Assessing child abuse: "We need to talk!".

BACKGROUND

This discussion paper adds to the recent critical debate concerning retrospective measurement of childhood abuse and adverse experiences. A series of recent articles found only modest overlap of prospective informant-based records with retrospective self-report questionnaires, with biases evident in the latter. However, this literature has omitted the use of investigator-based interviews as an alternative retrospective tool for triangulation of measurement. Validated interview approaches can ascertain accurate data using expert scoring that can be used to test both dose-effect and specificity analyses for further research and treatment purposes.

OBJECTIVE

Arguments for the retention and further promotion of intensive interview measures for retrospective assessment of childhood neglect and abuse in relation to lifetime clinical outcomes are presented, with illustrative analyses.

METHOD AND

RESULTS

A network analytic approach is outlined, with six types of childhood abuse or neglect experiences scored via a well-validated interview (the Childhood Experiences of Care and Abuse). This indicates distinct pathways between types of neglect and abuse, but also from more common emotional abuse (antipathy, critical parenting) through to more pernicious psychological abuse (coercive, sadistic control) involving physical abuse or sexual abuse pathways. This is supplemented by a case vignette to illustrate the different pathways indicated.

CONCLUSIONS

The interview approach gives victims a voice with their narrative (chance to talk) needed for better understanding of the specific dynamics of child abuse and neglect and for an entry into psychotherapeutic work. We need to ensure that such methods are retained in the research and practitioner portfolio of measurement tools.