quality evidence. Psychometric strengths and weaknesses of various trauma measures are comprehensively evaluated, highlighting future research directions to strengthen the evidence base with emphasis on further evaluation of the TALE, which integrates trauma specific to psychosis.

Development and Validation of the Adolescent and Children in Risk of Abuse and Maltreatment Protective Factors Scale (ACRAM-PFS)

Background

Child maltreatment is a significant global problem concerning over 25% of children around the world. Traditionally, the assessment of children's welfare was characterized by the creation of instruments and models from the deficit-based theoretical framework.

Purpose

This study aims to develop an instrument to measure protective factors (the Adolescent and Children Risk of Abuse and Maltreatment Protective Factors Scale, ACRAM-PFS) and gather evidence on its psychometric properties. ACRAM-PFS is an 18-items scale for the assessment of protective factors of child maltreatment developed from the socioecological framework.

Method

Structural validity, reliability and convergent-related validity were studied for this measure in a sample of 616 children and adolescents, with age ranging from 0 to 18 years old (M = 12.14; SD = 5.22). Cases were informed by 286 child welfare workers. The sample was split in two subsamples, one to perform an Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) and the second to perform a Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA).

Results

The CFA corroborate the three-factor structure that includes the children and adolescents' resources, the family/caregiver's resources and the community resources (χ2 = 278.005, df = 132, p < .001, CFI = 0.955, SRMR = .084, RMSEA = .061, [90% CI: .051-.071]). Results of convergent-related validity indicated significant correlation with CTQ-SF and protective factors dimension of C-CAPS.

Discussion

The results support that ACRAM-PFS is a rigorous measure for assessing protective factors for child maltreatment. The scale can serve as a key tool for designing strengths-based intervention strategies tailored to the actual needs of children and adolescents. The present study provides the implications for the development of protective factor scales in the field of child welfare.