|
Abstract
|
In a follow-up study of incarcerated Connecticut youth, 66 subjects participated in extensive personal interviews. This paper documents discrepancies between early data regarding abuse and retrospective self-reports of abuse given at the time of follow-up. It describes the development of an interview protocol in which inquiries regarding medical history, the general temperament of caretakers and their behaviors when intoxicated, and instruments and methods of punishment used in the home enabled subjects to describe abusive experiences not disclosed in response to direct questions about maltreatment. The paper also discusses the use of explicitly worded probes to flesh out a clear picture of subjects' experiences. The conflicts that underlie denial or minimization of abuse are discussed, along with interviewing strategies for overcoming them.
VioLit summary:
OBJECTIVE:
The purpose of this study by Stein and Lewis was to examine the accuracy of self-reported childhood physical abuse by adults and to identify the most effective questions to elicit such information.
METHODOLOGY:
This quasi-experimental, longitudinal study utilized secondary data from records and retrospective interviews of 66 delinquent males who had been incarcerated in juvenile correctional facility in Connecticut. The results to a follow-up retrospective interview of the same participants ten years later are compared to the first set of data collected. The original study consisted of 97 subjects. The follow-up interview administered to the subjects consisted of 175 questions aimed at discovering abuse both directly and indirectly. The follow-up interviewers did not know about any abuse recorded during the initial investigation ten years prior. The highly structured interview format required interviewers to ask all questions, regardless of apparent lack of abuse in the subject's history. After each response which idicated that abuse had occurred, the interviewer had to ask about additional incidences using questions such as "Who else?, When else?, Where else?, What about your aunt?, What about when you were in the placement home?" Each probe had to be repeated until no more information was given. Abuse in this study was defined as subjects who were punched, hit, deliberately cut, or burned. Actions that resulted in broken limbs, bleeding or unconsciousness were also included. Excluded from their definition were being hit on the buttocks with whips, switches, extension cords, or boards and being slapped on the face with an open hand.
FINDINGS/DISCUSSION:
The follow-up interviews found that 67% of the subjects had been physically abused, 14% of which had not reported abuse in the initial interviews. However, another 14% of the subjects who had reported abuse initially, did not do so during the follow-up interview. Half of the 36 subjects who had reported multiple perpetrators in the initial interview omitted mention of at least one important perpetrator in the follow-up interview. Seven subjects reported multiple perpetrators in the follow-up who had not initially. To resolve which data were accurate, subjects were asked to clarify what was true. Regardless of whether the abuse was reported initially or ten years later, the subjects stated that the reported abuse had indeed taken place. Direct questions about abuse by family members elicited some information, but most incidences mentioned were either minimized or dismissed as trivial. Direct questions about maltreatment in each placement outside the home allowed additional perpetrators to be named. The indirect questions about the general temperament of family members, especially when they were intoxicated, illuminated five subjects' abuse which was not mentioned in the direct questions. The same was true for questions about being hit with objects. Eight subjects reported experiences and 31 others who had minimized events during the direct questioning now fully described abusive incidence. Indirect questions about medical history, which focused on scars, brought four additional cases to light.
AUTHORS' RECOMMENDATIONS:
Interview strategies must overcome the problems of incomplete recall, minimization of abusive experiences, and reluctance to ascribe the abuse to loved ones. (CSPV Abstract - Copyright © 1992-2007 by the Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence, Institute of Behavioral Science, Regents of the University of Colorado)
KW - Connecticut
KW - Self Report Studies
KW - Long-Term Effects
KW - Child Abuse Effects
KW - Child Abuse-Delinquency Link
KW - Child Abuse Victim
KW - Child Physical Abuse Effects
KW - Child Physical Abuse Victim
KW - Child Victim
KW - Victim Turned Offender
KW - Juvenile Delinquency
KW - Juvenile Male
KW - Juvenile Inmate
KW - Juvenile Offender
KW - Inmate Studies
KW - Incarcerated
KW - Delinquency Causes
KW - Follow-Up Studies
Language: en |