Re: Evaluating Abuse Cases

["Peter Dale" <pdale@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Peter,

Could you elaborate on your suggestion a little?

I know that you consider the DES to be useful in screening for the
controversial condition of Multiple Personality Disorder/Dissociative
Identity Disorder - can you explain and provide any references to the
validity of the DES with regard to research with abusing parents?

Many thanks

Peter Dale (PhD) Hastings, UK
-----Original Message-----
From: Peter M. Barach, Ph.D. <pbarach@sprynet.com>
To: Child Maltreatment Researchers
<CHILD-MALTREATMENT-RESEARCH-L@cornell.edu>
Date: 09 February 1999 20:48
Subject: RE: Evaluating Abuse Cases


>Next time you do a study of abusive parents, I would urge you to include
>the Dissociative Experiences Scale as one of your instruments.
>
>Peter M. Barach, Ph.D. (pbarach@sprynet.com)
>Clinical Psychologist
>President, International Society for the Study of Dissociation
>5851 Pearl Road, Suite 305
>Cleveland, OH 44130 USA
>Phone:  Voice: 440-845-9011 (press 6 for voice mail)
>        Fax:   440-845-9013
>Opinions expressed in this post are my own and are not necessarily those
>of ISSD
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: owner-CHILD-MALTREATMENT-RESEARCH-L@cornell.edu
>> [mailto:owner-CHILD-MALTREATMENT-RESEARCH-L@cornell.edu]On Behalf Of
>> Mark J. Chaffin
>> Sent: Tuesday, February 09, 1999 11:18 AM
>> To: Child Maltreatment Researchers
>> Subject: Evaluating Abuse Cases
>>
>>
>> We are currently conducting an NCCAN-funded controlled treatment
>> outcome study for physically abusive parents and have
>> struggled with the
>> question of assessment.  In addition to looking for measures
>> related to
>> treatment outcome (Eyberg's DPICS-II observational coding
>> system, Conflict
>> Tactics Scale P/C, Child Abuse Potential Inventory, etc.), we were
>> interested in instruments measuring empirically documented
>> risk-relevant
>> constructs (e.g. depression, antisocial personality,
>> substance abuse) and
>> consequently are using the BDI and substance abuse and ASP
>> modules from the
>> Diagnostic Interview Schedule (DIS) in addition to  the usual
>> risk-relevant
>> historical and demographic factors (age, number of children, number of
>> previous reports/incidents, etc.).
>> However, I must say that this entire discussion is a bit
>> disconcerting because, as far as I'm aware, psychological
>> testing has been a
>> poor performer in predicting anything of forensic relevance
>> in child abuse
>> cases.  My reading of the risk literature is that
>> demographic, historical
>> and behavioral factors are the most robust predictors of
>> risk--not tests.
>> Possibly the only thing less accurate than tests is clinical
>> judgement.  I'm
>> sure we're all aware of the literature documenting the poor
>> track record
>> clinical impressions have in predicting any kind of future
>> violent behavior.
>> The CAPI has good predictive validity for screening purposes,
>> but is not
>> usually recommended for assessing a forensic case.  Perhaps
>> what we should
>> be doing is more of an actuarially based
>> historical-behavioral analysis and
>> not muddying the waters with test information which is mostly error
>> variance. This is exactly what people are doing in assessment
>> of sexual
>> abusers (i.e. Quinsey, et al's VRAG, Hanson, et al's RRASOR,
>> etc.), which
>> makes me wonder why we are wasting so much public money
>> giving physical
>> abusers MMPI's and Rorschachs to determine......well, to
>> determine what?
>> If anyone is aware of any empirical evidence that
>> projective tests,
>> or any other personality test, offer any incremental
>> predictive validity in
>> child abuse cases, I'd love to see it.  In the absence of this, I must
>> respectfully disagree with the author who suggested that he
>> could give any
>> test he pleases.  My reading of our ethical requirements is that
>> psychologists should only use tests which have clear
>> empirical support for
>> the specific purposes and with the specific population where
>> they are used.
>> I think we owe our clients, our courts, and our CPS systems
>> something better
>> than "clincal judgement," regardless of whether or not its haphazardly
>> butressed with MMPI's and Rorschachs.
>>
>> Mark Chaffin, Ph.D.
>> Center on Child Abuse and Neglect
>> University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center
>> mark-chaffin@ouhsc.edu
>>
>