Child abuse experts disagree about the threshold for mandated reporting

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

26 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Context: Though reasonable suspicion serves as the standard threshold for when to report suspected child abuse, there is little guidance how to interpret the term. Objective: To examine how experts on child abuse interpret reasonable suspicion using 2 probability frameworks. Participants: Anonymous survey of clinical and research experts on child abuse. Main outcome measures: Responses on ordinal and visual analog scales quantifying the probability needed for "suspicion of child abuse" to rise to reasonable suspicion. Results: A total of 81 of 117 experts completed the survey (69% response rate, mean age 47 years, 69% female). On both the ordinal probability scale (rank order on a differential diagnosis) and the estimated probability scale (1% to 99% likelihood), experts demonstrated wide variability in defining reasonable suspicion, with no statistically significant differences found for age, race, gender, professional training, seniority, or prior education on reasonable suspicion. Conclusions: This study found no consensus in how experts on child abuse interpret reasonable suspicion.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)321-329
Number of pages9
JournalClinical Pediatrics
Volume50
Issue number4
DOIs
StatePublished - Apr 1 2011

Fingerprint

Child Abuse
Visual Analog Scale
Differential Diagnosis
Outcome Assessment (Health Care)
Education
Research
Surveys and Questionnaires

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Pediatrics, Perinatology, and Child Health

Cite this

@article{959104892f61460caff5bea7180b8aee,
title = "Child abuse experts disagree about the threshold for mandated reporting",
abstract = "Context: Though reasonable suspicion serves as the standard threshold for when to report suspected child abuse, there is little guidance how to interpret the term. Objective: To examine how experts on child abuse interpret reasonable suspicion using 2 probability frameworks. Participants: Anonymous survey of clinical and research experts on child abuse. Main outcome measures: Responses on ordinal and visual analog scales quantifying the probability needed for {"}suspicion of child abuse{"} to rise to reasonable suspicion. Results: A total of 81 of 117 experts completed the survey (69{\%} response rate, mean age 47 years, 69{\%} female). On both the ordinal probability scale (rank order on a differential diagnosis) and the estimated probability scale (1{\%} to 99{\%} likelihood), experts demonstrated wide variability in defining reasonable suspicion, with no statistically significant differences found for age, race, gender, professional training, seniority, or prior education on reasonable suspicion. Conclusions: This study found no consensus in how experts on child abuse interpret reasonable suspicion.",
author = "Benjamin Levi and Kathryn Crowell",
year = "2011",
month = "4",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1177/0009922810389170",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "50",
pages = "321--329",
journal = "Clinical Pediatrics",
issn = "0009-9228",
publisher = "SAGE Publications Inc.",
number = "4",

}

Child abuse experts disagree about the threshold for mandated reporting. / Levi, Benjamin; Crowell, Kathryn.

In: Clinical Pediatrics, Vol. 50, No. 4, 01.04.2011, p. 321-329.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Child abuse experts disagree about the threshold for mandated reporting

AU - Levi, Benjamin

AU - Crowell, Kathryn

PY - 2011/4/1

Y1 - 2011/4/1

N2 - Context: Though reasonable suspicion serves as the standard threshold for when to report suspected child abuse, there is little guidance how to interpret the term. Objective: To examine how experts on child abuse interpret reasonable suspicion using 2 probability frameworks. Participants: Anonymous survey of clinical and research experts on child abuse. Main outcome measures: Responses on ordinal and visual analog scales quantifying the probability needed for "suspicion of child abuse" to rise to reasonable suspicion. Results: A total of 81 of 117 experts completed the survey (69% response rate, mean age 47 years, 69% female). On both the ordinal probability scale (rank order on a differential diagnosis) and the estimated probability scale (1% to 99% likelihood), experts demonstrated wide variability in defining reasonable suspicion, with no statistically significant differences found for age, race, gender, professional training, seniority, or prior education on reasonable suspicion. Conclusions: This study found no consensus in how experts on child abuse interpret reasonable suspicion.

AB - Context: Though reasonable suspicion serves as the standard threshold for when to report suspected child abuse, there is little guidance how to interpret the term. Objective: To examine how experts on child abuse interpret reasonable suspicion using 2 probability frameworks. Participants: Anonymous survey of clinical and research experts on child abuse. Main outcome measures: Responses on ordinal and visual analog scales quantifying the probability needed for "suspicion of child abuse" to rise to reasonable suspicion. Results: A total of 81 of 117 experts completed the survey (69% response rate, mean age 47 years, 69% female). On both the ordinal probability scale (rank order on a differential diagnosis) and the estimated probability scale (1% to 99% likelihood), experts demonstrated wide variability in defining reasonable suspicion, with no statistically significant differences found for age, race, gender, professional training, seniority, or prior education on reasonable suspicion. Conclusions: This study found no consensus in how experts on child abuse interpret reasonable suspicion.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=79953097184&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=79953097184&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1177/0009922810389170

DO - 10.1177/0009922810389170

M3 - Article

VL - 50

SP - 321

EP - 329

JO - Clinical Pediatrics

JF - Clinical Pediatrics

SN - 0009-9228

IS - 4

ER -