Systematic review and critical appraisal of child abuse measurement instruments

Saini SM 1 , Hoffmann CR 2 , Pantelis C 3 , Everall IP 4 , Bousman CA 5

Affiliations 

  • 1 Melbourne Neuropsychiatry Centre, Department of Psychiatry, The University of Melbourne and Melbourne Health, Parkville, VIC, Australia; Department of Psychiatry, UKM Medical Centre, Jalan Yaacob Latif, Cheras, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
  • 2 Melbourne Neuropsychiatry Centre, Department of Psychiatry, The University of Melbourne and Melbourne Health, Parkville, VIC, Australia
  • 3 Melbourne Neuropsychiatry Centre, Department of Psychiatry, The University of Melbourne and Melbourne Health, Parkville, VIC, Australia; Florey Institute of Neuroscience and Mental Health, The University of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC, Australia; Centre for Neural Engineering, The University of Melbourne, Carlton, VIC, Australia; North Western Mental Health, Melbourne Health, Parkville, VIC, Australia
  • 4 Melbourne Neuropsychiatry Centre, Department of Psychiatry, The University of Melbourne and Melbourne Health, Parkville, VIC, Australia; Florey Institute of Neuroscience and Mental Health, The University of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC, Australia; Centre for Neural Engineering, The University of Melbourne, Carlton, VIC, Australia; Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology & Neuroscience, King's College London, United Kingdom
  • 5 Melbourne Neuropsychiatry Centre, Department of Psychiatry, The University of Melbourne and Melbourne Health, Parkville, VIC, Australia; Alberta Children's Hospital Research Institute, Calgary, Canada; Department of Medical Genetics, Psychiatry, and Physiology and Pharmacology, The University of Calgary, Canada; Hotchkiss Brain Institute, University of Calgary, Calgary, Canada. Electronic address: [email protected]
Psychiatry Res, 2019 02;272:106-113.
PMID: 30580133 DOI: 10.1016/j.psychres.2018.12.068

Abstract

Child abuse is a major public health concern and a strong predictor of adult psychopathology. However, a consensus on how best to measure child abuse is not evident. This review aimed to critically appraise the methodological quality and measurement properties of published child abuse measures, examined the strength of evidence of these instruments for research use using the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement InstrumeNts (COSMIN) checklist and determined which measures were capable of providing information on the developmental timing of abuse. Systematic search of electronic databases identified 52 eligible instruments from 2095 studies. Only 15% (n = 8) of the instruments had strong to moderate levels of evidence for three or more of the nine COSMIN criteria. No instrument had adequate levels of evidence for all criteria, and no criteria were met by all instruments. Our results indicate there is no single instrument that is superior to all others across settings and populations. The availability of measures capable of capturing the effects of child abuse on brain development and associated behavioral phenotypes are limited. Refined instruments with a focus on capturing abuse events during development are warranted in addition to further evaluation of the psychometric properties of these instruments.

* Title and MeSH Headings from MEDLINE®/PubMed®, a database of the U.S. National Library of Medicine.

MeSH terms
Similar publications