Defining Child Abuse - Exploring Variations in Ratings of Discipline Severity Among Child Welfare Practitioners

7/29/2019 Defining Child Abuse - Exploring Variations in Ratings of Discipline Severity Among Child Welfare Practitioners

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/defining-child-abuse-exploring-variations-in-ratings-of-discipline-severity 1/28

Defining child abuse: Exploringvariations in ratings of disciplineseverity among child welfare

practitioners

Stephen D. Whitney M.S., Emiko A. Tajima Ph.D.,Todd I. Herrenkohl Ph.D., and Bu Huang Ph.D.

ABSTRACT : This study investigated child welfare practitioners’ ratings of the severity of parental discipline practices. Ratings varied by the type of act,age of the child, and by chronicity. Exploratory investigation into changesacross time found that current practitioners ( N = 27) rated several practices(e.g. spanking and shaking) as more severe than did professionals ( N = 24)sampled in 1977. Results underscore the complexity of defining childmaltreatment and offer implications for practitioners, applied researchers,and child welfare policy makers.

KEY WORDS: Child abuse; Severity ratings; Discipline practices; Definition.

Background

Child development researchers investigating child abuse sequelae or

evaluating therapeutic interventions face the difficult task of opera-

tionally defining child maltreatment. There currently is no clear

agreement among researchers about what constitutes child abuse

The authors Stephen D. Whitney, Emiko A. Tajima, Todd I. Herrenkohl, and BuHuang are affiliated with the School of Social Work, University of Washington.

Work on this project is supported by funds from the Social Work Prevention ResearchCenter, School of Social Work, University of Washington (National Institute of Mental

Health Grant R24MH56599, Lewayne Gilchrist, PI) and by the University of Wash-ington Royalty Research Fund.

Address correspondence to Emiko A Tajima Ph D School of Social Work University

Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal, Vol. 23, No. 3, June 2006 ( Ó 2006)

DOI: 10.1007/s10560-006-0051-z



(Giovannoni, 1989; Hutchison, 1990; Korbin, 1987; National

Research Council, 2002; Straus & Gelles, 1990). Researchers opera-tionally define child maltreatment using a variety of methods and

measures (e.g., observation, self-report, or official report). Conse-

quently, what is operationally defined as abuse in one study may not

be considered as such in another. In addition, the lack of consistency

in methods and measures can lead to different and sometimes con-

flicting findings regarding the incidence, prevalence and effects of

child maltreatment (Giovannoni, 1989). Defining abuse may be fur-

ther complicated by differences in how an act is perceived based on

the age of the child at the time of the abusive act, as well as the fre-quency of the act. While some discipline practices (e.g., burning a

child with a cigarette) are clearly abusive, regardless of the age of

the child or the frequency of the act, others, such as shaking a child,

may be regarded by some as non-abusive if they are directed to an

adolescent or occur as a one-time event with a school-age child. The

broader context of an act also influences whether it is considered

abusive (National Research Council, 1993). Contextual factors in-

clude the legal definition of abuse, cultural norms regarding the act,

the intention of the ‘actor,’ the relationship of the caregiver to thechild, the consequences of the act (e.g., injuries), and the historical

time in which the act occurred (National Research Council, 1993;

Portwood, 1999).

Researchers attempting to define child maltreatment can benefit

greatly from consultation with practitioners in the field of child wel-

fare. Gathering data from practitioners with first hand experience

responding to abuse and neglect cases can help researchers develop

measures that are valid and relevant to the field. Perceptions of

public child welfare practitioners are particularly valuable, as theseare the professionals charged with investigating and intervening in

cases of alleged child maltreatment. This study surveys child wel-

fare professionals to explore how several factors (type of act, fre-

quency, age of the child, and historical time period) affect severity

ratings of various discipline practices.

Some of the earliest work on defining child maltreatment did, in

fact, draw on the perceptions of professionals. For example, Giovan-

noni and Beccera (1979) surveyed lawyers, pediatricians, social

workers and police officers. They found that physical abuse and sex-ual abuse were rated as being most severe across all of the profes-

S. D. WHITNEY, E. A. TAJIMA, T. I. HERRENKOHL, AND B. HUANG 317



abuse in severity and emotional abuse was rated as being the least

severe form of abuse. In addition, there was considerable variabilityin responses for each type of maltreatment. For example, of the dif-

ferent forms of physical discipline, burning a child was rated as

highly severe (it had an overall rating of 8.45 out of a 9-point scale)

whereas spanking a child with a leather strap was rated as only

moderately severe (it had a severity rating of 4.76). The present

study sought to document child welfare practitioners’ perceptions of

the relative severity of both physical and non-physical discipline

practices.

Several researchers have argued for the inclusion of age of thechild in any definition of child maltreatment (Flynn, 1998). For

example, in their 1993 report on child abuse and neglect, the

National Research Council recommended that the developmental

level of the child be taken into account when forming an operational

definition of child maltreatment. Several other researchers also con-

cluded that the developmental level of the child plays a significant

role in determining the severity of the act and the impact the act

might have on the child’s future development (Aber & Zigler, 1981;

Cicchetti & Manly, 1990; McGee & Wolfe, 1991; Polansky, Borgman, &DeSaix, 1972). For example, The National Study of the Incidence

and Severity of Child Abuse and Neglect found that child maltreat-

ment was more likely to be reported if the child was under 6 years

of age when compared to children 12 – 17 years old (60 – 22%). This

finding suggests that professionals who make judgments about whe-

ther or not to report child maltreatment may use the child’s age as a

determining factor (U.S. Department of Health and Human Ser-

vices, 1981, as reported in Giovannoni, 1989). The present study,

therefore, sought to investigate the extent to which age of the childaffects severity ratings of public child welfare practitioners.

Frequency may also play a role in determining which acts are

abusive. The National Research Council (1993) called for researchers

to make a clear distinction between chronic patterns of abuse and

‘‘explosive’’ single episodes of abuse. The panel argued that consider-

ing the chronicity of maltreatment will help researchers refine

understanding of the etiology of child maltreatment. In addition, it

is argued that research into the frequency of the act may allow

researchers to understand the unique effects, if any, of single epi-sodes of maltreatment versus chronic patterns of abuse. Zuravin

318 CHILD AND ADOLESCENT SOCIAL WORK JOURNAL



question of how frequency affects the definition of child mal-

treatment; both agree that frequency plays a role in defining childmaltreatment although only for those behaviors that do not cause

serious injury. When a serious injury is sustained, these researchers

believe that one act is enough to qualify as abuse. Zuravin (1991)

argued that less severe behavior, such as grabbing, shaking, and

spanking, need a level of chronicity before they are to be considered

abusive. Whipple and Richey (1997) reviewed the literature in an

attempt to quantify ‘‘abusive’’ levels of spanking. They summarized

the results of five studies that examined the rate of spanking among

‘‘abusive’’ and ‘‘non-abusive’’ parents. ‘‘Abusive’’ parents were de-fined as parents in treatment for reported child abuse or from child

protective services (CPS) case files. ‘‘Non-abusive’’ parents were

those with no substantiated cases of abuse. In the five studies exam-

ined, the children’s ages ranged between 4 and 12-years-old. Results

revealed that ‘‘non-abusive’’ parents spanked their children an aver-

age of 2.5 times in a 24-hour period. On average, ‘‘abusive’’ parents

spanked their children six or more times a day, two standard devia-

tions above the mean. While this study does not speak to the issue

of whether the act of spanking itself is abusive, it attempted toquantify ‘‘abusive’’ levels of the behavior and it highlights the corre-

lation between frequent spanking and officially reported abuse. The

present study investigates whether and to what extent the fre-

quency of a given act impacts its perceived severity. Our analyses

will help identify the frequency level at which a given discipline

practice becomes defined as abusive by practitioners in child

welfare. We also seek to identify those practices that are deemed

abusive regardless of their frequency.

The historical time period in which the act occurs may play a rolein defining which acts are considered abusive. For example, Straus

and Gelles (1986) found that rates of child abuse declined between

1975 and 1985 and suggested that one possible reason for this

decline was a change in how child abuse was viewed in the United

States. Similarly, Straus and Mathur (1996) found that rates of cor-

poral punishment declined from 1968 to 1994. They also found a

parallel decrease in approval of corporal punishment among the gen-

eral public between 1968 (94% approval rating) and 1994 (68%

approval rating). Although the drop in approval ratings was appar-ent regardless of gender, race and education, some declines were




fewer declines in their rejection of spanking as an appropriate discipline

practice. Racial/ethnic differences were also noted. African Ameri-cans showed less decrease in their approval of corporal punishment

than Anglo-Americans or other racial groups. No difference in the

level of decrease was noted based upon the income level of the par-

ticipants. Following the work of Straus and Gelles (1986), and

Straus and Mathur (1996), it is reasonable to hypothesize that the

acceptability of other forms of discipline may have diminished over

time as well. The present study therefore also includes exploratory

investigation of differences in severity ratings across two time peri-

ods. For this exploratory analysis, data collected in 2001 regardingthe severity of parental discipline practices were compared to

ratings collected by researchers 25 years earlier.

Method

This research began as an attempt to validate child maltreatment

constructs for a separate study of the developmental consequences of

abuse. Specifically, we sought to use discipline severity ratings

among a sample ( N = 27) of child welfare practitioners to help deter-

mine which items to include in our measures of child abuse. As the

current validation study progressed, it was evident that the data

offered the opportunity to address some of the measurement and def-

initional issues summarized above. Using survey data gathered from

child welfare practitioners in 2001, we explored the impact of three

factors (the type of act, the age of the child when the act occurred

and the frequency of the act) on severity ratings. Analyses were con-

ducted using ANOVA with post hoc analyses. To control for the infla-

tion of type I error that occurs when multiple comparisons are

conducted with a small sample size, only five items were selected to

examine the possible effects of age and frequency on practitioners’

responses. Following the literature (Gershoff, 2002; Shepherd &

Sampson, 2000; Straus & Mathur, 1996; Vissing, Straus, Gelles, &

Harrop, 1991) we selected for further analysis practices that repre-

sent more ambiguous or potentially controversial discipline practices,

such as corporal punishment, and psychological/emotional abuse.

These five focus items included spanking the child, shaking the

child threatening to spank yelling or shouting at the child and




Participants

In the 2001 survey, data were gathered from an independent panel

of child welfare practitioners (27 in total). The sample included pro-

fessionals with experience in public child welfare ( N = 13) and grad-

uate students working in public child welfare services ( N = 14). The

graduate students (Title IV E) were all enrolled at the University of

Washington School of Social Work. The 2001 survey participants

had an average of over 10 years of experience in the field of social

work; 63% of the sample worked directly in the field of child welfare

at the time of the survey. The sample is comprised mostly of women(78%). A majority of the sample is Caucasian (72%); African-Ameri-

cans comprise 16%, Asian-Americans 8%, and Native Americans 4%.

The age range for the sample is 24 – 62 years, with a mean of

39 years. Surveys were voluntary and anonymous. For the 2001 sur-

vey, questionnaires were placed in student mailboxes or mailed to

participants. Surveys were returned by self-addressed stamped mail

or placed in a secure box located on campus. The response rate for

the 2001 sample was 41.5% (27 out of 65).

Survey Instrument: Parental Discipline Practices Questionnaire

The questionnaire measured the severity of 39 parental discipline

practices that pertained to categories of non-violent discipline, psy-

chological/emotional discipline, physical neglect, and physical disci-

pline. Respondents were asked to rate the severity of each practice

based a given age of the child and a given frequency of the act. Age

categories included 0 – 2, 3 – 5, 6 – 11, and 12 – 17 years, and frequency

levels included: rarely (1 –

3 times a year), occasionally (less thanonce a month), often (at least once a month), and frequently (more

than once a week). Response options included three levels of sever-

ity: (1) neither severe nor abusive, (2) severely punishing, or (3) abu-

sive. In total the survey yields 624 individual items for analysis. The

scores on the questionnaire showed strong reliability, with a stan-

dardized item alpha of .93 when the 39 items are collapsed across

age and frequency, indicating respondents rated similar items in the

same direction. Items for the questionnaire had originally been

developed in 1977. The 2001 version of the Parental Discipline Prac-tices Questionnaire included the same 28 items as the 1977 version

f h i i d l i l d d 11 ddi i i hi h




child abuse (Herrenkohl, Tajima, Whitney, & Huang, 2005). Table 1

shows all of the items contained in the 2001 survey. Those itemsthat were added in 2001 are marked with an *.

Exploratory Comparison of 1977 and 2001 Surveys

A similar construct validation process had been carried out in 1977,

when the data used in our study were first collected (Herrenkohl,

Herrenkohl, Egolf, & Wu, 1991). The existence of severity ratings

obtained 25 years prior offered an opportunity to compare ratings

across time, albeit with different samples. Thus, a secondary,

exploratory aim was to compare whether these factors differentially

affected severity ratings of professionals in 2001 and 1977. Archived

information about the 1977 survey was limited. The 1977 survey

was distributed to participants by hand and returned through the

mail or in person. Specific response rate information was not avail-

able. Data were gathered from child welfare professionals ( N = 14)

and researchers in the field ( N = 10) (24 in total). Those included in

the study were experienced in child welfare issues and were either

directly involved in protective services or were conducting applied

research on the topic. This sample was comprised of individuals liv-

ing in Pennsylvania and the Washington, D.C. area. The racial com-

position of the sample was predominantly Caucasian. The majority

of the participants (75%) were female. The questionnaire adminis-

tered in 2001 differed slightly in how frequency was evaluated. The

original survey administered in 1977 had only three frequency

levels: occasionally, often, and frequently; whereas the 2001 survey

had four: rarely, occasionally, often, and frequently. The 2001 sur-

vey included more options to better assess variation in severity rat-

ings associated with more subtle shifts in frequency. When the

exploratory comparison analysis was conducted, the category ‘‘rare-

ly’’ (1 – 3 times a year) was dropped from the 2001 data in order to

match frequency levels between the 2001 and 1977 samples.

Limitations

The present study has notable limitations. Our 2001 sample wasa small, convenience sample, consisting partly of graduate stu-

d i l i i i Th l h




TABLE 1

Items and Ascending Severity Ratings for the 2001 Sample

Item Mean

Warning child about the consequences of child’s behavior* 1.04

Explaining to or reasoning with child 1.04

Making child stop and think about

what child is doing—making child take a ‘‘time out’’*

1.15

Taking some privilege away from child 1.33

Restricting or grounding child to the house 1.42

Yelling or shouting at child 2.02

Isolating child in a room for an hour or more 2.05

Slapping child’s hands or legs 2.09

Ignoring child (i.e. refusing to talk with child) 2.15

Threatening to spank or hit child 2.17

Spanking child 2.36

Embarrassing child in front of others 2.44Pinching child* 2.53

Ridiculing or making fun of child 2.57

Washing child’s mouth out with soap 2.68

Taking meals away 2.68

Telling child that child is no good, stupid* 2.73

Putting pepper in child’s mouth 2.80

Shaking child 2.81

Threatening to send child away 2.81

Pulling child’s hair 2.82Slapping child face 2.85

Hitting child with a stick, paddle, or other hard object 2.89

Locking child out of the house 2.90

Isolating child in a dark room or closet 2.91

Binding or tying child, for example, with rope or wire* 2.91

Hitting child with a fist, punching child* 2.96

Kicking child* 2.97

Biting child 2.97

Hitting or paddling so as to bruise child 2.97Slapping or spanking so as to bruise child 2.98

Biting so as to br ise child 2 98




generalizablity of the results. Given that we planned exploratoryanalysis of possible change over time, in 2001 we mirrored the 1977

sample in that we targeted professionals with direct service experi-

ence in the field of child welfare and who were informed about the

subject of child maltreatment. Although the samples were not mat-

ched on specific characteristics, both samples thus represent ratings

of professionals knowledgeable about child welfare. However, differ-

ences between the samples could arguably explain differences in

severity ratings identified across the 1977 and 2001 samples. For

example, variation in severity ratings may be related to differencesin demographic characteristics or the fact that respondents in 2001

were professionals and graduate student practitioners in the field of

child welfare, whereas the 1977 sample also included researchers.

Regional differences might also account for variation in ratings, as

respondents in the 1977 survey lived in the Northeast, while the

2001 sample was from the Northwest. Prior research into regional

differences in rates of child maltreatment or acceptance of physical

discipline practices has shown that Southern regions tend to be

more accepting of physical punishment. For example, Straus andMathur (1996) noted decreased approval of corporal punishment

(b d ) ll i f h US h h

TABLE 1.

Continued

Item Mean

Hitting child with a strap, rope, or belt 2.99

Burning child, for example, with a

cigarette, hot coffee, or a stove

3.00

Burning so as to leave burn marks on child 3.00Threatening to kill child* 3.00

Threatening child with a knife, gun* 3.00

Holding child’s head under water until child chokes* 3.00

Cutting child with a knife or other sharp object* 3.00

1 = neither severe nor abusive, 2 = severely punishing, 3 = abusive.* Items added in 2001 version of questionnaire.




approval. Differences between the Northwest and Northeast have

not been highlighted in prior research. Differences between the twosamples necessarily limit our ability to attribute differences to ac-

tual changes in historical context. Our investigation into this topic is

therefore purely exploratory, yet our findings are consistent with

other literature (e.g., Straus & Mathur, 1996) and offer direction for

future longitudinal study.

Results

Severity Ratings by Item (2001 Practitioner Survey)

Table 1 shows practitioners’ mean severity ratings for each parental

discipline practice. This initial analysis was conducted collapsing the

data across age groups and frequency levels to show the relative

mean severity ratings for all items. Practices are listed in ascending

order of relative severity. Non-physical items such as grounding a

child were rated as least severe, with severity ratings under two.

Severity ratings for acts of psychological and physical discipline var-

ied, with scores ranging from 2.02 (severely punishing) to 3.00 (abu-

sive). Acts with mean ratings that were midway between severely

punishing and abusive include spanking, ridiculing child and taking

meals away. Certain items such as burning a child, or threatening

with a weapon showed no variation, with all respondents rating

these items as abusive.

Effects of Age of the Child on Severity Ratings (2001 Practitioner Survey)

To assess possible effects of age alone on severity ratings among our

2001 sample, ANOVAs (with Tukey post hoc analyses) were run for

each of the five discipline practices selected for further analysis. Age

of the child affected the severity ratings of only one discipline prac-

tice. Specifically, when asked about shaking a child, participants

rated shaking at age 0 – 2 years was significantly more severe than at

age 6 –

11 ( p < .05) and 12 –

17 (< .01); shaking at age 3 –

5 was rated assignificantly more severe than age 12 – 17 ( p < .01) (results not

h )




Effects of Frequency and Age on Severity Ratings

(2001 Practitioner Survey)

To examine the possible additional effects of frequency on severity

ratings among child welfare professionals in 2001, ANOVAs (with

Tukey post hoc analyses) were run to compare mean severity ratings

by age group and by frequency level for each of the five discipline

practices chosen for analysis (Table 2). For most age groups (3 – 5,

6 – 11 and 12 – 17), ‘yelling or shouting at child’ was rated as signifi-

cantly more severe when done frequently as opposed to rarely

( p < .05). In addition, participants rated ‘yelling or shouting at child’as significantly more severe when done occasionally as opposed to

rarely for the 6 – 11 and 12 – 17 age groups ( p < .05). For infants (0 – 2),

frequency of yelling did not affect the severity ratings. For the 6 – 11

and 12 – 17 age groups, participants rated ‘embarrassing child in

front of others’ as significantly more severe if done frequently rather

than rarely ( p < .05). Participants also rated ‘embarrassing child in

front of others’ as more severe if done often in comparison to rarely

( p < .05). For the 3 – 5 an d 6 – 11 age groups, ‘threatening to spank

child’ was rated as more severe if done frequently when compared torarely ( p < .05). ‘Threatening to spank child’ was also rated as signif-

icantly more severe when done frequently in relation to occasionally

for the age range 6 – 11 ( p < .05). Across all age groups, ‘spanking

child’ was rated as significantly more severe if done frequently when

compared to rarely ( p < .05). Participants also rated ‘spanking child’

as significantly less severe when done occasionally as opposed to fre-

quently for the 3 – 5 age group ( p < .05). Rare spanking is rated

approximately 2.00 (severely punishing) where as frequent spanking

was considered abusive by most respondents. For the 3 –

5, and 12 –

17age groups, ‘shaking child’ was rated as significantly more severe

when done frequently as opposed to rarely ( p < .05). Table 2 lists all

of the means for the significant differences by age and frequency for

these five practices.

Exploratory Investigation of the Effect of Historical Context:

Comparing 1977 and 2001

Changes in Severity Ratings by Discipline Practice. To explorethe possible effect of historical time period on the severity ratings of

h di i li i h f d f f




T A B L E

2

S i g n i fi c a n t D i f f e r e n c e s i n

M e a n S e v e r i t y R a t i n g s , b y F r e q u e n c y a n

d A g e G r o u p s , 2 0 0 1

s a m p l e

c i p l i n e P r a c t i c e b y A g e G r o u p

F r e q u e n c

y G r o u p s

‘ ‘ R a r e l y ’ ’

‘ ‘ O c c a s i o n a l l y ’ ’

‘ ‘ O f t e n ’ ’

‘ ‘ F r e q u e n t l y ’ ’

i n g o r s h o u t i n g a t c h i l d , a g e

s 3 – 5

1

. 8 1

2 . 3

8 *


s 6 – 1 1

1

. 6 5

2 . 3

1 *


s 6 – 1 1

1 . 7

3

2 . 3

1 *


s 1 2 – 1 7

1

. 5 0

2 . 2

3 * *


s 1 2 – 1 7

1 . 6

9

2 . 2

3 *

b a r r a s s i n g c h i l d i n f r o n t o f o

t h e r s , a g e s 6 – 1 1

2

. 1 1

2 . 6

3 *


t h e r s , a g e s 6 – 1 1

2

. 1 1

2 . 6

7 * *


t h e r s , a g e s 1 2 – 1 7

2

. 0 0

2 . 5

6 * *


t h e r s , a g e s 1 2 – 1 7

2

. 0 0

2 . 5

9 * *




T A B L E

2

C o n t i n u

e d

c i p l i n e P r a c t i c e b y A g e G r o u p

F r e q u e n c y

G r o u p s

‘ ‘ R a r e l y ’ ’

‘ ‘ O c c a s i o n a l l y ’ ’

‘ ‘ O f t e n ’ ’

‘ ‘ F r e q u e n t l y ’ ’

e a t e n

i n g t o s p a n k o r h i t c h i l d , a g e s 3 – 5

1 . 8 1

2 . 5

2 * *

e a t e n

i n g t o s p a n k o r h i t c h i l d , a g e s 6 – 1 1

1 . 7 3

2 . 4

1 * *

e a t e n

i n g t o s p a n k o r h i t c h i l d , a g e s 6 – 1 1

1 . 8

1

2 . 4

1 *

n k i n g

c h i l d , a g e s 0 – 2

2 . 2 2

2 . 8

1 *

n k i n g

c h i l d , a g e s 3 – 5

1 . 9 6

2 . 7

0 * *

n k i n g

c h i l d , a g e s 3 – 5

2 . 1

1

2 . 7

0 *

n k i n g

c h i l d , a g e s 6 – 1 1

1 . 8 9

2 . 5

9 * *

n k i n g

c h i l d , a g e s 1 2 – 1 7

2 . 1 1

2 . 6

3 *

k i n g

c h i l d , a g e s 3 – 5

2 . 8 1

3 . 0

0 *

k i n g

c h i l d , a g e s 1 2 – 1 7

2 . 3 8

2 . 8

1 *

S i g n i fi c

a n t a t t h e . 0

5 l e v e l .

S i g n i fi

c a n t a t t h e . 0

1 l e v e l .

l y s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s a r e s h o w n

.




each of the 28 items that were common to both versions of the

survey. The original questionnaires from the 1977 sample werenot archived, and only overall means and standard deviations

for each item were available. In order to compare the two samples

it was necessary to compute the standard deviations from the

1977 sample across the four age groups and four frequency

levels. The following formula was used to compute the mean of

the standard deviations and the shared variance between items

v 1 kP x1À Á 1

k2 P v xið Þ þ 2 P kÀ1

i¼1P k

j ¼1

SD xið ÞSD x j À Á ! where k = the num-

ber of standard deviations (SD) to be combined and v = variance.

Using ANOVA, 12 of the 28 items were found to have significantly

different mean ratings ( p < .05) in 2001 compared to 1977. The

means, standard deviations, F scores and significance levels for

these 12 items are presented in Table 3. The means are consis-

tently higher in the 2001 sample, indicating less acceptance of these

practices.

Changes in Severity Ratings by Age of the Child. We exploredpossible changes over time in the effect of age on severity ratings for

the five discipline practices focused on in this study: spanking child,

shaking child, threatening to spank, yelling or shouting a child, and

embarrassing child in front of others. As shown in Figure 1, com-

pared to 1977, severity ratings in 2001 were significantly higher for

most, but not all of the age groups. Specifically, the 2001 sample

rated two of the five items as significantly more severe, across all

age group: shaking child, and threatening to spank or hit child

( p < .05). In 2001 ‘yelling or shouting at child’ was rated higher foryounger children only ( p < .05). Compared to practitioner ratings in

1977, the acts of ‘Embarrassing child in front of others’ and ‘spank-

ing child’ were rated as more severe in 2001 ( p <.05) for ages 3 – 5,

6 – 11 and 12 – 17.

Changes in Severity Ratings by Discipline Practice, Age of the

Child and Frequency Level. The effects of frequency and age on

changes in severity ratings between 1977 and 2001 were also

explored for the five discipline practices: spanking child, shakingchild, threatening to spank, yelling or shouting a child and embar-

rassing child in front of others As shown in Table 4 results




TABLE 3

Discipline Severity Ratings by Historical Time Period

2001 1977

Discipline Practice Mean SD Mean SD F

Explaining to or reasoning

with child

1.04 (.13) 1.14 (.41) n.s.

Taking some privilege away

from child

1.33 (.42) 1.31 (.59) n.s.

Restricting or grounding

child to the house

1.42 (.44) 1.15 (.40) 5.01*

Yelling or shouting at child 2.02 (.65) 1.55 (.64) 6.65*

Isolating child in a room

for an hour or more

2.05 (.53) 1.81 (.70) n.s.

Slapping child’s hands

or legs

2.09 (.58) 1.91 (.71) n.s.

Ignoring child 2.15 (.70) 1.69 (.64) 6.05*

Threatening to spank

or hit child

2.17 (.62) 1.03 (.15) 77.17**

Spanking child 2.36 (.57) 2.01 (.65) 4.27*

Embarrassing child

in front of others

2.44 (.52) 1.96 (.64) 8.69**

Ridiculing or making

fun of child

2.57 (.52) 2.08 (.63) 9.23**

Washing child’s mouthout with soap 2.68 (.40) 2.58 (.59) n.s.

Taking meals away 2.68 (.38) 2.39 (.65) n.s.

Putting pepper in

child’s mouth

2.80 (.41) 2.82 (.40) n.s.

Shaking child 2.81 (.22) 2.26 (.64) 17.02**

Threatening to send

child away

2.81 (.27) 2.45 (.65) 7.31**

Pulling child’s hair 2.82 (.27) 2.57 (.58) 4.11*

Slapping child’s face 2.85 (.22) 2.49 (.60) 4.81*Hitting child with a stick,

paddle or other hard object

2.89 (.22) 2.77 (.47) n.s.




being significantly more severe than did the 1977 sample withinmost of the frequency categories. Specifically, ‘yelling or shouting at

child’ for the 0 – 2 age group was rated as more severe in 2001 across

all frequency levels. For the other age groups, this discipline prac-

tice was rated as significantly more severe in 2001 for most of the

frequency levels, except for the weekly occurrences. Thus, in 1977,

frequent ‘yelling or shouting at child’ was regarded just as harshly

as in 2001, except for infants. The item ‘embarrassing child in front

of others’ was consistently rated as more severe in 2001 compared to

1977, with one exception: in 1977, ‘embarrassing’ an adolescent on aweekly basis was rated just as severely as in 2001. Interestingly,

‘Th i k hi hild’ d b i i ifi l

TABLE 3

Continued

2001 1977

Discipline Practice Mean SD Mean SD F

Isolating child in a dark room

or closet

2.91 (.23) 2.58 (.63) 6.35*

Biting child 2.97 (.13) 2.86 (.37) n.s.

Hitting or paddling so as to

bruise child

2.97 (.07) 2.94 (.23) n.s.

Slapping or spanking so as to

bruise child

2.98 (.07) 2.98 (.07) n.s.

Biting so as to bruise child 2.98 (.05) 2.95 (.16) n.s.

Hitting child with a strap,

rope, or belt

2.99 (.17) 2.87 (.33) n.s.

Burning child, for example,with a cigarette, hot coffee, or a

stove

3.00 (0) 2.98 (.08) n.s.

Burning so as to leave

burn marks on child

3.00 (0) 3.00 (0) n.s.

* Significant at the .05 level.** Significant at the .01 level.n.s. = not significant.




‘Spanking a child’ was generally rated as significantly more severe

in 2001 across all age groups for lower frequency levels, but severityratings for chronic spanking (i.e. weekly) remained stable over time.

S it ti f th di i li ti ‘ h ki hild’

Shaking child

2.992.92

2.74

2.58

2.45

2.18

2.072.11

1.5

1.7

1.9

2.1

2.3

2.5

2.7

2.9

3.1

0 to 2 3 to 5 6 to 11 12 to 17

Age ranges

S e v e r i t y

r a t i n g s

2001

1977

Threatening to spank or hit child

2.34

2.162.05

2.14

1.02 1.04 1.03 1.04

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2

2.2

2.4

2.6

0 to 2 3 to 5 6 to 11 12 to 17

Age ranges

Age ranges

S e v e r i t y

r a t i n g s

2001

1977

Yelling or shouting at child

2.3

2.06

1.92

1.82

1.58 1.56 1.54

1.51.5

1.6

1.7

1.8

1.9

2

2.1

2.2

2.3

2.4

0 to 2 3 to 5 6 to 11 12 to 17

S e v e r i t y

r a t i n g s

2001

1977

Embarrassing child in front of other

2.47 2.46 2.442.37

1.69

2.14 2.12 2.15

1.5

1.7

1.9

2.1

2.3

2.5

2.7

0 to 2 3 to 5 6 to 11 12 to 17

Age ranges

S e v e r i t y

r a t i n g s

2001

Spanking child

2.52

2.312.24

2.37

2.19

1.87 1.861.92

1.5

1.7

1.9

2.1

2.3

2.5

2.7

0 to 2 3 to 5 6 to 11

Age ranges

S e v e r i t y

r a t i n g s

2001

1977

1977

12 to 17

FIGURE 1. Comparison of severity ratings in 2001 and 1977, basedon age of child. — Indicates significant difference between samples,ÆÆÆÆ Indicates non-significant difference between samples, 1 = neithersevere nor abusive, 2 = severely punishing, 3 = abusive.




T A B L E

4

D i s c i p l i n e S e v e r i t y R a t i n g

s b y H i s t o r i c a l T i m e

P e r i o d , A g e G r o u p a

n d F r e q u e n c y L e v e l

c i p l i n e P r a c t i c e

M

e a n S e v e r i t y R a t i n g s

1 9 7 7

2 0 0

1

F

O c c a s i o n a l l y

O f t e n

F r e q u e n t l y


O f t e n

F r e q u e n t l y

i n g o

r s h o u t i n g a t

d , a g e s 0 – 2

1 . 3

5

2 . 2

3

1 9 . 1 3

* *

1 . 4

6

2 . 3 1

1 6 . 4 5

* *

1 . 9 4

2 . 5

8

1 0 . 0 3

* *

i n g o


d , a g e s 3 – 5

1 . 2

9

1 . 9

2

1 1 . 3 6

* *

1 . 4

2

2 . 1 2

1 2 . 0 9

* *

1 . 9 6

2 . 3

8

n . s .

i n g o


d , a g e s 6 – 1 1

1 . 2

9

1 . 7

3

5 . 7 3

*

1 . 4

2

2 . 0 0

8 . 5 4

* *

1 . 9 2

2 . 3

1

n . s .

i n g o


d , a g e s 1 2 – 1 7

1 . 2

1

1 . 6

9

7 . 9 6

* *

1 . 4

2

1 . 8 5

n . s .

1 . 8 7

2 . 2

3

n . s .




T A B L E

4

C o n t i n u

e d

c i p l i n

e P r a c t i c e

M e

a n S e v e r i t y R a t i n g s

1 9 7 7

2 0 0 1

F

O c c a s i o n

a l l y

O f t e n

F r e q u e n t l y


O f t e

n

F r e q u e n t l y

b a r r a

s s i n g c h i l d

r o n t o f o t h e r s ,

s 0 – 2

1 . 5 7

2 . 4

1

1 9 . 3 1

* *

1 . 7

0

2 . 6 3

2 9 . 5 3

* *

1 . 8

0

2 . 6

3

2 3 . 8 2

* *

b a r r a

s s i n g c h i l d


s 3 – 5

1 . 9 6

2 . 4

1

6 . 5 3

*

2 . 1

2

2 . 6 3

1 0 . 6 5

* *

2 . 3

3

2 . 6

3

4 . 0 3

*

b a r r a

s s i n g c h i l d


s 6 – 1 1

1 . 9 5

2 . 3

7

5 . 4 9

*

2 . 1

2

2 . 6 3

1 0 . 6 5

* *

2 . 2

9

2 . 6

7

6 . 8 7

*

b a r r a

s s i n g c h i l d


s 1 2 – 1 7

1 . 9 6

2 . 3

3

4 . 5 5

*

2 . 1

7

2 . 5 6

7 . 0 4

*

2 . 3

3

2 . 5

9

n . s .

e a t e n

i n g t o s p a n k

h i t c h i l d , a g e s 0 – 2

1 . 0 2

2 . 2

2

5 3 . 0 2

* *

1 . 0

4

2 . 4 1

8 7 . 3 7

* *

1 . 0

0

2 . 5

9

1 4 7 . 8 0

* *




e a t e n

i n g t o s p a n k

i t c h i l d , a g e s 3 – 5

1

. 0 4

2 . 0

0

3 4 . 0 6

* *

1 . 0

4

2 . 3

0

7 8 . 0 2

* *

1 . 0 4

2 . 5

2

9 9 . 2 9

* *

e a t e n

i n g t o s p a n k

i t c h i l d , a g e s 6 – 1 1

1

. 0 4

1 . 8

1

2 1 . 3 7

* *

1 . 0

0

2 . 2

2

8 7 . 0 1

* *

1 . 0 4

2 . 4

1

8 7 . 3 7

* *

e a t e n

i n g t o s p a n k

i t c h i l d ,

s 1 2 – 1 7

1

. 0 8

1 . 9

6

2 1 . 1 7

* *

1 . 0

0

2 . 2

2

7 2 . 7 4

* *

1 . 0 4

2 . 4

4

7 8 . 0 9

* *

n k i n g

c h i l d ,

s 0 – 2

1

. 9 4

2 . 3

3

n . s .

2 . 1

0

2 . 7

0

6 . 8 2

*

2 . 5 4

2 . 8

1

n . s .

n k i n g

c h i l d ,

s 3 – 5

1

. 5

2 . 1

1

8 . 6 5

* *

1 . 6

7

2 . 4

8

1 8 . 6 4

* *

2 . 4 6

2 . 7

0

n . s .

n k i n g

c h i l d ,

s 6 – 1 1

1

. 5 8

2 . 1

1

7 . 0 7

*

1 . 6

7

2 . 3

7

1 4 . 1 7

* *

2 . 3 3

2 . 5

9

n . s .

n k i n g

c h i l d ,

s 1 2 – 1 7

1

. 6 2

2 . 2

2

8 . 4 0

* *

1 . 7

9

2 . 5

2

1 7 . 6 4

* *

2 . 3 3

2 . 6

3

n . s .




T A B L E

4

C o n t i n u

e d

c i p l i n e

c t i c e

M e a n

S e v e r i t y R a t i n g s

1 9 7 7

2 0 0 1

F


O f t e n

F r e q u e n t l y


O f t e n

F r e q u e n t l y

k i n g

c h i l d ,

s 0 – 2

2 . 2

9

3 . 0

0

2 0 . 0 8

* *

2 . 5

0

3 . 0 0

1 5 . 6 3

* *

2 . 6

5

3 . 0

0

9 . 2 2

* *

k i n g

c h i l d ,

s 3 – 5

1 . 7

5

2 . 9

3

6 0 . 2 5

* *

2 . 2

5

2 . 9 6

2 7 . 4 1

* *

2 . 5

4

3 . 0

0

1 6 . 4 2

* *

k i n g

c h i l d ,

s 6 – 1 1

1 . 6

7

2 . 6

3

3 2 . 8 5

* *

2 . 0

4

2 . 8 5

3 9 . 3 6

* *

2 . 5

0

2 . 8

9

1 0 . 9 2

* *

k i n g

c h i l d ,

s 1 2 – 1 7

1 . 7

9

2 . 4

6

1 3 . 2 6

* *

2 . 0

4

2 . 6 5

1 7 . 4 3

* *

2 . 5

0

2 . 8

1

5 . 8 9

*

S i g n i fi c

a n t a t t h e . 0

5 l e v e l .

S i g n i fi

c a n t a t t h e . 0

1 l e v e l .

. = n o t s i g n i fi c a n t .




In 2001, shaking an infant was rated as clearly abusive ( M = 3.00)

by all respondents, even at low frequency levels; in contrast, in1977, shaking an infant occasionally (4 – 11 times a year) was rated

as sub-abusive ( M = 2.29).

Discussion

The purpose of this study was to examine variation in child welfare

practitioner ratings of the severity of 39 discipline practices based

on the type of act, the age of the child when the act occurred andthe frequency of the act. The results from the 2001 survey were

used to externally validate measures of maltreatment for our longi-

tudinal study on the developmental effects of child abuse. Based on

work by Straus, Hamby, Finkelhor, Moore, and Ranyan (1998), we

had identified four key constructs: very severe physical maltreat-

ment; severe physical discipline; emotional maltreatment; and non-

violent discipline. Following our analyses of current practitioner

ratings, several items were dropped and other items were added.

For example, the severity rating for the item ‘threatening to killchild,’ (mean 3.0) was incongruent with other items in our emotional

maltreatment construct, suggesting the need for a separate con-

struct: ‘‘very severe emotional maltreatment’’. Based on practitioner

ratings, items that we added to our original measure of emotional

maltreatment included ‘ignoring child’ and ‘ridiculing or making fun

of child.’ Informed by our findings, we also created a new construct,

‘physical endangerment’. This construct consists of the items; ‘isolat-

ing child in a dark room,’ ‘locking child out of the house,’ and ‘taking

meals away from child.’Using data (2001) from child welfare workers, the present study

examined the effects of age of the child and frequency on severity

ratings for five discipline practices (spanking the child, shaking the

child, threatening to spank, yelling or shouting at the child, and

embarrassing the child in front of others). Among current practitio-

ners, age of the child only affected severity ratings of one discipline

practice: ‘shaking child’. Specifically, the younger the child, the more

severe the rating (especially 0 – 2 years). This finding indicates that

current practitioners are uniformly alert to the seriousness of shak-ing infants and young children—a finding that was expected, but

i h l Th h h i h h f f




tended to distinguish between rare occurrences and chronic prac-

tices. For example, if done rarely, spanking was rated as ‘‘severelypunishing’’ (mean = 1.89 – 2.22) however frequent spanking was

perceived as abusive by many respondents (mean = 2.59 to 2.81). It

appears that practitioners in our 2001 sample took a ‘‘contextual’’

perspective (Larzelere, Baumrind, & Polite, 1998) on parental

spanking, distinguishing between abusive and non-abusive spanking

rather than viewing spanking as inherently abusive. Given ongoing

debate over the severity and impact of spanking (e.g., Baumrind,

Larzelere, & Cowan, 2002; Gershoff, 2002) it is useful to examine

perceptions of public child welfare workers, as these views arguablydrive practice and shape policy.

Given that we sought to compare recent ratings to those obtained

in 1977, we designed the 2001 survey to parallel the earlier version.

Feedback from respondents in 2001 indicated that they found

certain items to be too vague and wished there had been more infor-

mation about the situational context to help them better assess

severity. Other participants noted that having only three possible

ratings of severity was too confining and indicated that a larger

range would have allowed them to rate disciplinary acts with great-er confidence. These concerns suggest that respondents were left to

interpret aspects of context and intention when rating the items,

which may have led to greater variance than would be expected had

these elements been specified in the questionnaire. Interestingly,

these respondent concerns also point to a developmental advance in

practice, namely that workers appear to operate from a contextual

perspective in evaluating incidents and allegations of abuse. To ade-

quately assess risk and to design prevention and intervention, prac-

titioners depend upon and need relevant contextual information.Definitions of child maltreatment are fluid constructions, alternately

shaped by factors such as situational contexts (e.g., age of child and/

or perpetrator, intent of the act), chronicity of the occurrence, histor-

ical context, as well as the cultural or normative context. Our

results underscore the complexity involved in defining and measur-

ing child maltreatment and highlight the importance of continued

investigation into this topic.

We hypothesized that practitioner severity ratings of parental

discipline practices would vary with the type of act, age of thechild, frequency of occurrence, and historical context; our results




were rated as clearly abusive (e.g. ‘burning so as to leave marks’) or

clearly non-abusive (e.g., ‘explaining to or reasoning with child’).However, certain items that were rated as non-abusive or sub-abu-

sive in 1977 were identified as significantly more severe in 2001.

For example, shaking an infant was rated significantly higher

by current practitioners (mean 3.0) compared to professionals sur-

veyed in 1977. Further, shaking an infant was perceived as clearly

abusive in 2001, regardless of the frequency of the act, whereas in

1977, if done only occasionally, shaking an infant was rated as sub-

abusive. This finding also suggests developmental growth in practi-

tioner knowledge, pointing to increased awareness of and concernabout ‘‘shaken baby syndrome,’’ a problem that has received greater

media and professional attention over the past decade. Similarly,

emotionally harmful acts such as ‘embarrassing child in front of

others’ were rated as significantly more severe by respondents in

the 2001 sample, suggesting increased concern for practices that

may be psychologically damaging. In general, discipline practices

were rated more severely in 2001 compared with the earlier sam-

ple, suggesting a possible change in norms over time, a finding con-

sistent with Straus and Mathur (1996). The suggestion of changesin norms over the past 25 years underscores the need to continually

revisit the question of how to define and operationalize child mal-

treatment. While there was convergence across time in behaviors

considered clearly abusive or clearly non-abusive, several commonly

used discipline acts such as spanking and verbal discipline were

rated as more severe in 2001 than they were in 1977. For research

to reflect current practitioner perceptions of what constitutes child

maltreatment, investigation into severity ratings should be

conducted regularly.Despite its limitations, this study adds to the literature on defining

child maltreatment. Prior research has identified differences in sever-

ity ratings comparing professionals and the general population

(Giovannoni & Becerra, 1979), child welfare professionals and lay

persons, and between child protective service caseworkers and inves-

tigators (Rose & Meezan, 1996). Others have examined factors related

to the situational context such as the caregiver’s emotional state pre-

ceding the act (Holden, Coleman, & Schmidt, 1995) or the nature of

the child’s transgression (Flynn, 1998). Explorations of the normativeor cultural context have compared prevalence and acceptability




(Erlanger, 1974), religion and ideology (Day, Peterson, & McCracken,

1998), historical time period (Straus & Mathur, 1996), acculturationlevel of parents (Song, 1986) and cultural narratives regarding disci-

pline (Mosby, Rawls, Meehan, Mays, & Pettinari, 1999). Increased

research in this direction will help to offer a more nuanced

understanding of child maltreatment and its definition. The present

study reports on severity ratings among a sample of current child

welfare practitioners and points to the importance of contextualized

definitions of child maltreatment. Our work also suggests the need for

continued research on changes in severity ratings across historical

time periods. Definitions of child maltreatment are not static. Practi-tioners, especially those in public child welfare are an important re-

source for other family practitioners, applied researchers and child

and family policy makers; it is important to gauge their current per-

ceptions and enable these to inform practice, research and policy

interventions.

References

Aber, J. L., & Zigler, E. F. (1981). Developmental considerations in the definition of childmaltreatment. In D. Cicchetti & R. Rizley (Eds.), New directions for childdevelopment (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Baumrind, D., Larzelere, R. E., & Cowan, P. A. (2002). Ordinary physical punishment: Isit harmful? Comment on Gershoff, 2002. Psychological Bulletin, 128, 580 – 589.

Cicchetti, D., & Manly, J. T. (1990). Problems and solutions to conducting research inmaltreating families: An autobiographical perspective. In I. E. Sigel & G. H. Brody(Eds.), Methods of family research: Biographies of research projects (Vol. 2)(Hillsdale, N.J: Erlbaum Press.

Day, R. D., Peterson, G. W., & McCracken, C. (1998). Predicting spanking of youngerand older children by mothers and fathers. Journal of Marriage and the Family,

60(1), 79 –

94.Erlanger, H. S. (1974). Social Class and Corporal Punishment in Childrearing: A reassessment. American Sociological Review, 58, 131 – 144.

Flynn, C. P. (1998). To spank or not to spank: The effect of situation and age of child onsupport for corporal punishment. Journal of Family Violence, 13(1), 21 – 37.

Gershoff, E. T. (2002). Corporal punishment by parents and associated child behaviorsand experiences: A meta-analytic and theoretical review. Psychological Bulletin,128, 539 – 579.

Giovannoni, J. M. (1989). Definitional issues in child maltreatment. In D. Cicchetti & V. Carlson (Eds.), Child maltreatment: Theory and research on the causes andconsequences of child abuse and neglect (pp. 3 – 37). New York: Cambridge UniversityPress.

Giovannoni, J. M., & Becerra, R. M. (1979). Defining child abuse. New York: The FreePress.Herrenkohl, R. C., Herrenkohl, E. C., Egolf, B. P., & Wu, P. (1991). The developmental




D. A. Wolfe (Eds.), The effects of child abuse and neglect: Issues and research (pp.

57 –

80). New York, NY: Guilford.Herrenkohl, T. I., Tajima, E. A., Whitney, S. D., & Huang, B. (2005). Protection againstantisocial behavior in children exposed to physically abusive discipline. Journal of

Adolescent Health, 36, 457 – 465.Holden, G. W., Coleman, S. M., & Schmidt, K. L. (1995). Why 3-year-old children get

spanked: Parent and child determinants as reported by college-educated mothers. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 41(4), 431 – 452.

Hutchison, E. D. (1990). Child maltreatment: Can it be defined? Social Service Review,64(1), 60 – 78.

Korbin, J. E. (1987). Child abuse and neglect: The cultural context. In R. E. Helfer &R. S. Kempe (Eds.), The battered child (pp. 23 – 42). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Larzelere, R. E., Baumrind, D., & Polite, K. (1998). Two emerging perspectives of parental spanking from two 1996 Conferences. Archives of Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine, 152(3), 303 – 305.

McGee, R. A., & Wolfe, D. A. (1991). Psychological maltreatment: Toward an operationaldefinition. Development and Psychopathology, 3, 3 – 18.

Mosby, C., Rawls, A. W., Meehan, A. J., Mays, E., & Pettinari, C. J. (1999). Troubles ininterracial talk about discipline: An examination of African-American child rearingnarratives. Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 30(3), 489 – 521.

National Research Council (1993). Understanding child abuse and neglect. Washington,D.C: National Academy Press.

National Research Council (2002). Confronting chronic neglect: The education andtraining of health professionals on family violence. Washington, D.C: National

Academy Press.Polansky, N., Borgman, R., & DeSaix, C. (1972). Roots of futility. San Francisco, CA:Jossey-Bass.

Portwood, S. G. (1999). Coming to terms with a consensual definition of childmaltreatment. Child Maltreatment, 4(1), 56 – 68.

Rose, S. J., & Meezan, W. (1996). Variations in perceptions of child neglect. ChildWelfare, 75(2), 139 – 160.

Shepherd, J., & Sampson, A. (2000). ‘Don’t shake the baby’: Towards a preventionstrategy. British Journal of Social Work, 30(6), 721 – 735.

Smith, J. R., & Brooks-Gunn, J. (1997). Correlates and consequences of harsh disciplinefor young children. Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, 151(8), 777 – 787.

Song, K. (1986). Defining child abuse: Korean community study (Doctoral dissertation,

UCLA, 1986). Dissertation Abstracts International, 47 (6-A), 2321.Straus, M. A., & Gelles, R. J. (1986). Societal change and change in family violence from1975 to 1985 as revealed by two national surveys. Journal of Marriage and the

Family, 48, 465 – 479.Straus, M. A., & Gelles, R. J. (1990). Physical violence in American families: Risk factors

and adaptations to violence in 8,145 families. New Brunswick, N.J: TransactionPublishers.

Straus, M. A., & Mathur, A. K. (1996). Social change and the trends in approval of corporal punishment by parents from 1968 to 1994. In D. Frehsee, W. Horn & K. D.Bussmann (Eds.), Family violence against children: A challenge for society (pp.91 – 105). New York, N.Y: Walter de Gruyter.

Straus, M. A., Hamby, S. L., Finkelhor, D., Moore, D. W., & Runyan, D. (1998).

Identification of child maltreatment with the Parent –

Child Conflict Tactics Scales:Development and psychometric data for a national sample of American parents.Child Abuse, Neglect, 22(4), 249 – 270.




Vissing, Y. M., Straus, M. A., Gelles, R. J., & Harrop, J. W. (1991). Verbal aggression by

parents and psychosocial problems of children. Child Abuse and Neglect, 15,223 – 238.Whipple, E. E., & Richey, C. A. (1997). Crossing the line from physical discipline to child

abuse: How much is too much? Child Abuse and Neglect, 21(5), 431 – 444.Zuravin, S. (1991). Research definitions of child physical abuse and neglect: Current

problems. In R. H. Starr Jr., & D. A. Wolfe (Eds.), The effects of child abuse andneglect: Issues and research (pp. 100 – 128). New York: Guilford Press.




Documents

Defining Child Abuse - Exploring Variations in Ratings of Discipline Severity Among Child Welfare Practitioners