Transcript Slide 1
Social Desirability Effects on Children’s Reporting of Parental Neglect Glenda Kaufman Kantor, Ph.D. and Carolyn Mebert, Ph.D. Funded by N.I.C.H.D. Grant # RO1MD39144-01 Grant No. 2002-JW-BX-0002 (OJJDP) [email protected] 1 Challenges in Interviewing and Assessing Children Children’s terminology Language development, grammar Cultural aspects of language Reliability Age of child Distractibility Cognitive ability Response sets Recall bias Desire to please Why is it Important to assess social desirability in children? Children’s credibility regarded as questionable in their reports of maltreatment by other. How much confidence can we have in children’s reports of own maltreatment or their reports of distress (e.g., depression)? Are children’s reports confounded by social desirability, and in what way and to what extent? Are there differences in social desirability effects by age and maltreatment history (CPS involvement)? What Might Affect Children’s Willingness to Report Negative Aspects of Self or Others? Desire to please or present self in best possible way (social desirability) Need for affection, admiration, social approval Socialization to do right thing Love/Protectiveness of parent Fear of consequences to self or parent Explicit (i.e., parental warning) or perceived Samples: Development of the Multidimensional Neglect Scale for Child Self-Report Glenda Kaufman Kantor & Murray Straus, Family Research Lab; Carolyn Mebert, UNH, Wendy Brown, FRL, Crystal Macallum & Todd Flannery, Westat Methods Eligibility • Clinical Sample Inclusionary Criteria- 6-15 yrs old • Lived in foster care < 6 months (age 6-9) • Lived in foster care < 1 year (age 10-15) • Exclusionary Criteria • Visually impaired • Hearing impaired • No spoken language ability • Non-English speaking • Formal diagnosis of mental retardation • Deemed “not interviewable” by clinician Clinical Sample • • • Spurwink Child Abuse Program Maine DHS NH DCYF Community Sample Convenience Sample of Children Children in NH Middle Schools and AfterSchool Programs Total Child Sample Characteristics Clinical Sample • • • • • • N = 287 46% 6-9 years of age 54% 10-15 yrs. of age 50% female 50% male 8% non-white Community Sample • • • • • • N = 207 63% 6-9 years of age 37% 10-15 yrs. of age 52% female 48% male 18% non-white Maltreatment Types in Clinical Sample Number & % in Group (Total N = 277) Overall Types Neglect Physical abuse Sexual abuse Emotional/Psychological abuse 187 (67.5%) 79 (28.5%) 155 (55.9%) 91 (32.9%) “Pure” Categories (Participants with only one designated abuse type) Neglect Physical abuse Sexual abuse Emotional/Psychological abuse 140 (50.5%) Multiple Abuse Types 137 (49.4%) 61 (22.0%) 4 (1.4%) 75 (27.0%) 0 (0%) Child & Parent Characteristics in Clinical Sample Children 42% in clinical sample had some emotional disorder or behavioral disorder (depression, anxiety, ADHD conduct disorder) Parents 50% Mental illness 19% Developmental Disability 45% Substance Abuse Problem 70% Domestic Violence Child Self-Reports Multidimensional Neglectful Behavior Scale (MNBS-CR) : Child Self Report Measure of Parental Neglect • • Measures cognitive, emotional, supervision, and physical neglect Includes subscales on potential areas of child endangerment: • • • • • • Exposure to parental conflict & violence Abandonment Parental Substance abuse Includes subscale on child’s general feelings or Appraisals of each domain Includes Child Self-Report Measure of Depression Includes Social Desirability Scale Reliability of MNBS-CR Full Scale Alpha Older Children =.94 Full Scale Alpha Young Children =.76 Emotional Subscale - highest alphas for both young and older children ACASI • • • • • • • Audio enhanced version of the Computer Assisted Self-Administered Interview Uses an audio system and touch screen to interview child Tutorial Scale version adapted by Age and Gender of the Child and Gender of the Primary Caretaker Interactive program Older Children can take Independently Computer Game Break Emotional Neglect Sample Item Which girl is most like you? This girl’s father doesn’t make her feel better when she is sad or scared This girl’s father makes her feel better when she is sad or scared Emotional Neglect Sample Item Cont. Is this… A little Sort of A lot Really a lot like you like you like you like you Exposure to Violence Item Which boy is most like you? This boy sees the grown-ups in the house hitting each other This boy does not see the grown-ups in the house hitting each other Exposure to Violence Item Which girl is most like you? This girl hears grown-ups in the house fighting This girl does not hear grown-ups in the house fighting Exposure to Violence Item Which boy is most like you? This boy’s mother does not let other people in the house hurt him This boy’s mother lets other people in the house hurt him Depression Scale Based on Mood/affect subscale of Depression Profile for Children (Harter & Nowakowski, 1987) 6 item scale Alpha=.87 (Clinical Sample) Depression Sample Item Which girl is most like you? Some girls are unhappy a lot of the time Other girls are pretty happy a lot of the time Depression Scale Items Some boys/girls are unhappy a lot of the time [like the blue boy/girl]. Some boys/girls are often sad about things in their life. Some boys/girls feel kind of “down” and depressed a lot of the time. Some boys/girls often feel sad about a lot of the things that happen to them. Some boys/girls don’t feel happy very often. Some boys/girls feel sad about how their life is going. Social Desirability Scale Modified version of Crandall’s Social Desirability Scale Reduced number of items Modified wording Changed response options Social Desirability Scale I always say please and thank you to grown-ups. Sometimes I don’t feel like doing what my teachers want me to do. Sometimes I feel like throwing things or breaking them. I never talk back to my parents. When I do something wrong, I always say I am sorry. I sometimes feel like making fun of someone. I always wash my hands before eating. I sometimes feel angry when I don’t get my way. Sometimes I argue with my parent to do something she doesn’t want me to do. I always do what my parent tells me to do. Descriptives & Reliability of Modified Crandall Social Desirability Scale Reliability Computed for Total Sample (n=136) Potential range of scores: 1-10 Total Sample Mean= 6.38 Alpha =.64 RESULTS % Younger Children (6-9 yrs.) Responding Positive for Social Desirability by Sample Clinical (n=14) Cmty. (n=49) Signif. 79% 43% 98% 51% p<.05 Sometimes I feel like throwing things or breaking them. 86% 78% I never talk back to my parents. 50% 86% 49% 94% 100% 93% 80% 63% 79% 79% 48% 67% 79% 82% I always say please and thank you to grown-ups. Sometimes I don’t feel like doing what my teachers want me to do. When I do something wrong, I always say I am sorry. I sometimes feel like making fun of someone. I always wash my hands before eating. I sometimes feel angry when I don’t get my way. Sometimes I argue with my parent to do something she doesn’t want me to do. I always do what my parent tells me to do. p <.10 P <.05 P <.05 % Older Children (10-15 yrs.) Responding Positive for Social Desirability by Sample Clinical (n=34) Cmty. (n=44) 94% 35% 84% 55% Sometimes I feel like throwing things or breaking them. 44% 66% p <.05 I never talk back to my parents. 39% 70% 41% 91% P <.05 65% 76% 55% 75% 24% 49% 21% 44% 39% 52% I always say please and thank you to grown-ups. Sometimes I don’t feel like doing what my teachers want me to do. When I do something wrong, I always say I am sorry. I sometimes feel like making fun of someone. I always wash my hands before eating. I sometimes feel angry when I don’t get my way. Sometimes I argue with my parent to do something she doesn’t want me to do. I always do what my parent tells me to do. Signif. Mean Scores for Social Desirability by Age and Sample 8 7 Mean Value 6 5 7.71 4 7.08 5.39 3 5.86 2 1 n=14 n=48 n=31 n=43 0 Younger Older F=19.14; p<.001 Clinical Community Correlations for Young Children within Clinical Sample (n=14) No significant correlations between social desirability (SD) and presenting maltreatment type (e.g., r=-.069, ns) No significant correlation between Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test (PPVT and SD) (r=.103, ns). Overall SD decreased reporting of total neglect but no significant correlation between total MNBS & SD (r=-.306). SD decreased young child’s reports of depression and core domains of neglect Largest SD effect on child reports of exposure to violence (r= -.388, p <.10) Correlations for Older Children within Clinical Sample (n=34)* No significant correlations between social desirability (SD) and presenting maltreatment type. No significant correlation between Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test (PPVT and SD). Overall SD significantly decreased reporting of total neglect and all domains of neglect. (r=-.306). SD significantly decreased older child’s reports of depression (r= -.414). * Similar results in Community Sample Multivariate Analyses for Young Children Significant differences by sample in overall reports of total neglect and for core domains (p<.001) with SD as a covariate. Significant differences by sample in reports of depression (F=5.70, p <.001) Strongest effects of SD on Emotional Neglect Domain (F=4.429, p <. 05) Multivariate Analyses for Older Children (n=58) Significant differences by sample in overall reports of total neglect and for core domains (p<.001), substance abuse and Child reports of depression with SD as a covariate. All effects of SD on reports of Neglect Domains are significant. Conclusions Even taking social desirability into account, children in clinical samples report significantly more neglect and depression than do children in community samples. Highest rates of SD found among younger children, still reason to give credence to their reports (and those of older children) of maltreatment which are likely understated rather than overstated. Implications Need for more research, especially with young children and with more diverse populations (e.g., reasons for less SD effects among olders?). CPS and Law need to value reports of children (while being aware of tendency to downplay aversive experiences). Findings point to success of this type of methodology in engaging children and conducting interviews in manner that minimizes social confounds.