RE: Evaluating Abuse Cases

["Peter M. Barach, Ph.D." <pbarach@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

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@xxxxxxxxxxx)
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@xxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:owner-CHILD-MALTREATMENT-RESEARCH-L@xxxxxxxxxxx]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@xxxxxxxxx
>