How Childcare Providers Interpret ‘Reasonable Suspicion’ of Child Abuse

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

3 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background: Childcare providers are often “first responders” for suspected child abuse, and how they understand the concept of “reasonable suspicion” will influence their decisions regarding which warning signs warrant reporting. Objective: The purpose of this study was to investigate how childcare providers interpret the threshold for reporting suspected abuse, and to consider the implications of these findings for professional training and development. Method: A convenience sample of 355 childcare providers completed the Reasonable Suspicion of Child Abuse survey to quantify what likelihood of child abuse constitutes “reasonable suspicion.” Responses were examined for internal consistency, evidence of a group standard, and associations with professional and personal demographics. Results: On a Rank Order Scale, responses for what constitutes “reasonable suspicion” ranged from requiring that abuse be “the” most likely cause (8 %) of an injury, to the second most likely (9 %), third (18 %), fourth (18 %), to even the seventh (8 %) or eighth (5 %) most likely cause of an injury. On a numerical probability scale, 21 % of respondents indicated that “abuse” would need to be ≥83 % likely before reasonable suspicion existed; 40 % stated that a likelihood between 53–82 % was needed; 27 % identified the necessary likelihood between 33–52 %; and 12 % set a threshold between 1–32 %. Conclusions: The present finding that no consensus exists for interpreting “reasonable suspicion” suggests that a broadly accepted interpretive framework is needed in order to help prepare childcare providers to know when to report suspected abuse.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)875-891
Number of pages17
JournalChild and Youth Care Forum
Volume44
Issue number6
DOIs
StatePublished - Dec 1 2015

Fingerprint

abuse of children
abuse
cause
present
evidence
Group

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Social Sciences (miscellaneous)
  • Life-span and Life-course Studies

Cite this

@article{87b3e20853c24b1890e93dbd3da04661,
title = "How Childcare Providers Interpret ‘Reasonable Suspicion’ of Child Abuse",
abstract = "Background: Childcare providers are often “first responders” for suspected child abuse, and how they understand the concept of “reasonable suspicion” will influence their decisions regarding which warning signs warrant reporting. Objective: The purpose of this study was to investigate how childcare providers interpret the threshold for reporting suspected abuse, and to consider the implications of these findings for professional training and development. Method: A convenience sample of 355 childcare providers completed the Reasonable Suspicion of Child Abuse survey to quantify what likelihood of child abuse constitutes “reasonable suspicion.” Responses were examined for internal consistency, evidence of a group standard, and associations with professional and personal demographics. Results: On a Rank Order Scale, responses for what constitutes “reasonable suspicion” ranged from requiring that abuse be “the” most likely cause (8 {\%}) of an injury, to the second most likely (9 {\%}), third (18 {\%}), fourth (18 {\%}), to even the seventh (8 {\%}) or eighth (5 {\%}) most likely cause of an injury. On a numerical probability scale, 21 {\%} of respondents indicated that “abuse” would need to be ≥83 {\%} likely before reasonable suspicion existed; 40 {\%} stated that a likelihood between 53–82 {\%} was needed; 27 {\%} identified the necessary likelihood between 33–52 {\%}; and 12 {\%} set a threshold between 1–32 {\%}. Conclusions: The present finding that no consensus exists for interpreting “reasonable suspicion” suggests that a broadly accepted interpretive framework is needed in order to help prepare childcare providers to know when to report suspected abuse.",
author = "Benjamin Levi and Kathryn Crowell and Kerryann Walsh and Cheryl Dellasega",
year = "2015",
month = "12",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1007/s10566-015-9302-5",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "44",
pages = "875--891",
journal = "Child and Youth Care Forum",
issn = "1053-1890",
publisher = "Springer New York",
number = "6",

}

How Childcare Providers Interpret ‘Reasonable Suspicion’ of Child Abuse. / Levi, Benjamin; Crowell, Kathryn; Walsh, Kerryann; Dellasega, Cheryl.

In: Child and Youth Care Forum, Vol. 44, No. 6, 01.12.2015, p. 875-891.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - How Childcare Providers Interpret ‘Reasonable Suspicion’ of Child Abuse

AU - Levi, Benjamin

AU - Crowell, Kathryn

AU - Walsh, Kerryann

AU - Dellasega, Cheryl

PY - 2015/12/1

Y1 - 2015/12/1

N2 - Background: Childcare providers are often “first responders” for suspected child abuse, and how they understand the concept of “reasonable suspicion” will influence their decisions regarding which warning signs warrant reporting. Objective: The purpose of this study was to investigate how childcare providers interpret the threshold for reporting suspected abuse, and to consider the implications of these findings for professional training and development. Method: A convenience sample of 355 childcare providers completed the Reasonable Suspicion of Child Abuse survey to quantify what likelihood of child abuse constitutes “reasonable suspicion.” Responses were examined for internal consistency, evidence of a group standard, and associations with professional and personal demographics. Results: On a Rank Order Scale, responses for what constitutes “reasonable suspicion” ranged from requiring that abuse be “the” most likely cause (8 %) of an injury, to the second most likely (9 %), third (18 %), fourth (18 %), to even the seventh (8 %) or eighth (5 %) most likely cause of an injury. On a numerical probability scale, 21 % of respondents indicated that “abuse” would need to be ≥83 % likely before reasonable suspicion existed; 40 % stated that a likelihood between 53–82 % was needed; 27 % identified the necessary likelihood between 33–52 %; and 12 % set a threshold between 1–32 %. Conclusions: The present finding that no consensus exists for interpreting “reasonable suspicion” suggests that a broadly accepted interpretive framework is needed in order to help prepare childcare providers to know when to report suspected abuse.

AB - Background: Childcare providers are often “first responders” for suspected child abuse, and how they understand the concept of “reasonable suspicion” will influence their decisions regarding which warning signs warrant reporting. Objective: The purpose of this study was to investigate how childcare providers interpret the threshold for reporting suspected abuse, and to consider the implications of these findings for professional training and development. Method: A convenience sample of 355 childcare providers completed the Reasonable Suspicion of Child Abuse survey to quantify what likelihood of child abuse constitutes “reasonable suspicion.” Responses were examined for internal consistency, evidence of a group standard, and associations with professional and personal demographics. Results: On a Rank Order Scale, responses for what constitutes “reasonable suspicion” ranged from requiring that abuse be “the” most likely cause (8 %) of an injury, to the second most likely (9 %), third (18 %), fourth (18 %), to even the seventh (8 %) or eighth (5 %) most likely cause of an injury. On a numerical probability scale, 21 % of respondents indicated that “abuse” would need to be ≥83 % likely before reasonable suspicion existed; 40 % stated that a likelihood between 53–82 % was needed; 27 % identified the necessary likelihood between 33–52 %; and 12 % set a threshold between 1–32 %. Conclusions: The present finding that no consensus exists for interpreting “reasonable suspicion” suggests that a broadly accepted interpretive framework is needed in order to help prepare childcare providers to know when to report suspected abuse.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84944515920&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84944515920&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1007/s10566-015-9302-5

DO - 10.1007/s10566-015-9302-5

M3 - Article

VL - 44

SP - 875

EP - 891

JO - Child and Youth Care Forum

JF - Child and Youth Care Forum

SN - 1053-1890

IS - 6

ER -