Assessing Child Maltreatment: The Role of Testing
e Journal of Sociology
ssessing C hild M altreat m ent: T he Role of Testing
Joel S. Milner
Recommended Citation
Available at: https://scholarworks.wmich.edu/jssw/vol13/iss1/6
Follow this and additional works at; https; //scholarworks; wmich; edu/jssw
-
C
hild
M
Role of
Testing
Article 6.
This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Social Work at
ScholarWorks at WMU. For more information, please contact
Assessing Child Maltreatment: The Role of Testing
Joel S.Milner
Western Carolina University
Callowhee, North Carolina
Due to the recent development of test instruments designed to
assist professionals in the evaluation of child maltreatment cases,
social service professionals must become familiar with issues
related to test construction and use. The purpose of the present
paper is to provide the reader with a discussion of issues related
to test selection and use. This article, however, is not Intended to
be asubstitute for a basic understanding of the test validity and
reliability. The paper begins with a review of different
prevention modes and discusses how each mode uses test data.
Next, test use as it relates to assessment is outlined. Within the
context of assessment, types of test classification errors are
discussed. Finally, anumber of general test Issues that can affect
test results are presented.
Assessing Child Maltreatment: The Role of Testing
In the past decade, a large number of checklists, surveys, and test
instruments have been developed to assist the protective service worker
in the assessment and treatment of parents suspected of child abuse and
neglect. While most of these instruments have little or no information on
their validity and reliability, an increasing number of scales do provide
appropriate psychometric data, which allows the test user to evaluate the
usefulness and accuracy of the test. Several assessment tools on which
some psychometric data has been accumulated include the Michigan
Screening Profile of Parenting (MSPP) scale
(Helfer et al., 1978;
Schneider, 1982)
, the Conflict Tactics (CT) scales (Straus, 1979), the
Childhood Level of Living (CLL) scale
(Polansky et al., 1972; Polansky
et al., 1978)
, the Parenting Stress Index (PSI) (Abidin, 1983), and the
Child Abuse Potential (CAP) Inventory
(Milner, 1980; Milner etal.,
1984)
. These instruments measure behaviors extending from general
problems in parenting (e.g., MSPP) to specific maltreatment problems,
such as physical child abuse (e.g., CAP Inventory). Since these and
similar instruments will be available in increasing numbers in the
future, the purpose of this article is to discuss the appropriate role such
instruments should play in the assessment of child maltreatment cases. It
is not the purpose of this paper to provide an extensive discussion of
technical issues related to test validity and reliability. Rather, the focus
of this paper will be on theoretical issues which will enable the reader to
select and use tests appropriately once test validity and reliability has
been determined.
Since the degree of emphasis on test use and the type of classification
error a professional wishes to avoid varies as afunction of the prevention
mode, the present paper will begin with an exploration of the role of
testing in primary, secondary, and tertiary prevention. Following this
discussion, the role of testing in assessment will be presented. The
assessment section, which will include a general paradigm for
assessment, Is provided to give the reader a conceptual guide to the
appropriate use of test instruments in screening and diagnosis. Within
the context of assessment, the different types of test misclassifications
and their associated problems will be delineated. This information should
enable the professional to deal more appropriately with classification
errors. The article will conclude with a discussion of additional issues
related to the selection and use of tests in the assessment of child
maltreatment cases.
Types of Prevention
Inthe field of prevention, three types of prevention efforts have been
distinguished. As previously mentioned, the three types are primary
prevention, secondary prevention, and tertiary prevention.
Primary prevention assumes that all families in society are more or
less at risk of abuse, neglect and/or problems in parenting because of our
mobile, impersonal, and generally stressful society. Given this
assumption, primary prevention is not concerned with screening or
diagnostic activities. It is not concerned with the testing of abusive or
neglectful Individuals or with the preselection of at-risk groups
suffering from poor parenting or other Identifiable dysfunctions. Since
all families are believed to be at risk, professionals involved in primary
prevention are not concerned with misclassification issues. Rather, they
are concerned with increasing the number of community support systems
available to all families by promoting related legislation and (...truncated)