Creating and field-testing child maltreatment definitions: Improving the reliability of substantiation determinations

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

The decision to substantiate a case of maltreatment is pivotal to myriad stakeholders; however, the reliability (and therefore, accuracy) of substantiation determinations is suspect. The authors tested if (a) they could develop more reliable substantiation definitions and processes and (b) case workers would be comfortable with and accepting of a new approach. Determinations from five field sites were compared with those of master reviewers (made while listening to the field sites' case presentations). Agreement, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive values, and negative predictive values were high overall (.87,.96,.97,.89, and.97, respectively) and for each form of maltreatment. Agreement was substantially improved. The definitions and the determination process were well liked by case workers and other stakeholders. Clearly, implementing standardized definitions in a typical child protective environment would pose myriad political challenges. However, our results suggest achieving reliable substantiation determinations may be a feasible goal.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)217-236
Number of pages20
JournalChild Maltreatment
Volume11
Issue number3
DOIs
StatePublished - Aug 2006

Fingerprint

Child Abuse
Sensitivity and Specificity

Keywords

  • Case determinations
  • Definitions
  • Emotional abuse
  • Neglect
  • Physical abuse
  • Reliability
  • Sexual abuse
  • Substantiation

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Medicine(all)

Cite this

@article{dca1108d206645a5bdce798a293bfe08,
title = "Creating and field-testing child maltreatment definitions: Improving the reliability of substantiation determinations",
abstract = "The decision to substantiate a case of maltreatment is pivotal to myriad stakeholders; however, the reliability (and therefore, accuracy) of substantiation determinations is suspect. The authors tested if (a) they could develop more reliable substantiation definitions and processes and (b) case workers would be comfortable with and accepting of a new approach. Determinations from five field sites were compared with those of master reviewers (made while listening to the field sites' case presentations). Agreement, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive values, and negative predictive values were high overall (.87,.96,.97,.89, and.97, respectively) and for each form of maltreatment. Agreement was substantially improved. The definitions and the determination process were well liked by case workers and other stakeholders. Clearly, implementing standardized definitions in a typical child protective environment would pose myriad political challenges. However, our results suggest achieving reliable substantiation determinations may be a feasible goal.",
keywords = "Case determinations, Definitions, Emotional abuse, Neglect, Physical abuse, Reliability, Sexual abuse, Substantiation",
author = "Slep, {Amy M Smith} and Heyman, {Richard E.}",
year = "2006",
month = "8",
doi = "10.1177/1077559506288878",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "11",
pages = "217--236",
journal = "Child Maltreatment",
issn = "1077-5595",
publisher = "SAGE Publications Inc.",
number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Creating and field-testing child maltreatment definitions

T2 - Improving the reliability of substantiation determinations

AU - Slep, Amy M Smith

AU - Heyman, Richard E.

PY - 2006/8

Y1 - 2006/8

N2 - The decision to substantiate a case of maltreatment is pivotal to myriad stakeholders; however, the reliability (and therefore, accuracy) of substantiation determinations is suspect. The authors tested if (a) they could develop more reliable substantiation definitions and processes and (b) case workers would be comfortable with and accepting of a new approach. Determinations from five field sites were compared with those of master reviewers (made while listening to the field sites' case presentations). Agreement, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive values, and negative predictive values were high overall (.87,.96,.97,.89, and.97, respectively) and for each form of maltreatment. Agreement was substantially improved. The definitions and the determination process were well liked by case workers and other stakeholders. Clearly, implementing standardized definitions in a typical child protective environment would pose myriad political challenges. However, our results suggest achieving reliable substantiation determinations may be a feasible goal.

AB - The decision to substantiate a case of maltreatment is pivotal to myriad stakeholders; however, the reliability (and therefore, accuracy) of substantiation determinations is suspect. The authors tested if (a) they could develop more reliable substantiation definitions and processes and (b) case workers would be comfortable with and accepting of a new approach. Determinations from five field sites were compared with those of master reviewers (made while listening to the field sites' case presentations). Agreement, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive values, and negative predictive values were high overall (.87,.96,.97,.89, and.97, respectively) and for each form of maltreatment. Agreement was substantially improved. The definitions and the determination process were well liked by case workers and other stakeholders. Clearly, implementing standardized definitions in a typical child protective environment would pose myriad political challenges. However, our results suggest achieving reliable substantiation determinations may be a feasible goal.

KW - Case determinations

KW - Definitions

KW - Emotional abuse

KW - Neglect

KW - Physical abuse

KW - Reliability

KW - Sexual abuse

KW - Substantiation

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=33745618426&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=33745618426&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1177/1077559506288878

DO - 10.1177/1077559506288878

M3 - Article

C2 - 16816320

AN - SCOPUS:33745618426

VL - 11

SP - 217

EP - 236

JO - Child Maltreatment

JF - Child Maltreatment

SN - 1077-5595

IS - 3

ER -