Re: your thoughts?

[Tino Hammid <tinoh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks to Dr. Chibucos and Dr. Erzinger!  This notion of putting great and
serious effort into prediction of child abuse has probably caused a great
deal of harm.  The fact that all such efforts have failed miserably while
some persist in the belief that it is possible to succeed belies an elitist
posture.  These attitudes have likely helped to fuel the backlash movement
(if that's what it can be called).  The backlash movement is also possibly
a result of the arena of child abuse prevention being at heart a social and
political movement.  Researchers work hard to lend the movement scientific
credibility.  However, without acknowledging the underlying politicized
nature of the field serious problems will likely persist.

I know this is a list which is supposed to cooly discuss research but
sometimes it's healthy for professionals to really step back and examine
their motives.  Their ability to learn about themselves from tragedies such
as the spate of child sexual abuse witch hunts in the recent past is
unclear at best.  Dr. Chibucos' mention of "distractions" and "nasty
implications" in reference to predictive research are welcome words to me.
Few in the arena of child protection seem to demonstrate sufficient concern
for the true damage caused by false positves, false accusations and
ultimately unwarranted intervention.  Emergence of such concerns would be
one indicator of genuine self-critical examination.

Tino Hammid

Thomas R. Chibucos, Ph.D writes:
>With all due respect those who have put forth Herculean efforts trying to
>develop predictive instruments, I would try to convince the student that
>more is to be gained by focusing on broad-based prevention.  Data on
>predictive instruments are uniformly disappointing.  In the view of many (I
>share the view) such instruments are worse than non-effective.  They
>distract highly talented researchers and clinicians from more productive
>forms of engagement with the problems of child maltreatment.  In addition
>to the wasted research and clinical effort, there are very nasty
>implications of such distractions for policy as well.  Of course, I realize
>there are other benefits derived from trying to develop predictive
>instruments (e.g., perhaps better understanding of a phenomenon), but the
>opportunity costs seem to far outweigh those. We do a lot of this kind of
>thing actually--e.g., focus on strangers in raincoats when over 80% (or is
>it 90%, I forget?) of abuse and virtually all child disappearances are
>committed by parents or other relatives.  I appreciate the motive, I really
>do.  But, the dollar and human capital constraints associated with doing
>research make it clear that there are many more productive avenues to
>pursue that of seer.

Sharry Erzinger, Dr.P.H writes:
>Thank you so much for your concise critique of the very base of so much of
>the research that has been discussed in this group.  As a public
>health/violence prevention person I thought it was just my lack of exposure
>to psychological circles that has left me feeling cold regarding the
>predictive mentality.  It really is dangerous.
>
>For example, the judge who awarded the child to her father because the
>mother "was abused as a child", despite no abusive history with the child
>whatsoever. Erroneous information about 'cycle of violence' abounds,
>exactly
>from this chimera of prediction.
>
>The real unknowns about resiliency, protective factors and the complexity
>of
>timing for development, teachable moments and response to crises that make
>people learn how to turn away from abuse remain completely unaddressed as
>we
>focus on services for a few rather than community at large.
>
>Thanks for the opportunity to vent in the same path as your comments!
>Sharry
>
>Sharry Erzinger, Dr.P.H.
>sharon.erzinger@uchsc.edu
>phone/fx 303-988-3270
>