 

&

 

  

 

 

THESIS om

lmmlllllll

“IE

llllllll'llllmlllﬂllll

0180171

 

LIBRARY
Michigan State
University

 

 

 

This is to certify that the

thesis entitled

THE HOME ENVIRONMENT AND INTELLECTUAL
FUNCTIONING IN YOUNG CHILDREN WHO EXPERIENCE
DOMESTIC VIOLENCE

presented by

Alissa Christine Huth-Bocks

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

M. . ' '
A degree in Clinical Psychology

 

Mm)

M or professor

11-20-98
Date

0-7639 MS U is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution

PLACE IN RETURN Box to remove this checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECAILED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE

DATE DUE

DATE DUE

 

j 922

SEP 1 3 2000
.l‘ U

 

2395i 3‘! it 2:73;
MI'LYZ 28% 2ot3

 

APR 9 4) grid;
OCT; 9 209g

 

i o A gm

LIN“

19'

13218

7
o
:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

THE HOME ENVIRONMENT AND INTELLECTUAL FUNCTIONING IN
YOUNG CHILDREN WHO EXPERIENCE DOMESTIC VIOLENCE

By

Alissa Christine Huth-Bocks

A THESIS
Submitted to
Michigan State University

in partial fulﬁllment of the requirements
for the degree of

MASTER OF ARTS
Department of Psychology

1998

ABSTRACT

THE HOME ENVIRONMENT AND INTELLECTUAL F UNCTIONING IN
YOUNG CHILDREN WHO EXPERIENCE DOMESTIC VIOLENCE

By

Alissa Christine Huth—Bocks

Research has shown that young children who witness domestic violence develop
numerous socio-emotional problems; however, very little is known about the possible
effects on their intellectual functioning. This study examined both the direct and indirect
effects of experiencing domestic violence, deﬁned as male-to-female abuse, on
preschoolers’ intellectual functioning. It was hypothesized that direct exposure to
domestic violence would be related to lower levels of intellectual functioning, and that
children who were exposed to domestic violence and were abused by a parent would have
more problems in intellectual functioning than children exposed to only one of these
types of family violence. In addition to this direct pathway, it was hypothesized that the
intellectual quality of the home environment would mediate the relationship between
domestic violence and preschoolers’ intellectual development. Domestic violence was
also expected to have an indirect relationship to intellectual abilities through maternal
depression. One hundred mothers and their 3 to 5 year-old children participated in the
study. Results revealed that there was no direct relationship between domestic violence
and preschoolers’ intellectual functioning. However, domestic violence was indirectly
related to children’s intellectual functioning through mothers’ level of depression and the

quality of the home environment.

Dedicated to the women and children who shared their experiences and taught me so

much, and to my husband, Martin, for his love and support from the very beginning.

iii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would ﬁrst like to thank my advisor and mentor, Alytia Levendosky, who made

this project possible and who provided continued guidance and support. She has
challenged me to do my best work and helped me in both my educational and personal

growth. Most importantly perhaps, she has been a wonderful role model for me. Thank

you for helping me succeed and for sharing in the celebration of these successes.

I would also like to thank my two other committee members, Bob Caldwell and

Gary Stollak, for their valuable feedback and input from the beginning ideas to the ﬁnal

product. They both provided me with new perspectives to broaden my own view, as well

as important, practical assistance.
In addition, I am grateful for Michael Semel, my project partner and close friend,

and for all of our dedicated research assistants. I could not have done this without the

daily collaboration and support ﬁom Michael. Our hard-working research assistants

spent endless hours recruiting subjects, interviewing families, and entering data for this

project. Their work was invaluable, and it was a pleasure working with them.

Last, but certainly not least, I would like to thank my mother, my father, and my

sister, for their continued support and encouragement through all stages of this paper.

There were many times when I truly needed it, and I could always count on them. Thank

you for always asking about this. I appreciate it more than you know.

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

List of Tables ....................................................................................... vii

List of Figures ....................................................................................... viii
Introduction .......................................................................................... 1
Domestic Violence and Preschoolers’ Socio-Emotional Development ..................... 3
Limitations of the Literature on Domestic Violence and Children’s DeveIOpment ....... 9
Issues of Deﬁnition ........................................................................ 9
Sample Selection ......................................................................... 10
Lack of Mediating and Moderating Variables ........................................ ll
Outcome Measures ....................................................................... 11
Domestic Violence and Children’s Intellectual Development .............................. 12
Child Abuse and Children’s Intellectual Development ....................................... 15
Importance of the Early Home Environment for Intellectual Development ............... 23
Normal Populations ...................................................................... 23

Hi gh-Risk Populations ................................................................... 27
Implications for Children Who Witness Domestic Violence ................................ 31
The Home Environment of Children Who Experience Domestic Violence. . ....3l
Hypotheses of the Present Study ................................................................ 35
Method ............................................................................................. 39
Participants ............................................................................... 39
Procedures ................................................................................ 42
Materials .................................................................................. 43
Results ............................................................................................. 54
Direct Exposure to Family Violence and Intellectual Functioning ............... S4
Indirect Effects of Domestic Violence on Intellectual Functioning ............... 56
Discussion ......................................................................................... 64
Limitations of the Present Study ...................................................... 75
Implications of the Present Study ...................................................... 79
Conclusions .............................................................................. 84

Appendices ........................................................................................ 89

Appendix A: Consent For Mother and Child ........................................ 89
Appendix B: Fliers ...................................................................... 91
Appendix C: Demographic Questionnaire ........................................... 93
Appendix D: Severity of Violence Against Women Scales ........................ 97
Appendix E: Conﬂict Tactics Scale ................................................... 99
Appendix F: Beck Depression Inventory ........................................... 101
Appendix G: Home Observation for Measurement of the Environment ....... 104
References ....................................................................................... 1 16

vi

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Demographic Information on Study Participants ................................. 41

Table 2. Hierarchical Regression Analysis For Domestic Violence and Home
Environment as Predictors of Intellectual Functioning ........................... 58

Table 3. Intercorrelations Between Home Subscales and Intellectual Functioning. . ..60

Table 4. Hierarchical Regression Analysis For Domestic Violence and Maternal
Depression as Predictors of Home Environment .................................. 62

Table 5. Hierarchical Regression Analysis For Maternal Depression and Home
Environment as Predictors of Intellectual Functioning ........................... 63

vii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Model of Domestic Violence and Children’s Intellectual Functioning ......... 113

Figure 2. Path Analysis for Domestic Violence and Children’s Intellectual
Functioning ................................................................................ 1 14

viii

INTRODUCTION

In its most general sense, the term “ domestic violence” includes violence
between spouses, siblings, parent-child violence, and violence against elderly relatives.
However, most studies, including the present one, use the term to refer speciﬁcally to
woman abuse. Domestic violence can range from acts of coercion and control to physical
and sexual abuse and currently occurs at a staggering rate. For example, Browne (1993)
reported between 21% and 34% of women in this country will be physically attacked by
an intimate partner. Furthermore, more than 50% of all women murdered during the ﬁrst
half of the 19803 were murdered by their partners (Browne & Williams, 1989). Battering
of women also occurs across all racial and ethnic groups, educational levels, and religious
afﬁliations (Walker, 1994).

Research has found that many battered women are mothers, suggesting there are
large numbers of children who witness domestic violence (Walker, 1979). Indeed,
approximately 3.3 million children are at risk for witnessing violence against their
mothers (Carlson, 1984). Up until recently, research has focused on the detrimental
effects to the abused women, giving little attention to the possible effects on the child
witnesses. Further, the small body of literature on child witnesses has focused almost
exclusively on socio-emotional outcomes, virtually ignoring the possible effects of
domestic violence on intellectual and cognitive functioning. This is surprising since
intellectual development and academic success have been shown to be important
protective factors, as well as risk factors, for other areas of functioning (e.g., Luthar &

Zigler, 1991).

The existing research has also been largely descriptive in nature, telling little
about the processes through which witnessing domestic violence affects children’s
development. It is crucial to assess these complex pathways, particularly the ones that
promote effective adaptation in children living with ongoing stressﬁil life circumstances,
for the success of any prevention or intervention program. Finally, surprisingly little
attention has been given to preschoolers compared to school-age children, despite the fact
that preschoolers may be at a greater risk because of a number of developmental
limitations (Hughes, 1988), including limited emotional repertoires, coping options, and
cognitive abilities, greater dependence on supportive adults, and less experience with
mastering stressful events.

The present study will address various limitations of the current literature while
examining several variables that have not yet been investigated in preschool-age children
who have experienced domestic violence. This study will examine the quality of the
home environment, including aspects such as the amount and variety of intellectual
stimulation, as a possible mediator between experiencing domestic violence and
children’s intellectual functioning. The few existing studies that have addressed
mediators between domestic violence and children’s adjustment have examined a narrow
range of variables, mostly attributes of the mother such as maternal stress or maternal
psychological health. Although maternal attributes and child characteristics are important
for intervention purposes, this study seeks to examine broader family factors since
domestic violence is presumably not an isolated event and the early family environment
is so crucial to the well-being of young children. Because child abuse is present in about
35% to 70% of all homes characterized by domestic violence (Jouriles & Norwood, 1995;

O’Keefe, 1995), this study will also examine the differential impact between being

directly exposed to domestic violence and both being exposed to domestic violence and
being a direct victim of parental aggression. In order to be consistent with existing
literature, the term “witnessing violence” throughout this paper will include both direct
witnessing and witnessing the aftermath of the violence, i.e., bruises or marks on the
mother. It is hoped that this study will contribute to a greater understanding of how
domestic violence affects children’s development so that effective prevention programs

may be developed.

Domestic Violence and Preschoolers’ Socio-Emotional Development

As mentioned above, most of the existing research on children who have
witnessed domestic violence has examined the socio-emotional adjustment of school-age
children. These studies indicate that school—age witnesses show more internalizing and
externalizing problems, more depression, and greater posttraumatic stress symptoms
compared to non—witnesses according to maternal report (Graham-Bermann &
Levendosky, 1997; Jouriles, Murphy, & O’Leary, 1989; Rossman et al., 1993;
Spaccarelli, Sandler, & Roosa, 1994; Stemberg et al., 1993). They also appear to have
greater social problems (Dawud et al., 1991) and more aggressive biases in their
cognitions, i.e., more expectations of aggression (Rossman et al., 1995). Much less is
known about the effects of domestic violence on preschoolers due to a lack of research in
this area. Assuming the effects on preschoolers are the same as the effects on school-age
children is erroneous, since these two groups of children show considerable differences.
For example, important developmental issues for preschoolers might be a developing
sense of trust and order in the world, a sense of mastery, and a foundation for intellectual

strivings. School achievement and a more complex level of social relationships may be

more central to school-age children. Preschoolers also have different cognitive
limitations than older children which impact how stressﬁrl events are perceived and
mastered. These developmental differences may cause unique problems and
manifestations of distress for the two age groups, as well as distinct consequences for
future development. Because the current study is interested in a greater understanding of
the impact of domestic violence on preschoolers speciﬁcally, only studies that have
included preschool-age children will be reviewed in detail here.

Most studies with preschoolers have been descriptive in nature, that is, they have
compared child witnesses of domestic violence to a comparison group and reported the
between group differences. For example, Hinchey and Gavelek (1982) examined the
ability to empathize in 32 preschoolers between the ages of 4 and 5 who had witnessed
domestic violence and were staying in a shelter for battered women. They found that
child witnesses performed signiﬁcantly worse than non-witnesses on three out of four
empathy measures, suggesting that witnessing violence between parents negatively
impacted their ability to understand another person’s point of view or feelings. Further,
these researchers found that girls from violent homes performed more poorly on a role-
taking task than boys from violent homes, suggesting that witnessing domestic violence
may impact boys and girls differently starting at an early age.

Hughes and colleagues have produced a number of reports on the effects of
domestic violence in preschool-age children. In one study (Hughes & Barad, 1983), these
researchers looked at a number of behavior problems and the self-concept of preschoolers
(N=18) who were staying in a battered women’s shelter. Although there were no sex
differences among preschoolers, preschoolers showed more problems than school-age

children staying at the same shelter, suggesting that they may be more vulnerable to the

effects of witnessing domestic violence. Preschoolers also reported having self-esteem
levels well below average, i.e., roughly 1.5 standard deviations below a comparison
group from the same county. In a later study, Hughes ( 1988) found that young children
who were both abused themselves and witnesses to their mother’s abuse (N==55) showed
signiﬁcantly higher total behavior problems than children who were only witnesses
(N=40) and children ﬁom non-violent homes (N=83). Abused witnesses also scored
signiﬁcantly higher on a behavior problem intensity score than control children. These
ﬁndings support Hughes’ notion of a “double whammy” effect. That is, both witnessing
parental abuse and being the direct victim of abuse increases the likelihood of emotional
problems because there are more stressors with which the child needs to face. This
notion may also help explain why preschoolers appear to be more vulnerable than school-
age children since they may have fewer resources with which to cope.

Hughes, Parkinson, and Vargo (1989) later found that a group of 12 abused
witnesses showed more internalizing and externalizing problems according to maternal
report than 23 children from non-violent homes, but non-abused witnesses (N=24) did not
signiﬁcantly differ from either group. On total behavior problems, abused witnesses
scored higher than witnesses who scored higher than control children. A similar study
found that abused witnesses were higher on internalizing and externalizing behavior
problems and lower on social competence than non-abused witnesses, again suggesting
that the “ double whammy” of both witnessing violence and being abused has an even
more profound effect on children than only witnessing violence (Davis & Carlson, 1987).

Interestingly, additional analyses revealed that preschool boys were doing signiﬁcantly
worse than school-age boys, while preschool girls were doing signiﬁcantly better than

school-age girls. These results are consistent with some researchers’ assertions that girls

may be affected by discordant homes just as boys are, but the negative effects may take
longer to show up in girls (Jaffe, Wolfe, Wilson, & Zak, 1985; Spaccarelli et al., 1994).

Another study compared children between the ages of 4-16 who had been abused
(N218) to witnesses (N=32) and to 15 control children (J affe, Wolfe, Wilson, & Zak;
1986). They reported that abused children scored higher than witnesses who scored
higher than control children on externalizing behavior reported by mothers. Abused
children and witnesses scored higher than controls on internalizing problems, but did not
differ from each other. There were no group differences on social competence. These
results must be interpreted cautiously, however, since the authors did not assess spouse
abuse in the child abuse group nor did they assess child abuse in the witness group. Like
several of the other studies reviewed here (Hughes, 1988; Hughes et al., 1989; Davis &
Carlson, 1987), preschoolers were grouped with school-age children, rendering findings
less conclusive due to the heterogeneous nature of the group. That is, samples with such
wide age ranges make it more difﬁcult to draw conclusions about the effects of domestic
violence on preschoolers speciﬁcally.

Finally, Rossman et a1. (1993) examined a number of outcome measures in
preschoolers who had witnessed domestic violence. Contrary to other findings,
preschool-age witnesses did not display more externalizing behavior problems nor did
they have lower social competence scores than non-witness controls. Preschoolers also
appeared to be doing signiﬁcantly better than older children. In several other analyses,
preschoolers were grouped with older children to form a group of 4 to 9 year-old
witnesses (N=23). According to mothers, this group had more internalizing behavior
problems, more dissociative symptoms, and more posttraumatic stress symptoms

compared to non-witness controls (N=42) and abused witnesses (N=15). However, it is

unclear whether this would be true of preschoolers speciﬁcally or whether these effects
were due to the inclusion of older children. The authors explained the surprisingly low
scores of abused witnesses by suggesting that abused children may suppress some
behaviors (i.e., yelling or arguing) to avoid further abuse, thus appearing to have less
problems.

Only a handful of studies have examined possible mediators between domestic
violence and preschoolers’ adj ustrnent. Based on the understanding that parenting and
maternal psychological health is crucial to children’s adjustment, Graham-Bermann and
Levendosky (1998) found that mothers’ self-esteem, depression, and experience of
emotional abuse mediated preschoolers’ outcome. Speciﬁcally, mothers’ self-esteem was
the greatest predictor of children’s internalizing problems, mothers’ self-esteem and
frequency of emotional abuse were the greatest predictors of child externalizing
problems, and mothers’ emotional abuse and depression predicted negative emotional
expression and regulation in the children (i.e., inappropriate responses to events,
expressions of sadness, worry, and frustration). Similarly, Rossman et al. (1993) found
that maternal distress and maternal comfort toward the child mediated the impact of
witnessing violence on children’s trauma symptoms. They also reported that the
frequency of violent events and the amount of help available at the scene of the event
moderated children’s trauma symptoms.

Holden and Ritchie (1991) examined a number of parenting characteristics as
mediators between domestic violence and young children’s adjustment by suggesting that
domestic violence can affect parenting in three ways: a) it can raise matemal stress, which
renders mothers less emotionally available to their children, b) negative marital

interactions may “ spill over” into parent-child interactions, and c) it can increase

inconsistent parenting due to disagreements over child-rearing practices and changes in
parenting by one spouse when the other is present. They found that mothers in violent
homes had more parenting stress, were less consistent, and less attentive to their children
than comparison mothers. According to maternal report, fathers in violent homes were
more irritable, less affectionate, and participated less with their children’s activities than
comparison fathers. Further, both maternal stress and paternal irritability mediated the
effects of domestic violence on children’s behavior problems. Surprisingly, this study
found that preschoolers had less behavior problems and better social skills than school-
age children. Although this study assessed the prevalence of child abuse among the
sample (about half experienced abuse), the researchers did not examine the differences
between the witness group and the abused witness group.

Finally, Wolfe and colleagues examined maternal stress and adjustment as
possible mediators of preschoolers’ adj ustrnent. They found that maternal stress
accounted for 18% to 21% of children’s behavior problems (Wolfe, Jaffe, Wilson, & Zak,
1985). These researchers also reported that violent homes were characterized by a host of
negative factors such as frequent moves and separations. The authors asserted that at this
point, no direct causal link can be established between domestic violence and children’s
problems because the mechanisms through which violence impacts children are poorly
understood, and there are probably many associated variables that have not yet been

explored. As in other studies, this one grouped preschoolers with older children making
the results less conclusive about the pathways through which domestic violence affects
preschoolers speciﬁcally. However, there is general agreement among studies that

parenting, maternal stress, and maternal psychological functioning are several important

factors that may mediate the negative effects of domestic violence on preschool-age

witnesses.

Limitations of the Literature on Domestic Violence and Children’s Development

The existing literature on the impact of domestic violence on preschoolers’ socio-
emotional functioning is somewhat mixed and often confusing. Some studies found that
witnesses were doing no worse than non-witness controls, while others found that
witnesses adjusted much worse than control children. Some found that being a victim of
abuse as well as witnessing parental abuse contributed to poor adjustment in certain areas
of functioning above and beyond the effects of witnessing violence, while others did not.
Some studies found that girls adjusted better than boys, others found boys’ adjustment
was better than girls’, and some found no gender differences in adjustment. Similarly,
some studies showed that preschoolers fared worse than school-age children, while others
reported the reverse. There are a number of methodological shortcomings of the
literature that contribute to these inconsistent results and hinder our understanding of the
effects of domestic violence on young children.
Issues of Deﬁnition

Most studies have not provided a comprehensive, well-deﬁned description of the
type of violence children are exposed to, including the frequency, severity, duration, and
recency of exposure. Further, researchers rarely specify whether children actually
witness the violent event or whether they “ witness” the negative aftereffects such as
marks on the mother, disruption in the home, relocation into a shelter, etc...

Some researchers also argue that assessing domestic violence as a dichotomous

variable, which virtually all studies have done, may not be as helpful or sensitive as

assessing violence along a continuum (Jouriles et al., 1989). Further, almost all
researchers deﬁne domestic violence as physical violence between adult partners,
neglecting important dimensions such as verbal and sexual abuse.
new

The vast majority of studies have included small sample sizes, i.e., seven
preschoolers in an abused group and four preschoolers in the witness group (Hughes et
al., 1989), making it difﬁcult to interpret ﬁndings. Many do not include an adequate
comparison sample, i.e., just correlating variables within a sample of children from
violent homes. Those that do include a comparison sample often fail to control for a
number of confounding variables such as child abuse (which occurs around 50% of the
time in these families), socioeconomic status (SES), verbal or psychological abuse, and
stability of the home environment. A few studies included only male children, and
several included children with a wide range of ages, i.e., 4 to 16 years old (Jaffe et al.,
1986). This group is too heterogeneous and includes children with different emotional,
cognitive, and social developmental levels. Support for the separation of preschoolers
from school-age children comes from several studies which have shown that the effects of
domestic violence do indeed differ between these two age groups (i.e., Hughes, 1988).

The majority of studies have obtained their samples from mothers and children
residing in battered women’s shelters, a sample which is probably not representative of
the population of battered women and child witnesses. It is possible that this group
represents a more severe group due to being in an acute crisis state and to the additional
stressor of relocating temporarily into a shelter. Fantuzzo et al. (1991) attempted to
understand the effects of shelter residence versus home residence on preschool witnesses.

They found that shelter residents reported greater internalizing problems and lower social

10

competency than children at home after controlling for verbal and physical abuse. Also,
the shelter group was characterized by a lower level of maternal acceptance.
Unfortunately, there are virtually no data on participants’ pre- and post-shelter functioning.

Lack of Mediating and Moderating Variables

Too often, investigators try to draw direct links between witnessing violence and
speciﬁc child behaviors. Even when connections are made, it is still unclear through
what processes or mechanisms children are being affected. Although some researchers
have begun to look at some moderating variables such as age and gender, almost all have
ignored possible mediating variables. Those that have addressed possible mediators have
focused almost solely on maternal attributes, despite the fact that domestic violence
disrupts the entire family functioning. As can be seen in various studies, many children
adjust rather poorly to being exposed to family violence. However, many children are
able to adjust at comparable levels to “normal” children and may be considered
“resilient.” Thus, there appears to be various unknown variables that undermine some
children’s adjustment making them more vulnerable to the stress of living in a violent
home, as well as protective factors that serve to buffer or lessen the effects of a violent
home in other children. Identifying these variables can help researchers and clinicians
develop effective intervention programs, as well as help clarify the nature of this complex
problem.

Outcome measures

Although most studies reviewed used standardized measures to assess children’s
adjustment, the current literature on domestic violence has focused almost exclusively on
socio-emotional measures of children’s health. A large gap in the literature on child

witnesses to domestic violence, including both preschool-age and school-age children,

11

has been the effects that this type of family violence has on children’s intellectual and
cognitive functioning. This is surprising since intellectual deﬁcits have been found in
other high—risk child populations and because this area of functioning appears to be
important for a number of other domains of adj ustrnent. The current study will address
this gap by examining the intellectual functioning of preschoolers who experience
domestic violence, as well as improve upon a number of other limitations in the existing
literature. The handful of studies that have empirically examined the intellectual

functioning of children who have witnessed domestic violence will be reviewed next.

Domestic Violence and Children’s Intellectual Development

The few studies that have looked at the impact of domestic violence on children’s
intellectual functioning have found evidence of deﬁcits and delays. Westra and Martin
(1981) compared the intellectual functioning using the McCarthy Scales of Children’s
Abilities (McCarthy, 1972) in 2 to 8 year-old children who had witnessed domestic
violence (N=20) to normative scores from the general population. They found that child
witnesses scored signiﬁcantly lower than normative children on the verbal, quantitative,
motor, and overall cognitive ability scores after controlling for low SES. Unfortunately,
the study was limited by the wide age range of the sample for reasons already mentioned.
It would have been interesting to know how preschool-age witnesses compared to school-
age witnesses. This study also neglected to control for child abuse and only included
children from a battered women’s shelter. Although these authors did not empirically test
any mediating variables, they suggested that these delays were due to the more pervasive,
pathological family environment in which family violence takes place. They reported

that there was evidence of decreased stimulation for the child and less attention given to

12

the child, which may have mediated the impact of domestic violence on the children’s
development.

Another study found that child witnesses (N=38; ages 4 to 9) had signiﬁcantly
lower scores on receptive language, measured by the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test
(PPVT; Dunn, 1965), than a control group of children (Rossman et al., 1993). This
control group included 42 families experiencing recent stressful, nonviolent events who
had similar SES backgrounds to the domestic violence group, suggesting that the low
scores may not simply be a function of a stressful home environment. These authors also
compared child witnesses to children who both witnessed domestic violence and had been
victims of parental violence and found that the two groups did not signiﬁcantly differ
from one another on intellectual functioning. This indicates that experiencing violence
directly may not negatively impact children’s intellectual functioning above and beyond
witnessing violence, although other authors (e. g., Hughes, 1988) have shown that
experiencing both types of violence may be related to even greater emotional problems
than witnessing alone.

Two other studies have addressed the impact of witnessing violence on school-age
children’s intellectual development. Mathias, Martin, and Murray (1995) found that
approximately 50% of children who had witnessed domestic violence and who had been
out of a violent home for at least one and a half years (N=79) had signiﬁcant deﬁcits (at
least 1 year behind) in reading abilities, both in reading accuracy and reading
comprehension, according to the Neale Analysis of Reading Ability-Revised (Neale,
1988). Furthermore, there were no gender differences in reading abilities nor were there
any differences between witnesses and abused witnesses (approximately 65% of

witnesses had experienced abuse). Unfortunately, this study did not compare the witness

l3

groups to a control group to determine whether witnesses had signiﬁcantly lower reading
scores than control children, although one would suspect this to be true. Unlike other
studies, this report suggests that negative effects on intellectual functioning may be long
lasting for children exposed to domestic violence.

In the second study, Moore and Pepler (1998) compared child witnesses staying in
a battered women’s shelter (N=1 13) to children in a homeless shelter (N=82), children
from one—parent families (N=82), and children from two-parent families (N=IOO) on
reading and math scores using the Revised Wide Range Achievement Test (WRAT-R;
Jastak & Wilkinson, 1984) and on a subscale of the WISC-R (Wechsler, 1974) that
measures attention and short-term memory (Digit Span). The authors found that child
witnesses did not score signiﬁcantly below children from one-parent families on reading
scores, but both of these groups scored signiﬁcantly below children from two-parent
homes after controlling for maternal education. Homeless children had the lowest
reading scores. The math scores of child witnesses did not signiﬁcantly differ from any
of the other groups. The witnesses and the homeless children had signiﬁcantly lower
Digit Span scores than the other two groups, but did not differ from each other. Children
in the comparison groups had not witnessed domestic violence in the last 12 months,
suggesting that more than violence per se may be involved in negatively affecting
children’s intellectual abilities. The authors suggested that depressed scores among child
witnesses, homeless children, and children from one-parent families may be due to some
shared family risk factors, although they did not empirically examine any such familial
factor.

Unfortunately, this is the extent to which researchers have addressed the impact of

witnessing domestic violence on children’s intellectual performance. As is true for

14

studies addressing the socio-emotional adjustment of child witnesses, these studies
included relatively small sample sizes and varying types of comparison groups.
Furthermore, each study used different outcome measures, making it difﬁcult to compare
results across studies. Only two existing studies included preschoolers, and even those
combined preschoolers with older children, leaving virtually nothing known about the
relationship between domestic violence and preschoolers’ intellectual and cognitive
development. In addition, none of the studies addressing intellectual behaviors
empirically accounted for possible mediating variables. Therefore, it is unclear through

what mechanisms or processes domestic violence might impact this area of functioning.

Child Abuse and Children’s Intellectual Development

Because there is a signiﬁcant co-occurrence between witnessing domestic
violence and being directly abused by a parent and because these two groups of children
both grow up in a violent home, the relationship between child abuse and intellectual
development will be reviewed. Examining the child abuse literature, which is more
extensive than the domestic violence literature, may provide a greater understanding of
the impact that witnessing domestic violence might have on children’s intellectual and
cognitive development. Once again, only studies that included young children will be
reviewed here.

In one of the ﬁrst longitudinal studies with abused children, Elmer (1977)
followedoup 17 abused infants and 17 nonabused, but hospitalized, infants 8 years later
and tested them on a variety of outcome measures. She found that there were no
differences in language abilities or (psychologist) ratings of academic achievement when

the children were 8 years of age, although both groups displayed relatively severe deﬁcits

15

in this domain compared to normative scores. Because both groups were matched for
low SES, she concluded that intellectual deﬁcits were more inﬂuenced by social class
than by abuse. However, this author did not control for a number of potentially
confounding variables, including violence within the family. She noted that many
parents in the comparison group reported severe violent episodes such as a father
breaking a mother’s arm. These violent episodes could certainly be a possible reason for
the lack of between-group differences, rather than social class.

Unlike the conclusions drawn by Elmer (1977), Perry, Doran, and Wells ( 1983)
found signiﬁcant differences between a group of physically abused children and a group
of nonabused children on measures of intellectual functioning. The abused children

=21; thirteen children younger than 5 years and eight children older than 5 years)
scored signiﬁcantly lower on a measure of verbal comprehension than the control group,
with 50% of the abused group scoring lower than one standard deviation from the mean
and 6% scoring below two standard deviations, compared to 22% and 0% respectively.
The abused group also showed more deﬁcits in language abilities and academic success,
indicating that abused children’s problems can be pervasive. These two groups were
matched on demographic variables including SES and maternal education was controlled
for, leading the authors to conclude that differences in intellectual functioning may not be
simply a function of class.

A number of studies have looked at more narrow age ranges of children, lending
greater clariﬁcation to the effects at different developmental stages. One study compared
test results from a number of measures including the Stanford-Binet (Terrnan & Merrill,
1960) and the PPVT between preschoolers who had experienced different types of

maltreatment and preschoolers with no history of maltreatment (Hoffman-Plotkin &

l6

Twentyman, 1984). Scores for children who were physically abused (N=14) did not
differ statistically from children who had been neglected (N=14) on any measure, but
both of these groups had signiﬁcantly lower scores than nonmaltreated children (N=14)
on all measures. These authors noted no explanation for their ﬁndings, but did report that
abused children were rated by trained observers as more aggressive, while neglected
children were rated as more withdrawn. It is possible that these two ways of behaving
may illustrate different paths to the same outcome. Interestingly, another study
conducted by these researchers found no signiﬁcant differences between abused
preschoolers, neglected preschoolers, and nonmaltreated preschoolers on the PPVT
(Rohrbeck & Twentyman, 1986), although this could be due to the small sample sizes in
each group (N=12).

Allen and Oliver (1982) also examined intellectual functioning measured by the
Preschool Language Scale (Zimmerman, Steiner, & Evatt, 1979) among different types of
maltreated preschoolers. Groups included physical abuse only, neglect only, both
physical abuse and neglect, and a nonmaltreated comparison group. The results showed
that neglect was the only signiﬁcant predictor of poor auditory comprehension and poor
verbal abilities. Further, there was no correlation between these cognitive abilities and
physical abuse or between these abilities and the interaction of abuse and neglect. These
authors concluded that deﬁcits in intellectual functioning among maltreated children may
have been due to a lack of stimulation in the environment of neglected children, rather
than abuse per se. In addition, they noted that other studies ﬁnding a relationship
between physical abuse and intellectual deﬁcits might really be seeing the hidden effect

of neglect in their subjects. This is an interesting hypothesis that other researchers have

made as well.

17

For example, Fox, Long, and Langlois (1988) studied groups of children between
the ages of 3 and 18 who had been either physically abused, severely neglected, generally
neglected (less severe), or not abused. They used several different measures of language
comprehension and found that severely neglected children were the only children that
scored signiﬁcantly lower than the control group. Average percentiles on the PPVT were
highest for nonabused control children (52.5), followed by generally neglected (40.9),
abused (28.9), and severely neglected children (23.1). Like Allen and Oliver (1982),
these authors hypothesized that environmental deprivation experienced by neglected

children results in a lack of exposure to parent-child interactions that are crucial for
learning language. Another possibility they proposed was that abused and neglected
children may learn not to respond (which inhibits learning) for fear of responding
erroneously and being severely punished. That is, maltreated children may learn that it is
adaptive to withdraw from the world and not attempt exploratory activities necessary for
adequate learning.

Yet another study examining different aspects of intellectual functioning among
maltreated preschoolers found that physically abused preschoolers scored signiﬁcantly
lower on the McCarthy scales of verbal, memory, and overall cognitive abilities than a
comparison group of 10 nonabused preschoolers attending a Head Start Program
(Friedrich, Einbender, & Luecke, 1983). No differences were observed between the
groups on reading and math scores on the Wide Range Achievement Test (WRAT).
However, the authors noted that this may be due to an insufﬁcient bottom in the WRAT

for preschoolers. This study was limited by the low number of children and the all-male
sample. However, the age range was narrow enough (3 to 5 years) to be relatively certain

that developmental variables were not confounding the results. These results also support

18

other ﬁndings that the deﬁcits seen in abused children may be found in multiple areas of
intellectual frmctioning.

The ﬁnal study reviewed here (Erickson, Egeland, & Pianta, 1989) reﬂects the
only other longitudinal study to date besides Elmer (1977). This study used a
deveIOpmental perspective, emphasizing that consequences of early maltreatment
probably manifest differently at different deve10pmental periods. The researchers
identiﬁed mothers at risk for caretaking problems during their last trimester of pregnancy,
and assessments were conducted at frequent intervals from then through the late
preschool years of their children. In addition to a control group, four maltreatment
groups were identiﬁed: physically abusive (N=24), sexually abusive (N=11),
psychologically unavailable (N=19), and physically neglectful (N=24). Beginning when
the children were 4 1/2 years of age, they were observed extensively in their preschools
and were administered several subtests from the Wechsler Preschool and Primary Scale
of Intelligence (WPPSI; Wechsler, 1967). Results indicated that physically abused
preschoolers performed signiﬁcantly worse than control children on three of the four
WPPSI subtests (Block Design, Vocabulary, and Comprehension), neglected children had
lower scores on the Vocabulary, Comprehension, and Animal House subtests, and the
psychologically unavailable group and sexually abused group scored lower on Block
Design compared to control children. Furthermore, children who were abused at younger
ages had lower WPPSI scores than children abused at older ages. Neglected children
showed the most severe and varied problems at ages 5 and 6. The authors explained, as
other researchers have, that a major reason for these problems may lie in the history of
deprivation and lack of stimulation these children experience. Further, the effects of this

deprivation may become even more apparent as academic demands are made on the child,

19

making early interventions crucial for this population. Unlike other child abuse research,
this study used a prospective longitudinal design, greatly enhancing the inferences that
can be drawn from its results.

In summary, most of the studies to date indicate that young children suffering
from different types of maltreatment have intellectual, cognitive, and academic
impairments. Neglected children appear to be most at risk for intellectual delays, while
sexually abused children seem less at risk for these particular problems (although they
may be at risk in other areas). These deﬁcits have been found within different age groups
using a variety of measures including standardized intelligence tests, observations, school
records, and other academic test scores. Further, deﬁcits appeared in multiple areas of
intellectual functioning such as memory, attention, reading, language, and readiness to
learn. Except for Erickson et al. (1989), the literature on child abuse and preschoolers’
intellectual functioning has unfortunately also been atheoretical and descriptive. That is,
researchers report a number of differences between abused and nonabused children
without much explanation for why these deﬁcits exist. However, many researchers have
speculated that harmful qualities of the home environment in which these children grow
up may be more directly related to their intellectual deﬁcits than the abuse per se. That
is, child abuse negatively impacts the home environment in a number of ways, which in
turn disrupts the child’s intellectual development.

For example, in addition to those mentioned above, several other researchers have
pointed out that the home environment of abusive families is characterized by less time in
close proximity to children, less engagement and involvement in children’s activities, and
a gross lack of stimulation (Allen & Oliver, 1982; Azar, Barnes, & Twentyman, 1988;

Barahal, Waterman, & Martin, 1981; Eckenrode, Laird, & Doris, 1993; Fox et al., 1988).

20

This lack of stimulation is particularly evident in neglectful families, offering a better
understanding of why neglected children’s intellectual development seems to be so
profoundly affected. Crittenden (1981) reported that neglectful mothers “offered so little
stimulation and responded to so few signals that they left their infants...largely
responsible for their own stimulation” (pg. 210). Erickson et al. (1989) noted that the
neglected children in their study not only had a history of deprivation in social,
emotional, cognitive, and language development, they received overall poor quality care
and lived with chaotic and disruptive conditions. These children lacked stimulation in a
number of areas including having little contact with other children, less play materials,
and less educationally stimulating experiences. Furthermore, these effects of deprivation
became more and more apparent as academic demands were made on the child,
suggesting that many of the negative consequences stemming from a lack of stimulation
start becoming apparent around the preschool period.

Other researchers have noted that the family environment of abused children is
characterized by low levels of parent-child interactions, eSpecially positive and
synchronous ones, and an insensitivity and unresponsiveness to children’s needs.
Abusive parents tend to be more disengaged from their children and do not modify their
behavior in response to their children (Azar et al., 1988; Bousha & Twentyman, 1984).
Abusive parents have also been shown to have a negatively distorted view of their
children, often expecting more out of their children than they are capable (Houck & King,
1989). This may help explain their insensitive parenting, aversive behaviors, and lack of
interactions with their children (Azar et al., 1988), which all prevent the developmentally

important drive for effectiveness and competence (Martin, 1979).

21

Very few of these family variables have been empirically linked to preschoolers’
intellectual development, although the ﬁndings with neglected children do offer some
support for this theory. Many researchers believe that these family variables may play a
more direct role in determining childhood outcomes than individual acts of abuse because
they are more continuously present and pervasive (Azar et al., 1988; Houck & King,
1989). Further, qualities of the home environment such as those discussed here are not
the same as socioeconomic status, which has been the traditional measure of “ home
background” or “home environment.” Socioeconomic status focuses on what the
parents have, not what the parents do, and empirical evidence suggests that qualitative
aspects of the home environment may be more closely related to children’s intellectual
and academic abilities than SES (Bradley et al., 1989; Greaney, 1986).

The role of the home environment as a mediator between child abuse and
preschoolers’ intellectual functioning seems viable and believed by many investigators in
this area of research. It seems reasonable to think that similar processes may be at work
in other high-risk populations as well, such as children who witness domestic violence.
That is, domestic violence might undermine opportunities for stimulating experiences and
positive parent-child interactions, may cause a child to withdraw, and may change the
overall home environment, all of which could disrupt children’s intellectual development.
Unfortunately, researchers have just begun to look at the intellectual development of
child witnesses, and possible mechanisms have yet to be explored. In order to apply what
is known about abused children to child witnesses of domestic violence and to better
understand the possible processes involved in families experiencing domestic violence, it
is important to ﬁrst gain a more thorough understanding of the optimal environmental

conditions for intellectual development during the preschool years.

22

Importance of the Early Home Environment for Intellectual Development
Was

There is a large body of literature showing the importance of certain qualities of
the early home environment for children’s intellectual and cognitive development. For
example, Clarke-Stewart (1973) examined a number of maternal behaviors that appeared
to be “ optimal” for young children’s development using a longitudinal design. She
found that optimal care was characterized by warm, nonrej ecting, and intellectually
stimulating behaviors (visually, verbally, and tactually), which led to greater cognitive
and intellectual abilities in toddlers. The more a mother talked to an infant, exposing
him/her to language, the larger the child’s vocabulary and the faster the child learned
language. Optimal care also included general responsiveness to the child, more time
interacting and playing with the child, making available more toys, and adaptability to the
child’s needs. These characteristics all increased the young child’s competence,
intellectual skills, and motivation.

The developmental task of active and secure exploration of the world is also
important for intellectual development. Beginning in toddlerhood and extending into the
preschool period, most children learn that it is fun to explore and manipulate the
environment, which increases their sense of control and autonomy (Sroufe & Cooper,
1988). However, certain parent-child interactions are necessary for the success of this
task. Parents need to understand a child’s current capacities, as well as participate in and
encourage the child’s strivings. It is important for children to have a secure attachment to
a caregiver as well, in order to give them the comfort to explore their capacities fully

while remembering that the caregiver is nearby. Research has found that secure

23

youngsters tend to show more self-reliance, are more enthusiastic about facing
challenges, show less frustration, and are more ﬂexible and persistent in problem-solving
(Sroufe & Cooper, 1988), all characteristics that promote intellectual abilities.

One group of researchers has been studying the long term effects of the early
home environment on children’s intellectual and cognitive abilities for decades and has
consistently demonstrated the importance of certain familial qualities (Bradley &
Caldwell, 1976; Bradley & Caldwell, 1984; Bradley et al., 1989). The home environment
was measured in all of their studies using a scale the authors constructed called the Home
Observation for the Measurement of the Environment (HOME; Caldwell & Bradley,
1984), which assesses the quality of stimulation found in the early home environment.
This instrument includes scales such as Maternal Responsivity, Organization and Safety
of the Environment, Provision of Appropriate Play Materials, and Opportunities for Daily
Stimulation, all of which are considered types of stimulation important for healthy
development.

In one of their earlier studies, Bradley and Caldwell (1976) investigated changes
in mental abilities in a group of normal infants from 6 months to 36 months (N=77), as
well as associated factors in the home environment. These authors noted that it is
important to examine such relationships in preschoolers because marked changes in
cognitive performance occur during this period and parents have their greatest impact on
mental development during these years. The results indicated that infants who showed
improvement on mental/cognitive abilities from 6 to 36 months had environments that
encouraged and challenged the child to develop skills, were organized, had a high level of

maternal involvement, and had a variety of play materials.

24

In a later study, these authors followed-up the same children when they were in
ﬁrst grade to see how the early home environment affected academic performance years
later (Bradley & Caldwell, 1984). At this time, they found that speciﬁc environmental
factors during infancy predicted achievement, while other factors were no longer related
to achievement. More speciﬁcally, organization of the home was positively correlated
with ﬁrst grade reading scores, availability of play materials was related to better reading,
language, and math scores, and a variety of stimulating experiences was related to better
language scores. Infant maternal involvement was less important for ﬁrst grade
achievement than for 3 year-old intelligence. When the 24-month HOME scores were
correlated with ﬁrst grade scores, there were even more signiﬁcant correlations. Maternal
acceptance, available toys, maternal involvement, and variety of stimulating experiences
were related to all three areas of achievement. Availability of appropriate toys was
consistently the best predictor of later school achievement. Based on Piagetian theory,
these researchers reasoned that children need concrete learning experiences during the
early sensorimotor and preOperational levels of thinking to develop adequately. Toys and
stimulating materials serve this purpose, as well as facilitate learning and modeling from
parents and older siblings.

The same children were again assessed at 10-11 years of age using school
achievement scores (Bradley, Caldwell, & Rock, 1988). The current home environment
using the school-age version of the HOME was also administered. There were no
signiﬁcant correlations between the 6-month HOME scores and the 10 year-old
achievement scores, but there were several between the 24-month HOME scores
(particularly Availability of Toys and Parental Involvement) and later achievement. The

current HOME scores showed the highest correlations with achievement scores,

25

suggesting that the current environment is most important to intellectual functioning.
This study also discovered that few families had consistent HOME scores across the 10
year period, suggesting that home environments are not ﬁxed and do not necessarily
determine future adjustment. However, there was evidence that the stability of the
Parental Involvement dimension across time was key in terms of school achievement at
age 10. Despite the fact that infant HOME scores did not correlate with 10 year-old
achievement, these authors suggested that these early environmental characteristics start
the child on a developmental path that will ultimately affect later functioning. That is, the
home environment at 6 months most likely affects cognitive competence, security, and
motivation during infancy and toddlerhood, which may then inﬂuence abilities in the
early school years.

Bradley and colleagues (Bradley et al., 1989) found similar results in a
collaborative study across six sites in North America. Correlations between HOME
scores and mental test scores beginning at 12 months (average correlation coefﬁcient was
.17) increased into the second year (average coefﬁcient was .41) and became stable
thereafter, although those with the Parental Responsivity scale continued to increase.
Correlations between maternal education and occupation and mental test scores also
increased into the second year (from .25 to .48) and then became stable. Interestingly,
these authors found that SES contributed only a small amount to a child’s intellectual
development above and beyond the home environment (increase in R} was .04), while
home environment contributed a signiﬁcant amount above and beyond SES (increase in
112 was .17). Other researchers have noted that the home environment may be more

closely related to children’s abilities than SES and maternal intelligence as well. In

26

addition, some have suggested that the home environment has a greater impact on verbal
intelligence and school performance than on nonverbal intelligence (Greaney, 1986).

In a recent review of the literature on early family environments and young
children’s development, Stollak (1997) concluded that the following environmental
factors have been found to be statistically related to the intellectual ﬁrnctioning of infants,
toddlers, and preschoolers: 1) highly stimulating and complex environments with a
variety of available toys, 2) caregivers who are involved with their children, especially in
intellectual activities, 3) caregivers who are affectionate, responsive, accessible, and
attentive to their children’s needs, 4) caregivers who encourage and minimally restrict
their child’s autonomous actions, including exploratory and curious behaviors which lead
to a sense of mastery, and 5) caregivers who display these types of complex, exploratory
behaviors themselves as a model for the child to imitate. These environmental and
caregiver characteristics clearly depict the intellectual and emotional atmosphere of the
home that is necessary for the development of intellectual and cognitive abilities in young
children.

High-Risk Pogulations

A number of other studies have looked at the relationship between early
environmental factors and intellectual development in high-risk p0pulations as well. For
example, McGowan and Johnson (1984) assessed mother-child interactions and aspects
of the home environment in a group of Mexican-American mothers and preschoolers
ﬁom low SES backgrounds (N=86). Path analyses revealed that maternal attitudes
stressing independence and maternal stimulation of the child at 3 years of age (deﬁned by
use of reasoning, encouragement of child verbalizations, and high level of mother-child

interactions) predicted children’s school achievement test performance and classroom

27

behavior at 7 to 9 years of age. Also, children whose mothers had more education and
less traditional attitudes performed better in the classroom than children of less educated,
more traditional mothers, although maternal stimulation appeared to mediate the effects
of these two maternal variables.

Using recorded observations of mother-child interactions beginning at 12 months
of age and ending at 30 months, McGlaughlin, Empson, Morrissey, and Sever (1980)
looked at relations between the home environment and child development in 60
disadvantaged families. They found a number of variables measured during infancy to be
signiﬁcantly related to the child’s cognitive competence at 30 months of age including:
total number of mother-child interactions, intellectually stimulating interactions, frequent
use of speech and talking by the mother, and a teaching style of technique used by the
mother during interactions. Further, this facilitative style of interacting appeared to
increase in importance as the young child got older.

Yeates, MacPhee, Campbell, and Rarney (1983) sought to examine the
contributions of maternal IQ and the home environment on young children’s intellectual
development in a sample of children at risk for “ sociocultural retardation.” Children
were assessed with the Bayley Scales of Infant Development at 6 and 18 months of age
and with the Stanford-Binet at 24, 36, and 48 months of age, and the home environment
was measured using the HOME inventory. Although there were several correlations
between the total HOME score and children’s IQ at different ages, there were less
signiﬁcant correlations than those found in other studies examining more heterogeneous,
low-risk samples (i.e., Bradley & Caldwell, 1976). Additional hierarchical regressions
were performed to assess the independent contributions of maternal IQ and home

environment after the other was controlled. At 24 months, home environment failed to be

28

a signiﬁcant predictor after maternal IQ was controlled, while maternal IQ remained
signiﬁcant after home environment was controlled. At 36 months, home environment
again failed to be a predictor aﬁer maternal IQ was entered into the equation, but
maternal IQ also failed to be a predictor after home environment was entered ﬁrst.
Finally, at 48 months, home environment did contribute signiﬁcantly to children’s IQ
aﬁer maternal IQ was controlled, but maternal IQ failed to contribute after home
environment was entered ﬁrst.

These results suggest a shift in importance from maternal IQ to the home
environment as predictors of children’s intellectual competence. That is, maternal IQ
seems to be the more important factor in earlier years, but this importance declines and
the home environment becomes the more important factor as children move into the
preschool period. The authors postulate that there is a shiﬁ in the importance of
biological and environmental determinants of intelligence during the course of
development. That is, development is largely driven by maturational factors during the
ﬁrst few years of life, but is more inﬂuenced by the environment during later years. It is
also possible that maternal IQ is still an important factor during these later years, but that
its effect is expressed indirectly through the home environment. That is, maternal IQ may
inﬂuence the quality of the home environment, i.e., amount of stimulation and enriching
experiences, which in turn may inﬂuence children’s IQ. The home environment may
become the more direct contributor to intelligence as children become less dependent on
mothers and interact more with their environment. There appears to be some evidence for
this latter hypothesis based on a study done by different researchers.

This study examined the home environment as a mediator between matemal and

child IQ in a large sample (N=608) of low birthweight, premature infants followed

29

through their third year (Bradley et al., 1993). Maternal IQ and home environment
(measured by the HOME) were signiﬁcantly related to child IQ scores in all families
except for those whose mothers had low IQ scores < 70. There were no signiﬁcant
relationships within this latter group. These authors explained that when the range of IQs
is restricted, the effect of maternal IQ on home environment and child IQ is lessened
relative to other factors.) For both 12 month and 36 month age points, there was a
signiﬁcant mediation effect from maternal IQ to child IQ through the home environment.
This was particularly strong at 36 months. These results suggest that maternal IQ
contributes to the home environment including the amount of stimulation provided to
children, which then in turn impacts children’s intellectual abilities.

Overall, it appears that similar processes between the early home environment and
young children’s intellectual development are found within both “normal” children and
hi gh-risk children, including children who have been abused. Studies have consistently
demonstrated the importance of a variety of intellectually stimulating experiences within
the home and a positive parent-child relationship for young children’s intellectual and
cognitive functioning. These home factors may be particularly important during the
preschool period when children’s cognitive abilities begin to expand as they move into
more advanced levels of development and as they begin to create and elicit their own
kinds of stimulation from the environment. Since it appears that these family processes
(or absence of) may explain the intellectual deﬁcits among abused children, it also seems
likely that these processes may be at work within families experiencing domestic
violence. That is, these environmental deﬁcits may mediate the relationship between

domestic violence and preschoolers’ intellectual functioning among child witnesses.

3O

lrnplications for Children Who Witness Domestic Violence

The Home Environment of Children Who Experience Domestic Violence

Very little is actually known about the home environments of families living with
domestic violence. Researchers and clinicians have mainly theorized about the family
processes that occur within these distressed homes, but virtually no empirical work has
been conducted. For example, Jaffe has written about the family disruption hypothesis to
help explain how domestic violence impacts child witnesses (J affe, Wolfe, & Wilson,
1990). This hypothesis, grounded in family systems theory, states that domestic violence
may impact children indirectly through a number of other events and familial
characteristics that are changed or affected by the presence of violence. That is, domestic
violence is likely to “ set into motion” a number of other negative processes that either
singly or in combination disrupt a child’s normal routine and ongoing development. Jaffe
et al. (1990) further explain that the child must not only face the immediate threat of
danger, fear, and unpredictable adults (the direct effects of domestic violence), but must
also cepe with the “myriad forms of fallout from the conﬂict” such as parental
ineffectiveness, changes in residence and family income, and a chaotic, inconsistent home
environment (the indirect effects of domestic violence). Unfortunately, most researchers
have chosen only to empirically test the more direct effects of domestic violence on child
witnesses, even though the pathways of indirect inﬂuence are an important source of
prevention and intervention efforts.

As J affe et al. (1990) note, the home environment is often deﬁned by or at least
strongly inﬂuenced by the primary caregiver, usually the mother. Therefore, the family
disruption hypothesis can be taken a step further by saying that domestic violence may

indirectly affect children’s adjustment through its negative impact on maternal

31

psychological functioning and maternal parenting capacities. Because domestic violence
results in great emotional distress for mothers, mothers are less able to parent effectively
and less able to provide an optimal environment for their children. Indeed, there is a
large body of evidence that demonstrates the relationship between domestic violence and
numerous negative outcomes for battered women, which ultimately affect their children.

Walker (1978; 1979) uses the concept of learned helplessness to explain the
battered woman’s experience. She found that many abused women begin to feel like they
have no control over what happens to them since their responses or reactions do little to
change their batterers’ actions. They begin to feel helpless and powerless over the abuse
they are enduring. Because they learn and strongly believe that their actions have no
consequences, battered women may eventually stop trying to improve their circumstances
including getting outside help. Walker also notes that battered women may isolate
themselves out of shame, may blame themselves for the abuse, and may start to believe
the negative comments made to them by their abusers. This feeling of helplessness and
powerlessness may also generalize to other areas of the women’s life. Battered women
may feel helpless over their parenting capacities and effectiveness, and these feelings may
be increased by raising children who are also struggling with domestic violence
(Levendosky & Graham-Bermann, 1997a). They may feel that nothing they say or do
with their children will have any consequences, and they may eventually stop trying to
inﬂuence their children’s life. Instead, they may withdraw and become more passive in
their parental role.

Some researchers have focused on the trauma symptoms seen in battered women
(Herman, 1992; Levendosky & Graham-Bermann, 1997a). Some of these symptoms

include somatization, dissociation, depression, and characterological changes, and they

32

appear to be complex and diffuse because of the prolonged trauma through which these
women suffer. These researchers propose that domestic violence overwhelms mothers
psychologically and physiologically, which affects their ability to parent. More
speciﬁcally, Levendosky and Graham-Bermann (1997a) suggest that symptoms seen in
battered woman such as oscillations between numbing and hyperarousal, self-blame,
shame, anxiety, intrusive memories, and constriction of feelings may reduce mothers’
effectiveness as a parent. Parenting may shift through periods of withdrawal, anger, and
warmth, as these mothers attempt to cope with the violence and their traumatized state.
Their loss of trust in loved ones may also cause them to either withdraw from their
children or to become overprotective, restricting children’s efforts towards independence.
Both learned helplessness and trauma are believed to lead to depression, another
commonly cited consequence of domestic violence for battered women. For example,
Cascardi and O’Leary (1992) reported that 52% of their sample of abused women showed
severe levels of depression and 70% showed at least a moderate level of depression.
Also, more severe battering was related to increased depressive symptoms and decreased
self-esteem. Maternal depression has been shown to have numerous negative
consequences on the home environment and on parenting as well. In a review of the
literature, Downey and Coyne (1990) found that parents who report being depressed are
less verbal with their children, less positive, and less responsive to their children’s needs.
Such mothers showed lower rates of affective expression, less interest in their children,
and more self-absorption, all reﬂecting the mother’s anhedonia and reduced energy
levels. They also tended to view their parental role less positively than non-depressed
mothers, which may lead to withdrawal or hostility toward the child. Parenting may be

especially difﬁcult for depressed parents when children are young and require more

33

sustained attention and tolerance. Although Downey and Coyne (1990) discuss these
maternal characteristics in terms of children’s emotional difﬁculties, it is also likely that
maternal depression results in a less stimulating home environment and fewer parent-
child interactions, which are both important for children’s intellectual and cognitive
functioning.

Researchers in the area of domestic violence have shown some empirical support
for the role of maternal functioning as a mediator between domestic violence and
children’s adjustment. Graham—Bermann and Levendosky (1998) found that mother’s
self-esteem, depression, and experience of emotional abuse mediated the effects of
domestic violence on preschoolers’ internalizing problems, externalizing problems, and
affect regulation. Another study found that domestic violence predicted negative
maternal psychological functioning, which predicted poorer parenting (Levendosky &
Graham-Bermann, 1997b). Both of these latter variables predicted children’s adjustment
problems. Holden and Ritchie (1991) reported that battered mothers were less sensitive
and less consistent with their children and experienced greater parenting stress, which led
to greater child behavior problems, while other researchers reported that level of maternal
stress mediated the impact of domestic violence on children’s behavior and trauma
symptoms (Jaffe et al., 1985; Rossman et al., 1993; Wolfe et al., 1985).

In summary, it is clear that domestic violence impacts mothers in ways that may
hinder their ability to provide an optimal home environment and to parent effectively.
One can easily imagine how the necessary environmental conditions for children’s
intellectual development could be disrupted in families living with domestic violence
based on what is known about the toll it takes on battered mothers. Feelings of

helplessness, anger, and depression most likely interfere with the ability to be warm and

34

consistent. Depression, dissociation, fear, and withdrawal may interfere with mothers’

responsiveness, involvement, adaptability, and verbal interactions with their children.

Fear and distrust may also cause mothers to be hypervigilant and overprotective,
inhibiting children’s independent behavior. Perhaps most importantly, these
psychological sequelae probably limit exposure to and opportunities for rich,
intellectually stimulating experiences for children who witness domestic violence. As of
yet, however, no empirical studies have tested whether domestic violence disrupts
broader family processes, either directly or indirectly through its impact on mothers.
How these family factors and maternal characteristics affect children’s intellectual

functioning is also yet to be examined empirically.

Hypotheses of the Present Study (see Figure 1)

Research has just begun to address the impact that witnessing domestic violence
has on young children. Virtually nothing is known about the intellectual development in
this p0pulation, particularly with toddlers and preschoolers, a stage when parents have
their greatest impact on children’s cognitive development (Bradley & Caldwell, 1976).
However, numerous studies have demonstrated multiple intellectual deﬁcits in abused
children, a group of children also growing up in violent homes. Because abused children
are similar to child witnesses in a number of ways and because there is a large overlap
between these two groups, it seems reasonable to apply what is known about abused

children to children living with domestic violence. Therefore, this study hypothesizes
that preschoolers who are directly exposed to domestic violence will display more
problems in intellectual functioning than preschoolers who are not directly exposed to

any type of family violence.

35

Hughes and colleagues (e. g., Hughes, 1988) have suggested that children who not
only witness domestic violence, but who are also the direct victims of parental
aggression, will show more adjustment problems than children who only witness
domestic violence. Most, but not all, studies have shown that children faced with this
“double whammy” do indeed show greater behavioral and emotional problems. This
notion that multiple stressors will increase the likelihood of behavior problems above the
likelihood when faced with one stressor could apply to children’s intellectual
development as well. Therefore, this study also predicts that preschoolers who are
exposed to their mothers being battered and who directly experience violence by a parent
will show greater problems with intellectual functioning than preschoolers who are only
exposed to domestic violence and preschoolers who are only victims of parental abuse.
These differences are expected to hold true even after controlling for SES and family
income.

Studies with both normal and high-risk children, including children who have
been abused, report that there are a number of important qualities of the home
environment that are crucial for the intellectual deveIOpment of young children. These
include a variety of stimulating experiences, involved and responsive caregivers, and the
encouragement of autonomy and intellectual behaviors. Many researchers (e. g., Westra
& Martin, 1981) have suggested and shown that intellectual deﬁcits found in children
from violent homes are more directly due to an absence of these environmental
characteristics rather than due to the abuse per se. That is, the home environments of
abused children are characterized by little parent-child interaction, less parental
engagement and involvement in children’s activities, and a gross lack of stimulation.

Further, abusive parents are more insensitive and unresponsive toward their children. All

36

of these deﬁcits in the home environment appear to mediate the relationship between
child abuse and intellectual functioning.

The context in which children who experience domestic violence live appears to
share a number of negative qualities with other high-risk families, such as homes where
child abuse occurs. Therefore, it seems likely that similar processes are involved between
the home environment and intellectual deveIOpment in children who witness domestic
violence. For example, domestic violence might cause the home environment to be
unpredictable and chaotic. Mothers and children may be forced to relocate or move
temporarily into a battered women’s shelter. Or perhaps there is more inconsistency in
the family’s daily routine because of the batterer’s unpredictability. This chaotic
atmosphere would likely interfere with the availability of stimulating experiences and
opportunities for children. Another example is that battered mothers who move away
from their batterers may be forced to work more outside of the home, leaving less time
for interacting with their children. Fear, in both the mother and child, might also interfere
with an atmosphere conducive to healthy development, i.e., by interfering with quiet,
relaxing times for the mother and child to read or play together.

Therefore, it is hypothesized that domestic violence will negatively impact the
quality of the home enviromnent, which will then contribute to a lower level of
intellectual functioning in preschool witnesses. That is, domestic violence will indirectly
inﬂuence preschoolers’ intellectual development through the impoverished intellectual
quality of the home environment. More speciﬁcally, language stimulation, stimulation of
academic behavior, and variety of stimulation in the home (all scales emphasizing verbal
interactions between parent and child, language, reading, and cultural activities) will

predict verbal intelligence scores, while the amount of toys and games and degree of

37

 

affection and warmth (scales emphasizing verbal and spatial abilities and maternal
warmth) will predict both verbal and visual-spatial intelligence scores. The overall home
environment, deﬁned by the combination of these characteristics, will be related to both
types of intelligence scores. These relationships will be true even after controlling for
SES and family income.

It is also possible that domestic violence impacts the environment in which
children grow up in other, more indirect ways, i.e., through its effects on mothers.
Although there has been no empirical research on the overall home environment of child
witnesses, ﬁndings have shown that domestic violence negatively impacts a woman’s
psychological health and her parenting capacities. Battered women suffer from
depression, trauma symptoms, and a number of other psychological problems which most
likely lead to less stimulating behaviors, less parent-child interactions, and less sensitivity
toward the child. Based on this research, this study hypothesizes that domestic violence
will be related to maternal depression, which will be related to a deﬁcit of important
aspects of the home environment. The home environment will in turn be related to lower

levels of intellectual performance by preschoolers.

38

METHOD

Participants

Participants in the study included 100 women and their 3 to 5 year-old children
(44 boys and 56 girls). Preschoolers must have been living with their mothers at least
50% of the time. In all cases, mothers had custody of the child who participated in the
study. If mothers had several preschoolers living with her, one preschooler was chosen
randomly to participate in the study. Participants were recruited with ﬂiers (see
Appendix B) from the following agencies and programs in a medium-size, midwestem
city: 57% from local Head Start preschools, 17% from the Family Independence Agency
(FIA), 7% from a local domestic violence shelter, and 18% from the general community.

Mothers’ ages ranged from 19 to 46 years, with an average age of 27.9 years (SD
= 6.2). Children’s ages ranged from 3.0 to 5.9 years, with an average age of 4.4 years
(,S_D_ = .70). Seventy-nine percent (79%) of the children attended preschool for
approximately 14 hours per week on average (SD = 10.3 hours). Family income ranged
from $0 to $6170.00 per month, averaging $1320.00 per month (S_D_ = $964.00). Based on
Hollingshead (1975) scoring, the average socioeconomic status was 32.4 (_S_l; = 12.6).
See Table 1 for demographic information on marital status, racial composition, maternal
education, and maternal occupation.

When mothers were asked directly, “have you been in an abusive relationship?,”
51% reported that they had been in such a relationship with a romantic partner. However,
70% endorsed one or more physically violent episodes of abuse by a partner sometime
during their lifetime when ﬁlling out the domestic violence questionnaires (43% reported
this for a present relationship and 47% reported this for a past relationship, with some

reporting both). This ﬁgure increased to 78% by including items asking about verbal

39

aggression, i.e., threats of violence, in addition to physical aggression. Therefore, while
only slightly more than half of mothers admitted to being involved in an abusive
relationship at one time (either past or present), a large majority of women had been
physically attacked by a romantic partner on at least one occasion. Finally, 38 mothers
reported that they had stayed in a shelter at least once, 19 of which were shelters

speciﬁcally for battered women.

40

Table 1

Demoggaphic Information on Study Participants (N=100)

Characteristic n (and %)

 

Marital Status
Single 42
Married 25
Divorced 13
Separated 10
Living with partner 10
Maternal Race
African American 42
Caucasian 42
Hispanic/Latino 1 0
Biracial
Asian 1
Child Race
Aﬁican American 43
Biracial 24
Caucasian 21
Hispanic/Latino 1 1
Asian 1
Maternal Education Level
Grade school or less 1
Some High School 19
High School Graduate 22
Some College 47
College Graduate 10
Graduate degree 1
Maternal Occupation
Unemployed 24
Homemaker ' 14
Semiskilled or Unskilled worker 15
Clerical, Sales 19
Technician, Skilled worker 16
Managers, Minor Professionals 7
Administrators, Professionals 5

41

Procedures

Research assistants, both undergraduate and graduate level, were trained to
administer all questionnaires and tests before data collection began. Research assistants
recruited mothers and children from Head Start preschools, a domestic violence shelter,
FIA, and in the general community by handing out and posting ﬂiers. Mothers contacted
the study ofﬁce if they were interested in participating and either of two graduate
students, including myself, did a brief screening over the phone to determine eligibility
for the study. When a potential participant met all of the criteria and agreed to
participate, an appointment was made. The appointments took place in the mother’s
home or in the domestic violence shelter for shelter residents and lasted approximately
two hours.

Two research assistants traveled to the family’s home or to the shelter; one met
with the mother while the other met with the preschooler in a separate room. The mother
ﬁrst completed an informed consent form for herself and for her child (see Appendix A),
and verbal assent was asked of the preschooler. Mothers were informed about anonymity
and conﬁdentiality, and they were told that their participation was voluntary and that they
could withdraw from the study at any time. They were also informed that a report would
be made to Child Protective Services if unreported child abuse was discovered during the
interview. Conﬁdentiality was maintained by assigning all participants an identiﬁcation
number, which was placed on all data rather than subjects’ names, and the subject
identiﬁcation list was kept apart ﬁom the data.

Mothers were administered questionnaires by research assistants, who were blind
to the battering status of the family. Research assistants read all questions aloud and

marked down the mothers’ responses. Oral administration attempted to control for

42

mothers’ varied reading abilities, possible illiteracy, and inconsistent responses. In order
to maintain the blindness of the interviewer, the questionnaire assessing domestic
violence was administered last. In addition to asking questions about the home
environment, research assistants also coded a number of aspects of the home based on
their observations. While mothers were being interviewed, several instruments
measuring intellectual abilities were administered to the participating preschoolers.
Children were not asked about the level of violence within the family. Mothers were paid
$50.00 for their participation and children were given a toy worth approximately $5.00.
Materials

Marseilles

A brief questionnaire was administered to obtain basic demographic information
such as marital status, ethnicity, maternal education, maternal occupation, and family
income (see Appendix C). Socioeconomic status was then computed using Hollingshead
index (1975).

Severig; of Violence Against Women Scales

The type and severity of domestic violence, deﬁned here as male-to-female
violence in adult partners, was measured by the Severity of Violence Against Women
Scales (SVAWS; Marshall, 1992). This self-report contains 46 items which make up
nine dimensions of violence: Symbolic Violence, i.e., hit or kicked a wall, Threats of
Mild Violence, Threats of Moderate Violence, Threats of Serious Violence, Mild
Violence, Minor Violence, Moderate Violence, Serious Violence, and Sexual Violence.
These nine dimensions were produced in a community sample of 208 women using
Maximum Likelihood factor analysis. Coefﬁcient alphas ranged from a low of .89 for

Symbolic Violence to a high of .96 for Mild and Serious Violence, indicating high

43

internal consistency within dimensions. These women were also asked to rate each of the
46 acts from 1-10 on seriousness, aggressiveness, abusiveness, physical harm, and
psychological/emotional harm in order to obtain a global concept of severity. Severity
ratings for each of the acts was then assigned by calculating the mean of these ﬁve
ratings. In addition, each act was given a physical harm weighting and an emotional
harm weighting based on the women’s ratings.

Because this instrument asks about sensitive information, item administration
begins with the least threatening Symbolic Violence items and ends with Sexual Violence
items. Women rate the frequency of each act perpetrated against them within a certain
time period, i.e., within the past 12 months, from 0 to 3 (never, once, a few times, many
times). Scores are produced by multiplying the weight and frequency of each act and
then summing the products of items within each dimension. The authors suggest using
the physical harm weights rather than emotional harm weights for women drawn from the
community and shelters since all acts are either directly or indirectly physical. This
procedure assumes that even “ minor” acts may become more harmful with repetition.
For the purposes of the present study, physical harm weights and frequencies were
multiplied for each act, and all 46 products were summed for a total “domestic violence”
score that better captured the severity of violence deﬁned by several dimensions of harm.
These dimensions and severity levels are not considered in other widely used measures of
domestic violence.

Mothers completed the questionnaire for both the last 12 months and the next
most recent abusive relationship (if applicable). This measure had high internal
consistency with the present sample; coefﬁcient alphas were .97 for the total domestic

violence score for current partner and .98 for the total domestic violence score for past

44

partner. In addition to assessing the presence of domestic violence, the current study also
used this instrument to assess the amount of violence that the preschooler actually
witnessed, either by seeing or hearing the violence. This was done by asking the mother
to mark which acts the child witnessed with an “X.” For analyses that required grouping,
any child that had directly witnessed at least one physically violent event was included in
the “direct exposure” group. Degree of direct exposure was calculated by summing the
number of “X”s. See Appendix D.

Conﬂict Tpctics Scale (CTS)

Parent-child violence was measured using the CTS (Straus, 1979), a 19-item
questionnaire tapping into three modes of dealing with conﬂict: Reasoning, Verbal
Aggression, and Physical Aggression (see Appendix E). Mothers completed the
questionnaire twice, once for her own actions toward the child and once for her partner’s
actions towards the child. Items start with those behaviors low in coerciveness and
progress to more coercive and aggressive acts ending with “used a knife or gun on your
child.” Mothers were asked to rate the number of times each action occurred during the
previous year using categories ranging from “Never” to “More than 20 times.” The CT 8
is scored by summing the response category code values for each act.

Internal reliability was established in the original report for all three dimensions
using coefﬁcient Alpha. These coefficients were: Reasoning = .69, Verbal Aggression =
.77, and Physical Violence 2 .62. Concurrent validity was tested by comparing
undergraduate reports to parental reports of family conﬂict. Correlation coefﬁcients
ranged from .12 on the reasoning scale for mother and child reports to .64 on the violence
scale for father and child reports. Straus (1979) also noted that there is evidence for

construct validity based on numerous correlations found in a number of studies between

45

CTS scores and other variables that are consistent with relevant theory, i.e., a negative
correlation between scores and socioeconomic status. Other researchers have also found
good validity for the CTS. For example, Jouriles, Barling, and O’Leary (1987) reported
that CTS scores were related to hypothesized outcomes of parent-child abuse.

In the present study, one score was calculated using the Verbal and Physical
Aggression items. Coefﬁcient alpha was .78 on the scale assessing mothers’ partners’
behaviors and .65 on the scale for mothers’ behaviors, indicating good reliability. For
analyses requiring grouping, children who experienced one or more physically violent
episodes of abuse were included in the “ abused” group.

Beck Qppression Inventogy (SDI)

The BDI (Beck, Ward, Mendelson, Mock, & Erbaugh, 1961) is a 21-item self-
report which was used to assess the current severity of maternal depression (see Appendix
F). The instrument covers a variety of symptoms of depression such as depressed mood,
pessimism, sleep disturbances, and changes in appetite. Each item consists of 4
statements that are ranked from neutral to severe, and values from 0-3 are assigned to
each statement. The respondent is asked to circle the one statement that best describes
the way she has been feeling during the past week. For example, question 1 consists of
the statements “I do not feel sad.” , “I feel sad,” “I am sad all the time and I can’t snap
out of it,” and “I am so sad or unhappy that I can’t stand it.” The total depression score
is obtained by summing the answers of all 21 items. Possible scores range from 0-63,
with scores of 0-9 indicating no depression, 10-15 indicating mild depression, 16-23
indicating moderate depression, and 24-63 indicating severe depression.

The BDI was originally designed for use in psychiatric populations. Beck et al.

(1961) reported that split-half reliability estimates yielded a coefﬁcient of .93 after a

46

Spearman-Brown correction, indicating high internal consistency. They also examined
the validity by comparing BDI scores to psychiatric ratings of depression and found a
correlation coefﬁcient of .67, which was highly signiﬁcant. A later study (Bumberry,
Oliver, & McClure, 1978) demonstrated the validity of the instrument in a university
population as well. Using psychiatric ratings as the criterion, Bumberry et al. found a
correlation coefﬁcient of .77 between the EDI and interview ratings. These studies
illustrate the wide applicability and use of the instrument.

In the present study, the BDI showed high internal consistency with a coefficient
alpha of .87. Using a split-half reliability estimate with Spearman-Brown correction, as
was done in Beck et al.’s (1961) original study, resulted in a coefﬁcient of .80. Scores
ranged from 0 to 44. According to the categories described above, 66 women in this
sample had “no” depression, 17 women had a mild level of depression, 13 women had a

moderate level of depression, and 4 women had a severe level of depression.

Home Observation for Measurement of the Environment-Preschool Version
(HOME)

The preschool version of the HOME inventory (Bradley & Caldwell, 1979) was
designed to measure aspects of the quantity and quality of the home environment that
relate to the social, emotional, and cognitive development of 3 to 6 year-old children.
This inventory is currently one of the most widely used instruments for measuring the
quality of the home environment of young children. Items were originally selected on the
basis of empirical evidence for certain types of experiences conducive to childhood
development. These experiences include such things as positive parent-child interactions,

number and kind of play materials, variety of stimulation, and encouragement of

intellectual behaviors. The authors originally intended all items to be based on direct

47

observation of caregiver-child interactions, however, other important child experiences
were excluded as a result, and the authors decided to add interview data as well.
Therefore, the HOME inventory is administered in the home using both observation and
interview data while the child is present and awake.

The current version is the second major revision to the scale and includes 55
dichotomous-choice items (see Appendix G). A “ yes” indicates the familial environment
has a certain positive characteristic or experience, while a “no” indicates an absence of
that particular aspect of the environment. This version was developed from a longer, 80-
item version through factor and item analysis in order to increase efﬁciency of the scale
and to improve other psychometric properties of the instrument. The factor analysis was
conducted on 232 volunteer families representing a wide range of socioeconomic levels.
A varimax rotation using an eigen-value of 1.0 produced seven factors that contained at
least 4 items each and a number of other 1 or 2 item factors. Forty-six items having a
loading of at least .30 or better on these seven factors were kept. Nine other items were
retained on the basis that they were signiﬁcantly correlated with achievement, making up
an eighth factor.

Because the current study was primarily concerned with the home environment in
relation to preschoolers’ current intellectual ﬁrnctioning, only those subscales that
showed especially strong correlations with preschoolers’ IQ scores in Bradley and
Caldwell’s original study (1979) were used to operationalize the intellectual quality of the
family environment. These ﬁve subscales, described below, are: Stimulation through
Toys, Games, and Reading Materials, Language Stimulation, Pride, Affection, and

Warmth, Stimulation of Academic Behavior, and Variety of Stimulation. The remaining

48

three HOME subscales are: Safety of Physical Environment, Appropriate Modeling, and
Physical Punishment.
WWW - this factor includes items
that describe the availability of toys and materials that help a child learn, such as puzzles
and books.
Language Stimulation - items within this factor inquire about the degree to which a child
is encouraged to learn language and vocabulary. For example, does the parent encourage
the child to express him/herself and does the parent use correct grammar and
pronunciation?
Pride, Affection, and Warmth - this factor provides a rough description of the parent-
child relationship and the opportunity for the child to form a secure attachment with the
parent. For example, items capture parental behaviors such as holding the child,
responding to the child, and praising the child.
timulation of Academi Behavior - this factor measures the degree of parental

encouragement of speciﬁc intellectual behaviors such as learning colors, numbers, and
simple reading skills.
Variety of Stimulation - this factor includes a variety of items about stimulation within
the home, as well as stimulating out-of-home activities. For example, questions ask
whether the child has been taken on trips or family outings and whether the child interacts
with both parents at home.

Most subscales consist of some items that are reported by the mother and some
items that are based on interviewer observations. A subscale score is equal to the number

of items answered with a “ yes.” Thus, a more positive, stimulating home environment

49

has a higher score. For the purposes of this study, a total HOME score was calculated by
summing the raw score on all ﬁve subscales described above.

In their original study, Bradley and Caldwell (1979) reported that their interrater
agreement on observation items reached a 95% agreement rate. They also reported that
reliability estimates of the HOME inventory demonstrated good internal consistency,
with Kuder-Richardson coefﬁcients ranging from .53 to .83 for the subscales and .93 for
the total scale. The HOME displayed moderate stability from 3 years to 4.5 years of age
with coefﬁcients ranging ﬁom .05 to .70.

Concurrent validity estimates were ﬁrst based on correlations between the HOME
and socioeconomic status and children’s scores on the Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale.
There were signiﬁcant correlations between the HOME and maternal and paternal
education, but not with maternal and paternal occupation. All 3 year-old HOME subscale
scores were signiﬁcantly correlated with 3 year-old IQ scores, but three scales showed
especially high correlations: Stimulation through Toys, Games, and Reading Materials,
Pride, Affection, and Warmth, and Variety of Stimulation. These same three scales and
the Stimulation of Academic Behavior subscale also showed substantial correlations with
4.5 year-old IQ scores indicating good predictive validity. Four and a half year-old IQ
scores showed highest correlations with the following 4.5 year-old HOME scales:
Stimulation through Toys, Games, and Reading materials, Language Stimulation,
Stimulation of Academic Behavior, and Variety of Stimulation. These relationships
remained consistent for 5 and 6 year-olds as well.

In the present study, both research assistants that traveled to the family’s home
completed the observation items separately, and percent agreement was calculated. The

average interrater agreement in this study was 90%. Afterwards, items of disagreement

50

were discussed with a third person until consensus was reached, and items were then used
in calculating subscale scores. Kuder-Richardson coefﬁcients in the present study were
as follows: Stimulation Through Toys, Games, and Reading Materials: .59, Language
Stimulation: .03, Pride, Affection, and Warmth: .54, Stimulation of Academic Behavior:
.34, Variety of Stimulation: .25, and Total Home Score: .74. These results indicate poor
internal reliabilities for the Home subscales, but a fairly good reliability for the total
score.

Peabpdy Picture Vocabulgy Test-Revised (PPVT-R)

The PPVT-R (Dunn & Dunn, 1981) measures a child’s receptive (or hearing)
vocabulary and provides a quick estimate for a person’s verbal ability. Although it is not
a test of “ general” intelligence, numerous studies have shown that vocabulary tests
provide the closest estimate of an IQ score compared with any other single test. The
PPVT-R can be given to young children beginning at the age of 2.5. The test consists of
two equivalent forms, L and M, each of which contains 175 items. The present study
used Form L. Each test item consists of a page with four simple drawings of various
objects. These pictures are placed in front of the child, and the child is asked to point to
the picture that best describes the meaning of a word given by the examiner. The test is
discontinued after the child has made six errors in eight consecutive responses. Raw
scores, which can be converted to standardized scores based on a large normative group,
are calculated by subtracting the number of errors from the number of the last item
administered.

Split-half correlations revealed internal consistency coefﬁcients that ranged from
.67 to .73 in preschool-age children for Form L. Test-retest coefﬁcients ranged from .74

to .83 for immediate retest and .52 to .78 for delayed retest within this age group (Dunn

51

& Dunn, 1981). Because the authors found a substantial overlap between the original and
revised versions, much of their validity information reported for the PPVT-R was based
on the PPVT. They reported high correlations between the PPVT and other vocabulary
tests, coefﬁcients mostly between .60 and .805, slightly lower correlations with full
intelligence tests, and moderate correlations with achievement tests administered
concurrently (coefﬁcients around .50). The median correlation between the PPVT and

the Verbal Scale of the Wechsler Preschool and Primary Scale of Intelligence was .56.

YWQQWMW

The Block Design subtest of the WPPSI-R (Wechsler, 1989) was used to measure
children’s visual-spatial abilities as another means of capturing intellectual functioning.
In this test, an examiner puts colored blocks together in a certain design and then asks the
child to make an identical arrangement using his/her own blocks. The designs get
progressively harder. The child is allowed a certain amount of time for each design, and
the subtest is discontinued after 3 consecutive failures. The subtest is scored by summing
the points earned for each correct design.

Internal reliability estimates (split-half coefﬁcients corrected by Spearman Brown
formula) for Block Design based on the standardization sample are as follows: .83 for 3
year-olds, .87 for 4 year-olds, and .86 for 5 year-olds (Wechsler, 1989). These are among
the highest of all performance subtests of the WPPSI-R. Test-retest reliability was .80 for
the entire group of preschoolers. These ﬁgures demonstrate strong reliability for this
particular subtest. Validity has also been demonstrated in a number of ways. Wechsler
(1989) reported that results from a factor analysis revealed that Block Design had the
highest loading of all subtests on the Performance factor (.70). Item-total correlations

also revealed that this subtest correlated more highly with the total Performance score

52

than any other Performance subtest at ages 4, 4.5, 5, 5.5, and 6.0. Validity studies have
also shown high correlations between the full scale scores of the WPPSI-R and the
WISC-R (r=.85), the McCarthy scales (r=.81), and the Stanford-Binet (r=.74; Thorndike,

Hagen, & Sattler, 1986; Wechsler, 1989).

53

RESULTS

Missing Data

Data from 100 participants were used for statistical analyses. The results from a
number of analyses reﬂect missing data points. In particular, two participants refused to
report family income level, ﬁve PPVT-R scores were invalid due to administration
problems (i.e., failure to establish a basal), three families had incomplete data on
domestic violence, and four families had incomplete data on child abuse.
Descriptive Data

For the entire sample, the average PPVT-R score was 88.8 with a standard
deviation of 16.9. This compares to the national average of 100 with a standard deviation
of 15. Although the sample average was within one standard deviation of the national
norm, it was considerably below the national average. The average WPPSI-R Block
Design score for the entire sample was 8.7 with a standard deviation of 2.5, which
compares to the national average of 10 and standard deviation of 3. Again, the scores for
this sample were below average compared to the national norms. For those children
whose mothers had experienced some form of physical abuse by a partner, the average
PPVT-R score was 86.7 (standard deviation of 16.5) and the average Block Design score
was 8.7 (standard deviation of 2.4). Children whose mothers had never experienced
physical abuse by a partner had an average PPVT-R score of 94.1 (standard deviation of
17.0) and an average Block Design score of 8.7 (standard deviation of 3.0).
Direct Exppsure to Family Violence and Intellectual Functioning

It was hypothesized that children directly exposed to domestic violence, i.e.,
seeing or hearing the violence, would display lower levels of intellectual functioning than

children not directly exposed to any type of family violence after controlling for SES and

54

family income. For these analyses, children in the direct exposure group must have seen
or heard a physically violent act perpetrated against their mothers within the last year.
Children in the control group had neither been exposed to domestic violence nor child
abuse in the last year. A MANCOVA analysis was performed with SES and family
income as covariates and PPVT-R and WPPSI-R Block Design as dependent variables.
Contrary to what was expected, there were no signiﬁcant differences between the exposed
(p = 28) and non-exposed (p = 26) groups of children on the PPVT-R and the WPPSI-R
Block Design subtest, E (1, 53) = .05 and E (1, 54) = .54, respectively.

The second hypothesis was that children directly exposed to domestic violence
and who directly experienced violence by either parent would show more problems in
intellectual functioning than children who were only exposed to domestic violence and
children who were only victims of parental abuse. That is, children exposed to two types
of family violence would have more problems than children exposed to only one type of
family violence. Again, direct exposure to domestic violence was deﬁned by seeing or
hearing a physically violent event within the last year, and parental abuse was deﬁned as
one or more physically violent acts toward children by either parent within the last year.
Unexpectedly, MANCOVA results revealed no signiﬁcant between-group differences on
intellectual functioning after controlling for SES and income, E (3, 86) = .31 for PPVT-R
and E (3, 91) = 1.16 for the Block Design. That is, children exposed to two types of
family violence (p = 24) did not display lower intellectual scores than children exposed to
one type of family violence (domestic violence only: it = 4; child abuse only: p = 45).
However, an independent t-test revealed a trend towards a difference on the Block Design
between the combined exposure group (M = 8.50, SI_)_ = 2.19) and the domestic violence

only group (M = 10.75, E = 1.50), t (28) = 1.97, p = .06.

55

Finally, it was hypothesized that the more direct exposure to domestic violence
and the more abuse children experienced within the last year, the greater intellectual
problems they would have after controlling for SES and income. To test this hypothesis,
two hierarchical regressions were performed with SES and income entered ﬁrst, followed
by level of exposure and level of abuse as predictors; once using the PPVT-R and once
using the Block Design as the outcome variable. Surprisingly, results revealed no
signiﬁcant direct relationships between level of exposure and abuse and children’s PPVT-
R (exposure: r = -.17, p = .17, and abuse: ; = .13, p = .27) and Block Design scores
(exposure: ; = -. 15, p = .22, and abuse: I = .20, p = .09) after controlling for demographic
factors.

Indirect Effects of Domestic Violence on Intellectual Functioning

In addition to hypothesizing a direct effect of family violence on preschoolers’
intellectual functioning, it was hypothesized that domestic violence would indirectly
impact intellectual functioning regardless of whether or not children actually saw or heard
the violence. In addition, it was thought that both current and past domestic violence
would indirectly inﬂuence intellectual functioning through its effect on other variables.
Therefore, these analyses combined any present and past experiences of domestic
violence into a total domestic violence score.

The ﬁrst hypothesis was that domestic violence would negatively impact the
quality of the home environment, which would in turn contribute to a lower level of
intellectual functioning in preschoolers. That is, the home environment would mediate
the relationship between domestic violence and preschoolers’ intellectual functioning. It
was hypothesized that this would be true even after controlling for SES and family

income. These hypotheses were examined using Baron and Kenny’s (1986) method for

56

testing mediational models. According to these authors, a test for mediation includes
three regressions: the mediating variable is regressed on the independent variable, the
dependent variable is regressed on the independent variable, and the dependent variable is
regressed on both the independent variable and on the mediator. To establish mediation,
the following must be true: the independent variable must affect the mediating variable,
the mediator must affect the dependent variable, and the independent variable must affect
the dependent variable. If all of these conditions hold a_ng a previously signiﬁcant
relationship between the independent variable and dependent variable is signiﬁcantly
reduced after controlling for the mediating variable, mediation is demonstrated. These
regression equations were performed twice; once using the PPVT-R as the measure for
intellectual functioning and once using the Block Design as a measure of intellectual
functioning.

The ﬁrst regression in this series revealed that domestic violence (the independent
variable) was not signiﬁcantly related to the home environment (the mediating variable; _r_
= -.O4, p = .72). However, the home environment was signiﬁcantly related to the
dependent variables after controlling for SES and family income; both to PPVT-R scores
(r = .37, p < .001) and to WPPSI-R Block Design scores (I = .30, p < .01). Finally,
domestic violence was not directly related to PPVT-R scores or WPPSI-R scores (; = -
.13, p = .22, and r = .04, p = .67). Although mediation was not established since the
independent variable was not related to the mediator or to the dependent variables, the
home environment was highly related to both types of intellectual functioning. See Table

2 for the full regression model.

57

Table 2

Hierarphical Regpession Analysis For Domestic Violence and Home Environment as

Predictors of Intellectual Functipning

 

Lanable PPVT-R (n=90) WPPSI-R (n=951
Step 1

SES .00 -.02

Income .1 8 . l 7

Adjusted R2 .01 .00
Step 2

Domestic Violence -.12 .06

Home Environment .40*** .31**

Adjusted R2 .14" .08*

 

Note. Except as noted, numbers represent standardized beta weights

* p< .05, ** p< .01, *** p< .001

Certain aspects: of the home environment were also expected to be related to
different types of intellectual functioning. It was hypothesized that after controlling for
SES and income, language stimulation, stimulation of academic behavior, and variety of
stimulation would predict verbal intelligence scores speciﬁcally, while amount of toys
and games and amount of affection and warmth in the home would predict both verbal
and visual-spatial intelligence scores. A series of hierarchical regression analyses were

performed with SES and income entered ﬁrst, followed by each Home subscale.

58

As expected, language stimulation in the home was correlated with verbal
intelligence scores (; = .23, p < .05) but not with visual-spatial scores (r; = .16, p = .11).
However, the relationship between language stimulation and PPVT-R scores was reduced
to a statistical trend after controlling for SES and income (1; == .20, p = .06). Stimulation
of academic behavior in the home and variety of stimulation were also signiﬁcantly
correlated with verbal intelligence (1 = .22, p <05; 1 = .29, p < .01, respectively), even
after controlling for SES and income (; = .20, p = .05; g = .26, p < .01). As expected,
neither variable predicted visual-spatial abilities (r = .12, p =.25; r = .14, p = .15,
respectively).

As hypothesized, the amount of toys and games in the home was related to verbal
intelligence scores (p = .19, p = .06, statistical trend) and visual-spatial intelligence scores
(5 = .26, p <.01). After controlling for SES and income, the relationship between
toys/ games and verbal scores was no longer a trend (1' = .16, p =.14). However,
toys/ games still predicted WPPSI-R Block Design scores (1 == .26, p < .01). Finally, as
expected, the amount of pride and affection in the home was signiﬁcantly related to both
PPVT-R scores (; = .36, p < .01) and WPPSI-R scores ({ = .28, p < .01), even after
controlling for SES and income (; = .39, p < .001; g = .31, p < .01, respectively). See
Table 3 for results from correlation analyses between all Home subscales and measures of
intellectual functioning.

In addition to expecting domestic violence to have a direct effect on the home
environment, domestic violence was believed to impact the home environment indirectly
through its effects on maternal depression. Therefore, it was hypothesized that domestic
violence would lead to maternal depression, which would lead to an impoverished home

environment. The home environment would in turn lead to problems in preschoolers’

59

intellectual functioning. Baron and Kenny’s (1986) method for testing mediation was
used to analyze the mediating role of maternal depression between domestic violence and
home environment, as well as the mediating role of the home environment between
maternal depression and intellectual functioning. Again, the PPVT-R and

Table 3

Intercorrelatiog Between Home Subscales and Intellectual Functioning

 

 

We PPVT-R m=95) WPPSI-R JN=100J
Stimulation Through Toys & Games .19+ .26**

Language Stimulation .23* .16

Safety of Physical Environment .29** .14

Pride, Affection, and Warmth .36*** .28**

Stimulation of Academic Behavior .22* .12

Appropriate Modeling .27** .17+

Variety'of Stimulation .29** .14

Physical Punishment .28 * * .21*

 

Note. Higher scores on all home subscales indicate a more positive environment.

’2<.10,*p<.05,**p<.01,***p<.001

Block Design were each examined separately as dependent variables, and SES and family
income were controlled by entering them ﬁrst into the regression equations.

The ﬁrst regression showed a signiﬁcant positive relationship between domestic
violence and maternal depression (1 = .32, p < .01). When current and past battering

were separated, results revealed that previous experiences of domestic violence were

60

 

signiﬁcantly related to depression (; = .29, p < .01), but the relationship between current
domestic violence and depression was only a statistical trend (; = .17, p = .10). In
addition, high maternal depression predicted a more negative, impoverished home
environment (; = -.23, p < .05). However, there was no direct relationship between
domestic violence and the home environment after controlling for SES and income (; = -
.01, p = .95). Although mediation was not established because there was not a signiﬁcant
relationship between the independent and dependent variable, domestic violence
predicted maternal depression which in turn predicted the home environment. However,
results from the full regression model revealed that maternal depression was no longer a
signiﬁcant predictor of the home environment after SES and income were accounted for.
See Table 4 for these results.

Finally, the home environment was expected to mediate the relationship between
maternal depression and children’s intellectual functioning. As mentioned previously,
regression analyses demonstrated a signiﬁcant relationship between maternal depression
and the home environment (r = -.23, p < .05). After SES and income were controlled, the
home environment also predicted PPVT-R scores (I = .3 7, p < .001) and WPPSI-R Block
Design scores (; = .30, p < .01). The third regression equation revealed that maternal
depression was related to children’s PPVT-R scores (1 = -.30, p < .01), but not to WPPSI-
R scores (1; = -.05, p = .60).

Results from the full model with PPVT-R as the dependent variable showed that
both the home environment and maternal depression remained signiﬁcant predictors of
verbal scores after controlling for SES and income (I = .32, p < .01; _r_ = -.23, p < .05,
respectively). Although maternal depression was still signiﬁcantly related to PPVT-R

scores after the home environment was accounted for, the strength of this relationship

61

Table 4

ﬂie ehicel Regeeeien Analysis Eer; Qemestic Vielence and Matemel Depression as

Predictore ef Home Envirenment

 

mph Home Environment (n=95)
Step 1

SES .22*

Income .20’

Adjusted R2 .10"
Step 2

Domestic Violence .05

Maternal Depression -. 1 8

Adjusted R2 .10“

 

Note. Except as noted, numbers represent standardized beta weights

’p<.10, *p< .05,**g<,01

decreased. Therefore, the home environment partially mediated the relationship between
depression and verbal intellectual abilities. The only signiﬁcant predictor of WPPSI-R
scores in the full model was the home environment (r = .31, p < .01). Since depression
was unrelated to WPPSI-R scores, mediation was not established for visual-spatial
abilities. See Table 5.

See Figure 2 for path analysis results showing the indirect relationship between

domestic violence and preschoolers’ intellectual functioning.

62

Table 5

Hierarchical Reggession Analysis For Maternal Depression and Home Environment as

Predictors of Intellectual Functioning

 

M15 PPVT-R In==93) WPPSI-an=98_)
Step 1

SES .02 -.04

Income .18 .16

Adjusted R2 .02 .00
Step 2

Maternal Depression -.23"‘ .02

Home Environment .33** .31 **

Adjusted R2 .17*** .07*

 

Note. Except as noted, numbers represent standardized beta weights

 

* p< .05, .1... p< .01, *** p< .001

63

DISCUSSION

Participants in this study represented a high-risk group of women and children.
Twenty-four percent of mothers were unemployed, and an additional 14% identiﬁed
themselves as homemakers, making for a total of more than a third of subjects not
working outside of the home. Average SES and monthly income figures were very low.
The average monthly income was $1320.00 a month for an average of four people living
in the home. This means that the average family in this study was just below the poverty
level, deﬁned by a cut-off of $15,967 per year for a farmly of four (US. Census Bureau,
1996). Because income and SES are highly related to educational and intellectual
functioning (Bouchard & Segal, 1985; Marjoribanks, 1972; Mercy & Steelman, 1982), it
is not surprisingly then, that the average PPVT-R scores and Block Design scores for the
children in this sample were considerably below the national average.

This study examined the direct relationship between domestic violence and child
abuse on preschoolers’ intellectual functioning, as well as the ways in which domestic
violence might indirectly impact intellectual functioning. Only a few existing studies
have examined the intellectual abilities and school achievement of children who witness
domestic violence, and most of these studies included school-aged children only. The
results from these initial reports have suggested that child witnesses show lower scores
on intelligence and achievement tests compared to children from non-violent homes,
although at least one study found no difference between child witnesses and children
from low SES backgrounds.

Based on this limited amount of research, it was hypothesized in the present study
that preschoolers who were directly exposed to domestic violence, i.e., seeing or hearing

the violence, would have lower scores on both verbal and visual-spatial intelligence tests

64

than children who were not exposed to any type of family violence. That is, a direct
relationship between domestic violence and intellectual functioning was expected when
children actually saw or heard the events. Unexpectedly, results revealed no between-
group differences on PPVT-R scores and Block Design scores. Children who had
directly witnessed violence against their mothers in the last year did not show
signiﬁcantly lower scores on these tests than children who were not exposed to violence.

One possible reason for the lack of ﬁndings may have been inaccurate or
inappropriate group placement. For these analyses, exposed children must have seen or
heard domestic violence according to maternal report. Surprisingly few mothers who had
experienced domestic violence acknowledged that their children had been directly
exposed to the violence. It is possible that mothers were simply unaware that their
children had seen or heard the violence, or perhaps mothers were reluctant to admit this
due to guilt or embarrassment. As a result of possible underreporting, many children who
had been directly exposed may have been placed in the “no exposure” group.

A related explanation is that direct exposure may not be as important as simply
living in a home with domestic violence. Again, the non-exposed group included children
whose mothers reported domestic violence but who said that their children had not seen
or heard the violence occurring. However, this hypothesis was examined, and post-hoe
analyses revealed that this was not the case. When groupings were based on any
domestic violence within the last year, regardless of direct exposure, there were still no
between- group differences in intellectual functioning. Despite these ﬁndings, it is still
believed that domestic violence in general was underreported, and that the no-violence
group probably included women who had experienced abuse. One piece of evidence to

support this notion was the ﬁnding that 47% of the no-violence group reported physical

65

abuse by a previous partner (not within the last 12 months). Therefore, women may have
been more willing or likely to admit past abuse rather than current abuse. It is also
possible that examining only the last 12 months did not adequately capture the direct
effects of domestic violence on these children’s functioning.

Another possible reason that there were no signiﬁcant differences between
exposed children and non-exposed children might be the small group sizes. Due to such
small groupings, there may not have been enough power to detect statistically signiﬁcant
differences between groups.

Finally, it is possible that exposure to domestic violence did not affect
preschoolers’ intellectual functioning above and beyond other risk factors shared by all
children. Both groups had considerably low SES and family income, and although these
variables were not directly related to intellectual functioning, the two groups may have
shared a number of characteristics related to SES that impacted the children’s intellectual
functioning in the same way. For example, the two groups may have been similar in
number of life stressors, level of social support, community violence, parental emphasis
on education, and parenting styles. Thus, after controlling for these variables, exposure
to domestic violence was not signiﬁcantly related to intellectual abilities. This
explanation would be consistent with at least one other study which reported no
differences between child witnesses and homeless children, reportedly because the groups
shared a number of other important risk factors that predisposed them to lower
functioning (Moore & Pepler, 1998).

Because child abuse occurs in approximately 50% of homes with domestic
violence (e.g., Hughes et al., 1989), many researchers have assessed the differential

impact of witnessing domestic violence, being abused, and both witnessing violence and

66

being abused. Most of this work has looked speciﬁcally at the effects of these types of
violence on children’s socio-emotional development. In general, studies have shown that
experiencing both types of violence has larger negative effects than experiencing only
one type of family violence. Therefore, this study hypothesized that preschoolers who
were directly exposed to their mothers being battered and who directly experienced
physical abuse by either parent within the last year would show greater problems in
intellectual functioning than children who were only exposed to domestic violence and
children who were only victims of parental abuse. Again, results revealed no group
differences on intellectual functioning.

The lack of between-group differences might be explained by the same reasons as
those used to explain the lack of differences between exposed and non-exposed children.
All groups had equally low levels of SES and family income, and there may have been
important related factors that all groups had in common, i.e., amount of life stressors.
Because children were placed into more speciﬁc groups, each group had an even smaller
number of subjects. For example, the domestic violence only group had four subjects.
Most of the children exposed to domestic violence were also abused so that once abuse
was considered, they represented the combined group. Inaccurate reporting of direct
exposure to violence by mothers may also have obscured group differences. If children
who were really exposed to domestic violence were placed in the “abuse only” group
because mothers did not admit exposure, the groups would not have been made up of
different children in the ﬁrst place. Similar reasoning could be true for the “ abused”
groups as well. Mothers were told ahead of time that a report would be made to
Protective Services if unreported child abuse was discovered during the interview. This

most likely led to underreporting of recent physical abuse in the home, particularly more

67

serious abuse. In addition, it is probable that mothers minimized abuse due to social
desirability.

Another possible explanation for no group differences is also related to the nature
of groupings. In this study, parental abuse was deﬁned as one or more instances of
physical aggression within the last year. However, this deﬁnition may have been too
broad, including families who were not really “ abusive.” For example, mothers who
reported that they had spanked their children once or grabbed their children once were
considered “ abusive” and placed in either the abuse only or abuse/domestic violence
group. However, families showing more “mild” forms of physical discipline may be
more similar to the nonviolent group than to families using more severe forms of physical
discipline. Unfortunately, due to the small number of subjects reporting more severe
abuse, it was not possible to use more stringent cut-offs for group placement.

Finally, it is possible that the effects of experiencing two types of family violence
does not have a more negative effect on children’s intellectual development than
experiencing one type of violence. Perhaps the cumulative impact of both types of
violence are different for children’s intellectual development than for their socio-
emotional development, which has been shown to be affected more by both types of
violence. Therefore, the lack of group differences may be real and may provide support
for one previous study that reported no differences between child witnesses and abused
witnesses on PPVT scores (Rossman et al., 1993).

In addition to expecting between group differences on verbal and visual-spatial
intelligence scores, it was hypothesized that the degree of exposure and abuse would
predict intelligence scores. That is, the more exposure to domestic violence and child

abuse, the lower scores children would obtain. Surprisingly, these factors were not

68

directly related to PPVT-R and Block Design scores after controlling for SES and family
income. Analyzing exposure and abuse as continuous variables eliminates some of the
problems associated with problematic deﬁnitions of groups. However, it does not
eliminate the possibility of underreporting (inaccurate self-report) or the more important
role of shared risk factors ainong the entire group. Also, it is possible that family
violence simply does not have a direct relationship to preschoolers’ intellectual
functioning, but rather affects their intelligence in a more indirect way. The role of
potential mediating variables will be discussed next.

This study hypothesized that mothers’ experiences of domestic violence, both
currently and in the past, would inﬂuence the home environment in which children were
raised. In turn, the home environment was expected to predict children’s verbal and
visual-spatial abilities. This latter relationship has been demonstrated in both normal and
at-risk samples, but has never been examined in children who have lived with domestic
violence. Although domestic violence did not directly predict the home environment in
this sample, the home environment was signiﬁcantly related to both types of intellectual
functioning after controlling for SES and family income. Not only did the home
environment remain a signiﬁcant predictor after controlling for demographic factors, but
SES and income were unrelated to children’s intelligence scores after accounting for the
home environment. There has been a debate among researchers about whether SES or the
home environment is more important for children’s intellectual development and whether
they are actually different constructs (Bradley et al., 1989; Greaney, 1986). The general
consensus has been that they are different constructs (albeit related), and that the home
environment plays a larger role as children move into the preschool period compared to

infancy.

69

For example, Bradley et al. (1989) found that SES contributed only a small
amount to children’s intellectual abilities above and beyond the home environment, while
home environment contributed a signiﬁcant amount beyond SES. Similarly, Campbell
and Ramey (1983) reported that maternal IQ was a more important predictor of mental
ability scores than home environment during infancy, but the reverse was true during the
preschool years. The results ﬁ'om the present study support the notion that the home
environment is more important for intellectual functioning during the preschool years
than SES or income level. That is, more speciﬁc environmental factors such as the
amount and variety of stimulation, the encouragement of academic behaviors, and
positive parent-child interactions are more important for preschooler development than
more global environmental factors, possibly because it is during this period that children
begin to create and elicit their own stimulation from the environment.

Previous studies have also found a stronger link between the home environment
and children’s intellectual functioning in low-risk samples compared to hi gher-risk
samples, although some signiﬁcant relationships have been found in the latter group. The
results of the present study demonstrate that the home environment is indeed very
important for preschoolers’ functioning in higher-risk groups. These ﬁndings suggest
that intervention programs can be successful at improving young children’s intellectual
and cognitive abilities by attempting to improve the quality of the home environment in
which they are raised. For example, it is possible to provide more stimulating toys and
games, to teach parents how to encourage intellectual behaviors in their children, and to
teach parents how to interact in more positive, stimulating ways with their children.

In addition to linking the overall home environment to children’s intellectual

functioning, speciﬁc characteristics of the home environment were expected to

70

differentially predict verbal and visual-spatial abilities. The present study hypothesized
that language stimulation, stimulation of academic behavior, and variety of stimulation
would predict verbal intelligence scores speciﬁcally, while amount of toys and games and
amount of affection and warmth would predict both verbal and visual-spatial scores. All
of these predictions were supported, although two relationships became non-signiﬁcant
after controlling for SES and income. The results from these analyses demonstrate that
speciﬁc characteristics of the home environment are related to speciﬁc areas of
intellectual functioning. Previous studies examining the home environment have
typically used a global or “total” home environment measure and have not addressed the
possibility of more precise relationships.

Results showing no direct relationship between domestic violence and the home
environment were surprising. One possible reason for not ﬁnding a signiﬁcant
relationship was the particular home environment measure used in this study. The
HOME inventory was originally designed to measure aspects of the home environment
that speciﬁcally related to children’s cognitive abilities. The major emphasis of the
measure is on the amount and quality of stimulating experiences in the home.
Unfortunately, this instrument does not measure other important aspects of the home
environment that are likely to be affected by domestic violence and that may also
inﬂuence intellectual development.

For example, the instrument does not tap into the amount of chaos or
unpredictability in the home, which is thought to be high in domestic violence families
(J affe et al., 1990). Predictability in areas such as discipline, nurturance, and family
routines are thought to be important for children’s sense of security and well-being. On

the other hand, unpredictability may cause feelings of helplessness, low self—efﬁcacy, and

71

may inhibit a child’s exploratory behaviors (Ross & Hill, 1996). A related aspect of the
environment is frequent relocation which is common among families living with
domestic violence. Other important characteristics of the home environment not
accounted for by the HOME include organization or family structure, roles, problem
solving styles, family rules, communication styles, and patterns of control. Therefore, it
is certainly still feasible that domestic violence does directly impact the home
environment, but in ways not measured in the present study. Because this is the ﬁrst
study to empirically examine the role of the home environment, it will be important for
future studies to look at the impact of domestic violence on different aspects of the
environment.

Another possible reason that the present study did not ﬁnd a signiﬁcant
relationship between domestic violence and the home environment might be inaccurate
reporting by mothers about the quality of the environment. Although many items on the
HOME inventory are based on observation (and these tended to provide more varied,
accurate data), many self-report items are value-laden and vulnerable to social
desirability, particularly because they inquire about the parent ’s role in shaping the
child’s environment. Most mothers can identify the “ correct” response, and it is possible
that mothers responded in more socially desirable rather than accurate ways. For
example, only one participant said no to the following questions: “is your child
encouraged to learn nursery rhymes, prayers, songs, etc...(pattemed speech)?,” “is your
child encouraged to learn numbers?,” and “has your child been taken by a family
member on at least one outing every other week?” . Based on the experiences of the
interviewers in this study, a measure with more observation items would be helpful in

better capturing the nature of the home environment.

72

Finally, it is possible that battering may not negatively affect many women’s
ability to provide a stimulating home environment. Many battered women may somehow
be able to encourage academic behavior in their children and to provide stimulating
experiences for them despite being in an abusive relationship. In this case, battering may
have a more indirect effect on the home environment rather than a direct effect. Because
this was anticipated, it was hypothesized that domestic violence would also impact the
home environment indirectly through its effects on mothers’ level of depression.
Consistent with this hypothesis, results showed that domestic violence did impact
mothers’ level of depression, which in turn negatively impacted the home environment.
As was already discussed, the home environment then predicted children’s intellectual
functioning. Thus, it may be that depressed, battered women are unable to provide the
necessary stimulation for children, while non-depressed battered women are able to
provide such environmental experiences.

This indirect path from domestic violence to children’s intellectual functioning is
supported by several areas of previous research. Existing studies have repeatedly
demonstrated a relationship between domestic violence and maternal psychological
functioning, and it has been suggested that the well-being of child witnesses’ is mediated
through the mother (Jaffe et al., 1990). For example, Jaffe and colleagues (Jaffe et al.,
1985; Wolfe et al., 1985) have reported that battered women are signiﬁcantly more
stressed and ineffective with their children than non-battered women. Abused women are
also more likely to feel helpless, powerless (Walker, 1979), depressed, and are more
likely to display trauma symptoms than nonbattered women (Cascardi & O’Leary, 1992;

Herman, 1992 Levendosky & Graham-Bermarm, 1997a).

73

Other researchers have speciﬁcally examined the impact that domestic violence
has on mothers’ parenting abilities and parenting styles. Levendosky and Graham-
Berrnann (1997a; 1997b) have shown that domestic violence has a negative effect on
psychological functioning, which in turn predicts less effective parenting. They have
reported that parenting may shift from withdrawal to overprotection and from anger to
warmth in battered women, and these women tend to feel more helpless over their
parenting capacities. Similarly, another study found that battered women displayed less
sensitive and less consistent parenting than other women (Holden & Ritchie, 1991).

In addition, maternal psychological functioning and parenting have been shown to
mediate the relationship between domestic violence and children’s socio-emotional well-
being. For example, one study found that women’s self-esteem and depression mediated
the effects of domestic violence on preschoolers’ internalizing and externalizing
problems, as well as their affect regulation (Graham-Bermann & Levendosky, 1998).
Other studies have demonstrated that maternal stress and poor parenting practices
predicts greater problems in several areas of children’s adjustment in battered women
(Holden & Ritchie, 1991; Levendosky & Graham-Bermann, 1997b; Rossman et al.,
1993). In sum, it seems that domestic violence indirectly impacts children’s socio-
emotional functioning primarily through its negative effects on mothers. In addition,
Jaffe et al. (1990) posits that child witnesses’ problems and greater needs for stability
may play a reciprocal role by placing more stress on mothers.

Finally, previous research on depressed parents have found that depressed
mothers tend to be less verbal, less positive, and less responsive to their children. In
addition, depressed mothers tend to view their parental role less positively than non-

depressed mothers, which may contribute to hostility or withdrawal from the child

74

(Downey & Coyne, 1990). It is not surprisingly when one considers the symptoms of
depression, that maternal depression led to less verbal interactions with children, less
warmth, less stimulation of academic behavior, and less variety of stimulation in this
study.

In addition to affecting the home environment which impacted intellectual
functioning, it is interesting that maternal depression had a direct effect on PPVT-R
scores, but not on Block Design scores. Having a depressed parent might signiﬁcantly
reduce the amount of language stimulation and verbal interactions that children have with
others, which might impact verbal abilities more than other types of abilities. In addition,
it has been suggested that verbal abilities are more inﬂuenced by general environmental
factors, which might include having a depressed parent, than are visual-spatial abilities
(Greaney, 1986; Mercy & Steelman, 1982). Thus, even though the home environment
was signiﬁcantly associated with both verbal and visual-spatial abilities, another factor
that inﬂuences the environment (maternal depression) was only directly related to verbal
abilities.

Limitations of the Present Study

There are a number of limitations to the present study that warrant consideration
when interpreting the ﬁndings. A few that have already been mentioned include the
small number of participants for between-group analyses, the limited item content on the
HOME inventory, and biases inherent in self-report data. There were a number of
measures particularly prone to inaccurate reporting by mothers. It is very likely that
mothers minimized the amount of domestic violence in the home, the amount of direct
exposure that children experienced, and the amount of child abuse in the home.

Underreporting may be due to embarrassment or shame, a fear of being reported to Child

75

Protective Services, or may be due to mothers’ lack of awareness of what their children
are actually experiencing (especially in terms of direct exposure and abuse by a partner).

Another limitation is that virtually all participants were low-income and low SES.
Consequently, the results of this study are not generalizable to other groups of battered
women such as those in middle or high SES groups. It is possible that these women did
not participate in the study because recruitment efforts focused on higher-risk groups
(e. g., Head Start, F IA), and they were less likely to need the money and more likely to
have other resources available to them. It is unclear whether the ﬁndings would be
similar or different in these other groups. Women in this sample also do not represent a
group of battered women that may be at the more severe end of battering; those that were
too afraid to take part in the study because their partner may discover their participation
or those that may be so isolated they did not have the opportunity to see ﬂiers about the
study.

Because of the children’s age, it was not possible to obtain their self-report on the
amount of violence in the home, their perception of the violence, or its impact on them.
Several previous studies examining the impact of violence on older children have
reported signiﬁcant discrepancies between informants (Hughes & Barad, 1983; Jouriles
& Norwood, 1995; McCloskey et al., 1995; Spaccarelli et al., 1994; Stemberg et al.,
1993) suggesting the need to obtain other people’s perceptions of the type and amount of
violence in the home. There is evidence to suggest that mothers may be negatively biased
when evaluating children’s adjustment (Hughes & Barad, 1983), as well as the possibility
that mothers may underreport problems (Graham-Bermann & Levendosky, 1997;
Spaccarelli et al., 1994). Similarly, this study was unable to obtain teacher report on

children’s academic functioning because of limited resources. In addition, over 20% of

76

the children in this study were not attending preschool at the time. Teacher data would
have been an interesting and useful addition to measurements of intellectual functioning,
as well as to level of suspected abuse in the home.

Another major area that went unexarnined in this study was the possibility of
gender differences in intellectual functioning as a result of domestic violence. Some
researchers have found evidence that domestic violence affects boys and girls differently.
Several studies have reported that boys are more affected by domestic violence than girls
in terms of behavior problems (Porter & O’Leary, 1980; Stagg et al., 1989), although
some studies showed this to be true in school-age children but not in preschool-age
children (Hughes & Barad, 1983). That is, there may be a gender by age interaction.
Other studies have reported greater effects in girls (Spaccarelli et al., 1994), while still
others ﬁnd no sex differences in the effects of domestic violence on both preschool and
school-age samples (Hinchey & Gavelek, 1982; McCloskey et al., 1995; O’Keefe, 1994).
These studies have all assessed the impact of violence on children’s socio-emotional
functioning, and it is still unclear whether there are any gender differences in terms of
children’s intellectual functioning, particularly at the preschool age. In order to address
this limitation, post-hoe analyses were conducted, and results indicated no gender
differences in intellectual functioning or for the impact of domestic violence on children’s
intellectual test scores. That is, boys and girls were not differentially impacted by
domestic violence in the present study.

There were a number of other important variables that were not included in the
current study. For example, this study did not account for the effects of other types of
violence that children may experience such as sibling violence or community violence.

In a review of the effects of violence on children, Osofsky (1995) reported that as many

77

as 72% of children living in urban cities are exposed to community violence, and
community violence is highly related to children’s distress symptoms and to family
violence. Although this study did not take place in a large, urban city, it did assess

people from a medium-sized city who may experience some of the community or
neighborhood problems characteristic of larger cities. Anecdotal data ﬁom this study
support this possibility. For example, one interview had to be rescheduled because a
mother’s older child had just had a gun pointed at her while riding her bike, and another
woman described the fear she had for her children when they played outside because of
the neighbbrhood crack houses. Clearly, there is probably exposure to violence and other
negative community conditions that also affected the children in this study.

Although physical abuse was measured in this study, childhood neglect was left
unexamined. This type of maltreatment is important to assess because previous research
has found this form of abuse to be most related to children’s intellectual development
compared to other types of maltreatment (e. g., Erickson et al., 1989). Also, no other
study looking at the effects of domestic violence on young children has examined the co-
occurrence and effects of neglect on child witnesses. Other factors that are potentially
involved in the pathway from domestic violence to preschooler intellectual functioning,
but were not examined in the current study, include the role of social support for both
mothers and children, parenting practices, number of negative life events or life stressors,
availability of resources to the family, maternal IQ, and other characteristics of the home
environment not captured by the HOME inventory. As is true for all studies, it is
impossible to measure all potentially important variables. However, these ideas provide

important directions for future research.

78

Finally, the results from this study are limited by the cross-sectional design.
Because all variables were measured at the same point in time, it is impossible to
determine causal relationships among variables. A longitudinal design would be
necessary to evaluate whether domestic violence actually causes changes in variables that
then cause differences in children’s intellectual development. In the current study, it is
unclear whether preschoolers’ intellectual functioning was inﬂuenced by unknown past
events such as previous living arrangements, previous school or daycare experiences, or

other types of experiences that may inﬂuence intellectual development.

Implications of the Present Study

This study is an important contribution to the literature on the effects of family
violence on young children because it improved upon many limitations inherent in
previous research, while addressing two gaps in the literature: the effects of violence on
preschool-age children and the effects of violence on children’s intellectual and cognitive
functioning. These two areas have not received nearly as much attention as the effects on
school-age children and socio-emotional adjustment. One particular strength of this
study was the measurement of domestic violence. This is one of the few existing studies
to assess different dimensions of domestic violence such as severity, frequency, and
recency of violence. Scoring accounted for the severity and frequency of violence
experienced by mothers, and information on present and past abusive relationships was
obtained. In addition, domestic violence was assessed as a continuous variable with the
idea that categorizing women based on an arbitrary cut-off is not as sensitive as assessing
along a continuum (Jouriles et al., 1989). Violence can range from infrequent“ mild”

episodes of abuse to frequent, severe forms of abuse and determining who should be

79

considered “ abused” is a difﬁcult, if not impossible, task. Finally, this study assessed the
degree of direct exposure to domestic violence that children experienced and tested both
the effects of direct exposure and the effects of simply living in a violent home regardless
of direct exposure. Most of the existing studies do not examine direct exposure at all and
do not specify the type of exposure (direct or indirect) that they are investigating.

The size and nature of the sample in the present study is also an improvement
over most existing studies. A sample size of 100 allows greater conﬁdence in the results
compared to much smaller groups of individuals seen in other studies. Although children
between the ages of 3 and 5 may differ widely in developmental level, this study also
used a much more narrow age range for child participants than other studies. For
example, two of the existing studies examining the impact of domestic violence on
children’s intellectual functioning had samples ranging from 2 to 8 years of age (Westra
& Martin, 1981) and 4 to 9 years of age (Rossman et al., 1993). The cognitive abilities
and developmental tasks differ greatly between preschoolers and school-age children, and
it is hard to interpret ﬁndings when children from both ages are combined into one group.
Because a number of studies have demonstrated differential impacts on preschool and
school-age children (e.g., Hughes & Barad, 1983), it is crucial to use more homogenous
groups of children in terms of ages.

The participants in this study were also a primarily non-shelter group. The
majority of previous studies have recruited subjects from domestic violence shelters only,
which represent a very speciﬁc group of battered women, so it has been unclear in the
past how domestic violence may impact women and children in a more cornrnunity-based
sample. In addition, samples consisting of shelter residents only are confounded by

additional factors such as being in a crisis stage, relocation into a shelter, possible

80

homelessness, etc... which make it hard to determine if effects seen are actually due to
these factors or due to experiencing violence. A community sample presumably controls
for the potential inﬂuence of some of these factors. Families in this study also
represented a range of ethnicities with over 50% of the sample representing ethnic
minorities. This is important because ethnic minority populations are often neglected in
research, leaving little known information about their functioning and well-being. In
addition, it is critical to assess the effects of family violence in ethnic minorities because
they are already faced with additional risk factors such as limited resources, which the
majority do not generally face. In conclusion, although still limited, the results from this
study may be more generalizable than those from most previous reports due to these
characteristics of the sample.

Another important strength in the present study was the use of multi-method
measurement. Instruments included not only self-report questionnaires, but standardized
tests administered by trained examiners and observational data. These latter two types of
data are not vulnerable to self-report biases inherent in questionnaire data. In addition,
standardized assessment instruments tend to produce more reliable and valid information
(Fantuzzo & Lindquist, 1989). Thus, the use of standardized tests and observational data
allow greater conﬁdence in results. In addition, this study used multiple sources of
information, which has been lacking in previous studies. Various predictors were either
observed or reported by mothers, while data for the outcome variable were obtained from
children. Because mothers may be biased to either underreport or overreport problems,
false positive correlations can occur when all information comes from one informant.

Finally, rather than simply looking at the direct effects of violence on young

children, this study attempted to explain how violence might affect children’s ﬁmctioning

81

by examining potential mediating variables. Investigators have only recently begun to
look at the pathways through which domestic violence can impact children’s adjustment,
and it is this information that will be able to inform and guide intervention programs for
children.

Although this study improved upon several limitations in the existing literature,
there need to be many more studies with increasingly better methodology, and many
other variables still need to be considered. Only one or two studies have now examined
the intellectual functioning of preschool-aged witnesses, but this is not an acceptable
amount. It is surprising that so few researchers have neglected this area of adjustment
since intellectual functioning and academic success have been shown to be important
protective factors, as well as risk factors, for other areas of functioning such as peer
acceptance, emotional health, and delinquency (Garrnezy, Masten, & Tellegen, 1984;
Luthar & Zigler, 1991).

There are also many other potentially important variables that have not been
investigated in this population. As suggested by O’Keefe (1994), an ecological model
would be a useful framework for studying the effects of domestic violence on children.
Based on this model, factors at multiple system levels should be examined for a more
complete understanding of the various, interrelated processes that could be contributing to
children’s functioning. These might include child temperament or parental
psychopathology at the individual level, structure and organization of the system and
level of unpredictability in the home at the family level, and amount of resources or
neighborhood violence at the community level. Studies also need to assess moderating
and mediating variables in order to better understand how violence affects children.

Further, not all child witnesses display greater health or adjustment problems, and it is

82

important to determine what factors might protect child witnesses from the effects of
family violence.

Future studies need to continue to expand methods of measurement. Domestic
violence needs to be clearly deﬁned, and different dimensions of violence should be
considered, i.e., frequency, duration, amount of direct exposure. Basic characteristics
such as age and sex of child, amount of concurrent child abuse, and socioeconomic status
should always be accounted for. Multiple informants should be used whenever possible
to minimize single reporter biases. Furthermore, instruments that are based more on
observation may provide more accurate and meaningful data. For example, researchers
could observe children in the school or could observe parent-child interactions, as well as
different aspects of the home environment. In addition, more studies need to include non-
shelter women and women in middle and higher economic classes in order to determine
how domestic violence impacts women and children in these other groups. For example,
effects may be less severe in women who have more social and ﬁnancial resources.

Finally, more longitudinal studies are needed to clarify the complex relationships
among all of these factors. Virtually all of the studies to date have been cross-sectional,
making it impossible to draw cause and effect relationships. As noted by F antuzzo and
Lindquist (1989), we have little information about the long-term effects of witnessing
violence as a child. Although some studies have assessed adults’ memories of childhood
violence, these studies are problematic because of their retrospective design.
Longitudinal studies would make it possible to study effects that are currently unfolding.
It is also important to remember that child development is best understood from a
transactional model (Sameroff, 1975), which considers development a result of constant

interaction and mutual inﬂuence between the child and his/her environment. A

83

longitudinal study using an ecological, transactional model would likely provide useful
information that is currently lacking in the literature.
mm

This study empirically examined the direct and indirect effects of domestic
violence on preschoolers’ intellectual functioning. It was the ﬁrst study to examine the
potential role of maternal depression and the home environment on the intellectual
functioning of children experiencing domestic violence. In this respect, it is one of the
few studies to empirically test Jaffe et al.’s (1990) family disruption hypothesis, which
states that domestic violence likely impacts children indirectly through its effects on
various other farmly processes and characteristics. It is believed that these “by-products”
of the violence can interfere with children’s well-being as much as the violence per se.
Other studies have attempted to address these relationships by studying the role of
maternal psychological well-being and parenting styles in battered mothers on children’s
adjustment. However, this is the first study to really examine the overall home
environment, particularly through direct observation of the home through home
interviews.

The results of this study partially supported the hypotheses. Although domestic
violence and child abuse was not directly related to preschoolers’ intellectual functioning
in this study, domestic violence did have an indirect relationship to preschoolers’
intellectual functioning through its effects on maternal depression and the home
environment. More speciﬁcally, domestic violence was related to maternal depression,
which predicted a poorer home environment, which in turn was related to lower
functioning in both verbal and visual-spatial abilities. This suggests that at least for

children’s intellectual functioning, domestic violence is more likely to have an indirect

84

effect through other related variables rather than a direct effect. These ﬁndings provide
empirical support for the family disruption hypothesis by showing that the “by-products”
of domestic violence may have more signiﬁcant consequences for children’s well-being.

In addition to providing empirical support for Jaffe et al.’s (1990) theory, these
results also have important implications for the treatment of women and children who
experience domestic violence. For women and children who are currently living in a
violent home, it is important to help women leave the abusive relationship so that she and
her children are no longer exposed to the violence. However, there may be times when
this is not feasible, i.e., due to severe levels of depression, lack of alternative living
situations, lack of ﬁnancial resources, or when the partner threatens to kill the mother or
children. Thus, other interventions are important in addition to st0pping the violence
altogether.

Results from the present study also show that domestic violence may affect
mothers and children even after the violence has ended. For example, mothers’
depression in this study was more affected by previous abuse than current abuse.
Therefore, one possible way of protecting children from the harmful effects of violence is
by reducing mothers’ level of depression. It is absolutely essential that battered mothers
obtain psychological and/or psychiatric help in alleviating their depressive symptoms. In
addition, social support networks, support groups, and other community resources may
help limit mothers’ feelings of isolation and depression. The results from this study
suggest that non-depressed, battered mothers may be able to provide important
stimulating experiences for their children which are important for intellectual

development. Thus, efforts aimed at helping mothers psychologically cope with their

85

experiences of domestic violence will also serve to help children recover from being
exposed to the violence.

Intervention programs could also aid families experiencing domestic violence by
working to increase the quality of the home environment. Clinicians could encourage and
model positive verbal interactions with children, they could help mothers learn how to
stimulate exploratory behaviors in children which might increase children’s feelings of
mastery, and programs could provide stimulating play materials for children. These
efforts may be particularly relevant during the toddler and preschool periods, during
which children are beginning to explore the environment and cognitive competencies are
rapidly increasing. In addition, the results from this study suggest that speciﬁc
characteristics of the home environment are related to speciﬁc cognitive abilities. Thus,
if a child is showing language delays for example, certain aspects of the home
environment such as language stimulation and reading materials may be targeted for
change.

In sum, this study has provided a better understanding for the way in which
domestic violence may impact preschoolers’ intellectual functioning, as well as important
suggestions for clinical interventions with this population. Both clinicians and
researchers must consider other important maternal and familial characteristics that co-
occur with domestic violence when evaluating its effects on child witnesses. Potential
protective factors must be identiﬁed and targeted by interventionists in order to maximize
children’s well-being. Finally, although intervening with preschool-age children is
preferable to waiting until children enter school, earlier preventative efforts should be the

goal. For example, prevention efforts could be aimed at identifying and treating high-risk

86

families during pregnancy or immediately after childbirth. It is only through prevention

that children will have the best possible chances of living healthy and productive lives.

87

APPENDICES

88

Appendix A

FAMILY RELATIONSHIPS STUDY
CONSENT FORM-Mother

You are invited to participate in a survey of families. We hope to learn about the
strengths of families in a variety of situations, including domestic violence. We hope to learn
from mothers about the strategies they use to face the daily challenges and their perceptions of
their preschoolers. We are also interested in aspects of the home environment and preschooler
development. This information will be used to help people to plan better programs for families,
especially families with domestic violence.

If you decide to take part in the survey, you will be asked to ﬁll out questionnaires about
how you and your preschooler have been doing recently, and events that have happened to both
of you. You will be asked to be videotaped engaging in a task with your preschooler. This will
take a total of 2-3 hours. You will also be asked to make a second appointment to be done in
your home at your convenience. You will be paid $50 for your participation, and your
preschooler will be given a toy.

All information will be kept strictly conﬁdential. Names will be removed from all
questionnaires after identiﬁcation numbers are added. Only identiﬁcation numbers will be put
on the videotapes. Only the study project members will have access to the questionnaires and
videotapes. The videotapes will be watched and coded by study project members. All data
(including questionnaires and videotapes) will be kept in locked ﬁle cabinets in a locked ofﬁce.
No one will be identiﬁable in any reports written about this study. Data will be reported about
groups rather than individuals. The only exception is in the case of ongoing child abuse, in
which case we will need to make a report to Protective Services.

In addition, we are interested in contacting your child’s preschool teacher to have
him/her ﬁll out a questionnaire about your child’s behavior at school. The teacher will not be
informed as to the nature of the study, but will only be told that this is about family relationships.
The teacher will be paid $10 for his/her participation in the study. Please ﬁll in the name of your
child’s preschool teacher, name of the preschool and phone number below.

You have the right to withdraw your participation at any time with no penalty or negative
consequences. Your decision to participate or not to participate will not affect your relationship
with any social service agencies, your child’s preschool, or Michigan State University. If you
have any questions, please ask us. If you have questions later, you can contact Dr. Alytia
Levendosky at (517) 353-6396.
*1!”kadunk*************#******************************************************#*4!
I have read and understood the above statements. I understand that my participation in this study
is completely voluntary and that I can withdraw either myself or my child at any time.

 

 

Signature of Participant Date

Witness Date
Alytia Levendosky, PhD.
Michigan State University
Department of Psychology
121 Snyder Hall
East Lansing, MI 48824-1 1 l7

 

89

FAMILY RELATIONSHIPS STUDY
CONSENT F ORM-Mother for Preschooler

You are invited to participate in a survey of families. We hOpe to learn about the
strengths of families in a variety of situations, including domestic violence. We hope to
learn from mothers about the strategies they use to face the daily challenges and their
perceptions of their preschoolers. We are also interested in aspects of the home
environment and preschooler development. This information will be used to help people
to plan better programs for families, especially families with domestic violence.

If you decide to take part in the survey, you will be asked to allow a research
assistant to ask your preschooler some questions about themselves and events that may
have happened to them recently. The researcher will also have your child complete some
simple school-like tasks. You will then be asked to be videotaped engaging in a task with
your preschooler. This will take a total of 2-3 hours. You will be paid $50 for your
participation, and your preschooler will be given a toy.

All information will be kept strictly conﬁdential. Names will be removed ﬁ'om all
questionnaires after identiﬁcation numbers are added. Only the study project members
will have access to the questionnaires. No one will be identiﬁable in any reports written
about this study. Data will be reported about groups rather than individuals. The only
exception is in the case of ongoing child abuse, in which case we will need to make a
report to Protective Services.

You have the right to withdraw your participation at any time with no penalty or
negative consequences. Your decision to participate or not to participate will not affect
your relationship with any social service agencies, your child’s preschool, or Michigan
State University. If you have any questions, please ask us. If you have questions later,
you can contact Dr. Alytia Levendosky at (517) 353-6396.

*************1!!!*************************1!******************************Ik

I have read and understood the above statements. I understand that my participation in
this study is completely voluntary and that I can withdraw either myself or my child at
any time.

 

 

 

 

 

Signature of Participant Date
Name of Child
Witness Date

Alytia Levendosky, Ph.D.
Michigan State University
Department of Psychology, 121 Snyder Hall
East Lansing, MI 48824-1117

90

 

Appendix B

Preschool
Study

A study of family relationships of mothers and
preschoolers between 3 and 5 years of age.
Mothers and children will participate
in two 2 hour meetings.

Mothers will be paid
$50 for their time and children
will receive a small gift

 

 

If you are interested or would like more information, please call Dr. Alytia Levendosky at
Michigan State University:

432-1447

91

Dear Parents:
We are writing to ask you and your
preschool child to participate in this research project:

Preschool
Study

This is a study of family relationships
of mothers and preschoolers between 3 and 5 years of age.
Mothers and children will participate
in two 2 hour meetings.

Mothers will be paid
$50 for their time and
children will receive a

small gift
This project is being run by Dr. Alytia Levendosky at
Michigan State University: 432-1447

 

If you are interested or would like more information, please
rip off and ﬁll out the bottom of this form and return it to
your child’s classroom teacher. Thanks!

Your name
Your child’s name

 

 

Your address

 

 

Your phone number

 

92

Appendix C

THE PRESCHOOL STUDY
Demographic Questionnaire

PLEASE PROVIDE THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION ABOUT YOURSELF AND

YOUR F AMH.Y. REMEMBER THAT ALL INFORMATION WILL REMAIN
COMPLETELY CONFIDENTLAL

1) First name of the child participating in the survey

 

2) What is your child’s date of birth? / / 19_

3) Please list the members of your family: List your child, yourself, your partner (if any),
followed by any other family members listed from OLDEST TO YOUNGEST. Be sure
to indicate the relationship TO THE CHILD IN THE STUDY (e. g mother, stepmother,
brother, step sister, half brother, aunt, grandmother, nonrelative (specify), etc.). Leave
partner blank if no current partner.

 

First Name ReLationehip to Child Sex Age Living with you?
Child 1. Self
You 2.
Partner 3.
(if any)
Oldest 4.
member
2nd 5.
oldest
3rd 6.
oldest
4th 7.
oldest
5th 8.
oldest

93

6th 9.
oldest

4) What are the total number of people currently living in your home?

5) Current marital status
[ ] Single
[ ] Living with partner (how long? 1
[]Married (how long? )
[ ] Separated (how long? )
[ ] Divorced (how long? )
[ ] Widowed (how long? )

6) Who has custody of the child in the study?

 

[ ] You [ ] Other (Who? )
7) Racial or ethnic group?
you child
[ ] Native American
Asian
Black, African-American

Latino, Hispanic-American
Biracial (mixed): specify
White

Other

 

I
I
I
I
I
I
I

8) What is the 'ghest level of education you have completed?
Grade school or less

Some high school

High school degree/GED

Some college

College degree

Some graduate school

Graduate degree

1?

HHHHF‘HF‘

9) Is your child currently enrolled in preschool? [ ] yes [ ] no
Where?
If yes, for how many hours per week?
Is your child currently enrolled in day care? [ ] yes [ ] no
If yes, for how many hours per week?
If yes, which best describes the day care setting?
[ ] Individual provider in your home
[ ] Individual provider(s) in their home (total of 1-2 children)
[ ] Individual provider(s) in their home (total of 3 or more children)

[ ] Daycare center

 

94

10) Are you working at this time?
[ ] Yes Hours per week?
[ ] No

11) Which one of the following best describes your occupation?
Artist, writer, designer, craftsperson
Farmer, agricultural worker

Homemaker

Manager, administrator
Professional: specify type
Technician, skilled worker

Student

Semiskilled or unskilled worker
White-collar (sales, clerical, secretary)
Retired

Unemployed

Other

 

I—ll—lt—lh‘t—Jl—Dl—ll—Jh—JL—Jl—Jl—l

12) What is your total family income (include public assistance received, if any)?
$ (Circle one: per month or per year)

 

13) Which of the following best describes your religious afﬁliation?
Protestant (what type? 4
Catholic

Jewish

Muslim

Atheism/Agnosticism

No religious afﬁliation

14) How long have you been living in your current housing?
less than 1 month

1 to 3 months

4 to 6 months

7 to 12 months

1 to 3 years

more than 3 years

f—ﬁf—IHI—If-WH

15) How long have you lived in this state? (Circle one: months or years)

 

16) How many times have you moved since the preschooler in the study was born?
[ ] once
[ ] 2 to 3 times
[ ] 4 to 5 times
[ ] more than 5 times

95

17) Have you ever stayed in a shelter before?

 

 

[ ] Yes, how many times?
[ ] No
18) If Yes, what kind of a shelter did you stay in?
[ ] For battered women
[ ] For homeless women
[ ] Other
19) Have you ever been in an abusive relationship?
[ ] Yes
I 1 N0

20) If yes to 19, what are the dates of that relationship(s).

 

 

 

 

 

Month / Year

relationship started
Abusive relationship #1 /
Abusive relationship #2 /
Abusive relationship #3 /
Abusive relationship #4 /
Abusive relationship #5 /

96

Month / Year
relationship ended
(write “current” if ongoing)

Appendix D
Severity of Violence Against Women Scales

During the past year, you and your partner have probably experienced anger or conﬂict. Below
is a list of behaviors your partner may have done during the past 12 months. Describe how
often your partner has done each behavior by writing a number from the following scale.

1 2 3 4
never once a few times many times

Also, mark an X next to those items which your preschooler who is in the study witnessed, either
by seeing or hearing it.

PLEASE INDICATE DATES OF THIS RELATIONSHIP: / / TO

/

\

How often has your partner:

 

1. Hit or kicked a wall, door or furniture 31. Kicked you
2. Threw, smashed or broke an object _32. Hit you with an object
3. Driven dangerously with you in the car _33. Stomped on you
4. Threw an object at you _ 34. Choked you
5. Shock a ﬁnger at you _35. Punched you
6. Made threatening gestures or faces at _36. Burned you w/something

ou
7. yShook a ﬁst at you __37. Used a club-like object
8. Acted like a bully toward you on you
9. Destroyed something belonging to you _38. Beat you up

_39. Used a knife or gun on you

10. Threatened to harm or damage things __40. Demanded sex whether you

you care about wanted to or not
11. Threatened to destroy property _41. Made you have oral sex
12. Threatened someone you care about against your will
13. Threatened to hurt you _42. Made you have sexual intercourse
l4. Threatened to kill himself against your will
15. Threatened you with a club-like object _43. Physically forced you to have sex _
l6. Threatened you with a knife or gun _44. Made you have anal sex agarnst
l7. Threatened to kill you your will .
18. Threatened you with a weapon _45. Used an object on you in a sexual __
19. Acted like he wanted to kill you way
20. Held you down, pinning you in place _46. Grabbed you suddenly or forcefully__
21. Pushed or shoved you
22. Shook or roughly handled you
23. Scratched you
24. Pulled your hair
25. Twisted your arm
26. Spanked you ._
27. Bit you __
28. Slapped you with the palm of __

his/her hand
29. Slapped you with the back of __
his/her hand
30. Slapped you around your face __
and head

97

Use the following scale:

1 2 3 4
never once a few times many times

During your previous relationship, how often did your partner do the following? Again
please check any items that your preschooler witnessed in the right-hand column.

 

1. Hit or kicked a wall, door or furniture _31. Kicked you
2. Threw, smashed or broke an object _32. Hit you with an object
3. Driven dangerously with you in the car _33. Stonrped on you
4. Threw an object at you _ 34. Choked you
5. Shook a ﬁnger at you _35. Punched you
6. Made threatening gestures or faces at _36. Burned you w/something
you
7. Shock a ﬁst at you __37. Used a club-like object
8. Acted like a bully toward you on you
9. Destroyed something belonging to you _38. Beat you up
_39. Used a knife or gun on you

10. Threatened to harm or damage things _40. Demanded sex whether you

you care about wanted to or not
1 1. Threatened to destroy property __41. Made you have oral sex
12. Threatened someone you care about against your will
13. Threatened to hurt you _42. Made you have sexual intercourse
14. Threatened to kill himself against your will
15. Threatened you with a club-like object _43. Physically forced you to have sex _
16. Threatened you with a knife or gun _44. Made you have anal sex against __
l7. Threatened to kill you your will
18. Threatened you with a weapon _45. Used an object on you in a sexual __
19. Acted like he wanted to kill you way
20. Held you down, pinning you in place _ ___46. Grabbed you suddenly or forcefully—
21. Pushed or shoved you
22. Shook or roughly handled you
23. Scratched you
24. Pulled your hair
25. Twisted your arm
26. Spanked you
27. Bit you __
28. Slapped you with the pahn of __

his/her hand
29. Slapped you with the back of __
his/her hand
30. Slapped you around your face __
and head

98

Appendix E
Conﬂict Tactics Scale

The following is a list of some things that your husband/partner might
have done with your child when the two of them had a dispute or
disagreement.

Please use the following scale to answer each item:

0=N ever, 1=Once, 2=Twice, 3= 3-5 times, 4= 6-10 times,

5= 11-20 times, 6=more than 20 times, X= Don’t know

 

 

 

 

In the past year Ever happened
1. Discussed the issue calmly Yes No
with your child
2. Got information to back up your Yes No
side of things
3. Brought in or tried to bring in some Yes No
someone to help settle things
4. Insulted or swore at your child Yes No
5. Sulked or refused to talk about it Yes No
6. Stomped out of the room or house Yes No
(or yard)
7. Cried Yes No
8. Did or said something to spite Yes No
your child
9. Threatened to hit or throw Yes No
something at your child
10. Threw or smashed or hit or Yes No
kicked something, but not at your child
11. Actually threw something at your Yes N0
chﬂd
12. Pushed, grabbed, or shoved your Yes N0
child
13. Slapped your child __ Yes N0
14. Kicked, bit, or hit your child with Yes N0
a ﬁst
15. Hit or tried to hit your child with Yes No
something
16. Beat up your child __ Yes No
17. Threatened your child with a __ Yes No
knife or gun
18. Used a knife or gun on your __ Yes No
chﬂd
19. Other ______ YCS N0

 

99

The following is a list of some things that you might have done with
your child when the two of you had a dispute or disagreement.

Please use the following scale to answer each item:

0=N ever, 1=Once, 2=Twice, 3= 3-5 times, 4= 6-10 times,

5= 11-20 times, 6=more than 20 times, X= Don’t know

In the past year

1. Discussed the issue calmly

with your child

2. Got information to back up your
side of things

3. Brought in or tried to bring in some
someone to help settle things

4. Insulted or swore at your child

5. Sulked or refused to talk about it
6. Stomped out of the room or house
(or yard)

7. Cried

8. Did or said something to spite
your child

9. Threatened to hit or throw

something at your child

10. Threw or smashed or hit or
kicked something, but not at your child

11. Actually threw something at your __
child

12. Pushed, grabbed, or shoved your

child

13. Slapped your child _—
14. Kicked, bit, or hit your child with __
a ﬁst

15. Hit or tried to hit your child with _____

 

something

16. Beat up your child

17. Threatened your child with a

knife or gun

18. Used a knife or gun on your __
child

19. Other _—

IOO

Ever happened

Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No

 

Appendix F
Beck Depression Inventory

In answering these questions, think about each item carefully and give the answer out of
the group of 4 items that best reﬂects how you have been feeling during the past week.

I do not feel sad.

I feel sad.

I am sad all the time and I can’t snap out of it.
I am so sad or unhappy that I can’t stand it.

1.

I am not particularly discouraged about the future.

I feel discouraged about the future.

I feel I have nothing to look forward to.

I feel that the future is hopeless and that things cannot improve.

I do not feel like a failure.

I feel I have failed more than the average person.

As I look back on my life, all I can see is a lot of failures.
I feel I am a complete failure as a person.

I get as much satisfaction out of things as I used to.
I don’t enjoy things the way I used to.

I don’t get real satisfaction out of anything anymore.
I am dissatisﬁed or bored with everything.

I don’t feel particularly guilty.

I feel guilty a good part of the time.
I feel quite guilty most of the time.
I feel guilty all of the time.

Hf—Il—HH

I don’t feel I am being punished.
I feel I may be punished.

I expect to be punished.

I feel I am being punished.

Fir—IE!—

I don’t feel disappointed in myself.
I am disappointed in myself.

I am disgusted with myself.

I hate myself.

I don’t feel I am any worse than anybody else.

I am critical of myself for all my weaknesses or mistakes.
I blame myself all the time for my faults.

I blame myself for everything had that happens.

r-Hr—r—ﬁr—

101

 

10.

ll.

12.

13.

14.

look

15.

16.

"‘ " "—‘ f—‘l—IF‘H F‘HF‘H HF

L—lL—Jl—JI—l

f_|l'—'|'—!F—-I

I don’t have any thoughts of killing myself.

I have thoughts of killing myself, but I would not carry them out.
I would like to kill myself.

I would kill myself if I had the chance.

I don’t cry any more than usual.

I cry more now than I used to.

I cry all the time now.

I used to be able to cry, but now I can’t cry even though I want to.

I am no more irritated by things than I ever am.

I am slightly more irritated now than usual.

I am quite annoyed or irritated a good deal of the time.
I feel irritated all the time now.

I have not lost interest in other people.

I am less interested in other people than I used to be.
I have lost most of my interest in other people.

I have lost all of my interest in other people.

I make decisions about as well as I ever could.

I put off making decisions more than I used to.

I have greater difﬁculty in making decisions than before.
I can’t make decisions at all anymore.

I don’t feel that I look any worse than I used to.

I am worried that I am looking old or unattractive.

I feel that there are permanent changes in my appearance that make me
unattractive.

I believe that I look ugly.

I can work about as well as before.

It takes an extra effort to get started at doing something.
I have to push myself very hard to do anything.

I can’t do any work at all.

I can sleep as well as usual.

I don’t sleep as well as I used to. .
I wake up 1-2 hours earlier than usual and ﬁnd 1t hard to get back to sleep.

I wake up several hours earlier than I used to and cannot get back to sleep.

102

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

F—sr—nr—ir—i

f—Nf—W

I]
I]

I don’t get more tired than usual.

I get tired more easily than I used to.

I get tired from doing almost everything.
I am too tired to do anything.

My appetite is no worse than usual.

My appetite is not as good as it used to be.
My appetite is much worse now.

I have no appetite at all anymore.

I haven’t lost much weight, if any, lately.
I have lost more than ﬁve pounds.

I have lost more than ten pounds.

I have lost more than ﬁfteen pounds.

I am no more worried about my health than usual.

I am worried about physical problems such as aches and pains, or upset
stomach, or constipation.

I am very worried about my physical problems and it’s hard to think of

much else. .
I am so worried about my physical problems that I cannot think about

anything else.

I have not noticed any recent change in my interest in sex.
I am less interested in sex than I used to be.

I am much less interested in sex now.

I have lost interest in sex completely.

103

 

Appendix G
Horne Observation for Measurement of the Environment

PRESCHOOL HOME INVENTORY ID#

I’m going to be asking you some general questions about your son/daughter

( ), including things he/she does during free time, activities that you may or may
not do with him/her, and other questions about your daily routine with him/her.
Other questions may be more speciﬁc about certain activities.

A. What is a typical day like? Start with things you remember when ( ) first
woke up, say yesterday. (Don’t allow too much detail for time purposes. Jot down
important points and ask mom to slow down if necessary)

B. Give me some examples of places you go and take ( ) with you, e.g., grocery

store, doctor’s ofﬁce or clinic, relatives, outings such as a picnic.
44. About how often does that happen? At least every other week?
(circle) At least 1X every other week Less than every other week

46. During the past year, has ( ) been taken by a family member to a
scientific, historical, or art museum?
yes no .
45. Has ( ) been taken by a family member on a trip of more than 50
miles from home during the past year?

yes no . . .
14. Sometimes parents are concerned about how their children wrll

behave when they take them on outings. In general, has ( ) learned manners
such as “Please” and “Thank you” and “I’m sorry”? How did s/he learn these?
Child learns manners from parents Child does po_t learn manners from

parents

104

 

C. Now I’m interested in knowing something about the kinds of toys and play
materials your child likes to play with. Can you tell me what ( ) likes to play
with at home?

[This is an open-ended question. If the mother does not spontaneously address items 1-6,
12, 43 below, ask about them by speciﬁcally saying “Does ( ) ever play with toys
that teach colors and shapes? Like what?” “Does ( ) ever play with puzzles?” Ask
for speciﬁc examples of what is in the home and for her to point them out if they are
nearby so she doesn’t just answer “yes” to anything]

1. Toys to learn colors and sizes and shapes—pressouts, play school,
pegboards, etc...?
yes no
2. Three or more puzzles?
yes no
3. Record player and at least 5 children’s records or taperecorder and
children’s audiocassettes?
yes no
4. Ever do art activities like finger paints, play dough, crayons or paint
and paper, etc..?
yes no
5. Toys or games that require concentration and physical skills like
coloring, paint by number, dot book, paper dolls, etc..?
yes no
6. Toys or games that help with learning numbers (blocks with numbers,
books about numbers, games with numbers, etc..)?
yes no
12. Toys to learn animals—books about animals, circus, games, animal
puzzles, etc...?
yes no

43. Real or toy musical instrument (piano, drum, toy xylophone, guitar,

etc..)?
yes no .
47. Does ( ) pick up and put away toys after play wrthout help?

yes no .
49. Is there a place where ( ) can display his/her artwork or anything

s/he makes? Does this ever happen?
Child’s artwork is Child’s artwork not

displayed in home displayed in home
D. One of the hardest things about having young children around the house is that

they are always demanding attention and you have a lot of other things to do besides
pay attention to them. For example, kids this age ask a lot of questions.

105

 

16. Does ( ) ask a lot of questions or want to tell you about his/her
day? What do you do?
Parent listens to child Parent does pet listen to child
26. Do you manage to find time to hold ( ) on your lap (or hold next
to you)? About how often do you do that? When do you usually do that? For how
long?

Parent holds child Parent does not hold child
lO-15 minutes/d_ay 10-15 minutes/d_ay

E. How do you manage mealtimes at your home?

50. On most days, does ( ) eat at least one meal with you? With both
of you (if romantic partner lives in home)? (one parent families get an automatic “no” for
this question)

Child cats with 2 parental ﬁgures Child does not eat with 2 parental

ﬁgures
Give me some examples of foods s/he likes.
Dislikes
18. Who usually chooses what ( ) eats (any meal)?

Child has some say Child has no say
51. Do the two of you ever go to the grocery store-—if so, can s/he choose

favorite foods?
Child can choose some food Child does not choose food

38. Sometimes kids are hungry between meals—is that true of ( )?

How do you manage that?
Child able to delay gratiﬁcation for food Child cannot delay

gratiﬁcation
(doesn’t whine or demand) (whines/demands food)

F. In general, does ( ) mind you pretty well? Or do you have to punish

him/her to get him/her to do what you want?
55. About how many times/week would you say you have to spank

him/her? What usually happens to cause this (what does the child do)?
Child spanked less than lX/week Child spanked one or more

times/week
41. What happens when ( ) gets mad or negative and tells you

about it?
Child allowed to express Child not allowed to express

negative feelings negative feelings.
42. What happens if ( ) hits you? (If mother says tlus has never

happened, ask what she would do if it did). .
Child allowed to hit parent Child not allowed to hit parent

106

 

G. A child as young as ( ) ties a mother down much of the time. Do you ever
manage to get away by yourself?

9. Do you have time to read the newspaper? Daily?
Reads paper daily Does not read paper daily
10. Time to read magazines? Subscribe?
Subscribes to at least 1 magazine Does not subscribe to magazines

7. Time to read ( )books of his/her own? About how many
(children’s books)?

owns/uses 10 children’s books Less than 10 children’s books
8. (If books are not visible), have you set aside a special place for them
(any books)?

>10 books visible in home <10 books visible in home

39. I’m sure you find the TV a lot of company. Do you usually leave it on

during the day or just turn it on for special programs?

H.

(

TV used judiciously TV left on all day _O_R does not own TV

) seems to be a smart kid.
11. Does s/he know her/his shapes already?

yes no
13. Alphabet?
yes no
33. Is( ) encouraged to learn colors?
yes no

34. To learn nursery rhymes, prayers, songs, or something like this
(patterned speech)?

yes no
35. Encouraged to learn spatial relationships (up, down, under, big, little,

etc...)? How?

yes no
36. To learn numbers? How?
yes no
37. To read a few words? How?
yes no

107

 

Additional auestig; for preschool HOME for Shelter morn;

19. Are there any areas of your home that need physical repair? Like what?
Anything that needs fixing?

Home is not dangerous for child Home is dangerous for child
20. Does your child have any outside area to play? What’s that like (how big,

any hazards..)?

Outside play area is safe Outside play area is not safe
21. What does the inside of your home look like in general?

Home is not dark or monotonous Home is dark/monotonous
22. What’s your neighborhood like? Do you enjoy looking around it? Do you
like to be outside at home?

Neighborhood is Neighborhood is not
aesthetically pleasing aesthetically pleasing
23. Approximately, what size is your home, i.e., how many rooms are there and

about how big are each?

At least 100 sq. feet per person Less than 100 sq. feet per person

in home in home
24. Do you wish you had more space in your home or is it spacious enough? Do
you feel like it is overcrowded, i.e., cluttered or lots of furniture?

Rooms not cluttered/overcrowded Rooms are cluttered/overcrowded
25. Are you able to ﬁnd the time to organize and tidy up the home?

House is kept clean House is not kept clean

For mothers in shelters or otherwise unable to have a home visit, do the best you can to
observe and code items 15, 17, 27-32, 40, 48, 52-54. Most of these require interactions
with their children in front of the observer, but some do not, i.e., “mother uses correct
grammar.”

108

 

9‘

r—‘HOOON
#0..-

II.

12.

13.
14.

15.
16.

17.

18.

Home Observation for Measurement of the Environment
Preschool Version

STIMULATION THROUGH TOYS, GAMES, AND
READING MATERIALS YES NO

Toys to learn colors and sizes and shapes—pressouts,
play school, pegboards, etc...

Three or more puzzles.

Record player and at least ﬁve children’s records.

Toys or game permitting free expression (ﬁnger paints,
play dough, crayons, or paint and paper, etc. . .).

Toys or game necessitating reﬁned movements (play by
by number, dot book, paper dolls, crayons and coloring
books).

Toys or game facilitating learning numbers (blocks with
numbers, books about numbers, games with numbers).
Ten children’s books.

At least ten books are present and visible in the apartment.
Family buys a newspaper daily and reads it.

Family subscribes to at least one magazine.

Child is encouraged to learn shapes.

SUBSCORE

POSITIVE SOCIAL RESPONSIVENESS YES NO

Toys to learn animals—books about animals, circus,
games, animal puzzles, etc.

Child is encouraged to learn the alphabet

Parent teaches child some simple manners—to say,
“Please,” “thank you,” I’m sorry.”

Mother uses correct grammar and pronunciation.
Parent encourages child to relate experiences or takes
time to listen to him relate experiences.

When speaking of or to child, mother’s voice conveys
positive feeling.

Child is permitted some choice in lunch or breakfast menu.

SUBSCORE

109

III.

19.

20.

21.

22.

23.

24.

25.

26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.

32.

33.
34.

35.

PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT, SAFE, CLEAN AND YES NO
CONDUCIV E TO DEVELOPMENT

Building has no potentially dangerous structural or

health defect (e.g., plaster coming down from ceiling,
stairway with boards missing, rodents, etc.).

Child’s outside play environment appears safe and free of
hazards. (no outside play area requires an automatic no).
The interior of the apartment is not dark or perceptibly

monotonous.
Neighborhood has trees, grass, birds—is aesthetically
pleasing.
There is at least 100 square feet of living space per person
in the house.
In terms of available ﬂoor space, the rooms are not over-
crowded with furniture.
All visible rooms of the house are reasonably clean and
minimally cluttered.

SUBSCORE
PRIDE, AFFECTION, AND WARMTH YES NO

Parent holds child close ten to ﬁfteen minutes

per day, e. g., during TV, story time, visiting.

Mother converses with child at least twice during

visit (scolding and suspicious comments not counted).
Mother answers child’s questions or requests verbally.
Mother usually responds verbally to child’s talking.
Mother spontaneously praises child’s qualities or behavior
twice during visit.

Mother caresses, kisses, or cuddles child at least once
during visit.

Mother sets up situation that allows child to show off
during visit.

SUBSCORE

STIMULATION OF ACADEMIC BEHAVIOR YES NO

Child is encouraged to learn colors.

Child is encouraged to learn pattered speech (nursery
rhymes, prayers, songs, TV commercials, etc.).
Child is encouraged to learn spatial relationships

110

36.

37.

VI.

38.

39.

40.
41 .
42.

VII.

43.

44.

45.

46.

47.

48.

49.

50.

51.

(up, down, under, big, little, etc.).
Child is encouraged to learn numbers.
Child is encouraged to learn to read a few words.

SUBSCORE

MODELING AND ENCOURAGEMENT OF SOCIAL
MATURITY ' YES NO

Some delay of food gratiﬁcation is demanded of the
child, e.g., not to whine or demand food unless within

V2 hour of meal time.

Family has TV, and it is used judiciously, not left on
continuously. (No TV requires an automatic NO—any
scheduling scores YES).

Mother introduces interviewer to child

Child can express negative feelings without harsh reprisal.
Child is permitted to hit parent without harsh reprisal.

SUBSCORE

VARIETY OF STIMULATION YES NO

Real or toy musical instrument (piano, drum, toy
xylophone or guitar, etc.).
Family members have taken child on one outing (picnic,
shopping excursion) at least every other week.
Child has been taken by family member on a trip more
than 50 miles ﬁom his home during the past year (50 mile
radial distance not total distance).
Child has been taken by a family member to a scientiﬁc,
historical, or art museum within the past year.
Tries to get child to pick up and put away toys after play
session—without help.
Mother uses complex sentence structure and some long words
in conversing.
Child’s art work is displayed some place in house (anything the
child makes.)
Child cats at least one meal per day, on most days, with mother
(or mother ﬁgure) and father (or father ﬁgure). (one parent
families get an automatic NO).
Parent lets child choose certain favoritve food products or
brands at grocery store.

SUBSCORE

lll

VIII. PHYSICAL PUNISHMENT YES NO

52. Mother does not scold (yell) or derogate child more
than once during visit.
53. Mother does not use physical restraint, shake, grab, or

pinch child during visit.
54. Mother neither slaps or spanks child during visit.
55. No more than one instance of physical punishment occurred

during the past week (accept parental report).

SUBSCORE

ll2

Minna _. 32.n— en 5033.? 50.2.3 2:. GEE—dam .53-.323. 7.5.2.0335

gnaw—.5».

Unnammmmea

      

   

<24.»—
38.—“mean

    
  

mega
Mam—6:52:

 
 

baseman
$22.8

 

«ease—menac—
58:52.8

  
 
 

Appendix H

  
   

933
aux—5mg» He

 
 

$22.8

 

113

Encnm m. we... >356; ..e.. 5938.8 522.8 9.... 02.9.2.6 58:82.». 1.5.2.2...5

    

  

3.5.3....
58688.2.

 

  
       

<83...

thus. TLMV

 
       

     

 

.82... 58:52.8
1 .33....
m 62.828 :28
W $22.88 @38352.»
A A. u c * .3
1- . we n *

  

warm—.8.»
98:52.8

 

u.... A .am. .3... A .3. .12.: A .2:
C 522.8 «8322.8 922. 25:6...5 3.. mam E... .3258

114

REFERENCES

115

 

REFERENCES

Allen, R.E., & Oliver, J .M. (1982). The effects of child maltreatment on
language development. Child Abuse & Neglect,6. 299-305.

Azar, S.T., Barnes, K.T., & Twentyman, CT. (1988). Developmental outcomes
in physically abused children: Consequences of parental abuse or the effects of a more
general breakdown in caregiving behaviors? The Behavior Therapist, 11, 27-32.

Barahal, R.M., Waterman, J ., & Martin, HP. (1981). The social cognitive
development of abused children. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 49. 508-
516.

Baron, R.M., & Kenny DA. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction
in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations.
Journal of Personm and Social Psychology, 51, 1173-1182.

Beck, A.T., Ward, C.H., Mendelson, M., Mock, J ., & Erbaugh, J. (1961). An
inventory for measuring depression. Archives of Genegilﬁyclmﬁ, 561-571.

Bouchard, T.J., Jr., & Segal, N.L. (1985). Environment and IQ. In B.B. Wolman
(Ed.), Handbook of intelligence: Theories, measurements, and applications (pp. 391-464).
New York: Wiley.

Bousha, D., & Twentyman, CT. (1984). Abusing, neglectful and comparison
mother-child interactional style: Nautralistic observations in the home setting. Journal of
Abnormal Psychology, 93, 106-114.

Bradley, R.H., & Caldwell, BM. (1976). Early home environment and changes
in mental test performance in children from 6 to 36 months. Developmental Psychology,
1_2_, 93-97.

Bradley, R.H., & Caldwell, BM. (1979). Home observation for measurement of
the environment: A revision of the preschool scale. American Journal of Mental
Deﬁciencies 84 235-244.

 

Bradley, R.H., & Caldwell, BM. (1984). The relation of infants’ home
environments to achievement test performance in ﬁrst grade: A follow-up study. Child

Development, 55, 803-809.

Bradley, R.H., Caldwell, B.M., & Rock, S.L. (1988). Home environment and
school performance: A ten year follow-up and examination of three models of
environmental action. Child Development, 59, 852-867.

116

Bradley, R.H., Caldwell, B.M., Rock, S.L., Barnard, K.E., Gray, C., Hammond,
M.A., Mitchell, 8., Siegel, L., Ramey, C.T., Gottfried, A.W., & Johnson, D.L. (1989).
Home environment and cognitive deveIOpment in the ﬁrst 3 years of life: A collaborative
study involving six sites and three ethnic groups in North America. Devciopmental

Psychology, 25, 217-235.

 

Bradley, R.H., Whiteside, L., Caldwell, B.M., Casey, P.H., Kelleher, K., Pope, S.,
Swanson, M., Barrett, K., & Cross, D. (1993). Maternal IQ, the home environment, and
child IQ in low birthweight, premature children. International Journal of Behavioral
Development. E, 61-74.

Browne, A. (1993). Violence against women by male partners: Prevalence,
outcomes, and policy implications. American Psychologist, 48, 1077-1087.

Browne, A., & Williams, KR. (1989). Exploring the effect of resource
availability and the likelihood of female-perpetrated homicides. Law and Society
Review 23 75-94.

 

Bumberry, W., Oliver, J.M., & McClure, J .N. (1978). Validation of the beck
depression inventory in a university pOpulation using psychiatric estimate as the criterion.
Journal of Consulting and Clinipal Psychology. 46. 150-155.

Caldwell, B., & Bradley, R. (1984). Home Observation for Measurement of the
Environment. Little Rock, AR: University of Arkansas.

Carlson, B. (1984). Children’s observations of interparental violence. In A.R.
Roberts (Eds), Battered women and their families. New York: Springer.

Cascardi, M., & O’Leary, K.D. (1992). Depressive symptomatology, self-esteem,
and self-blame in battered women. Journal of Family Violence, 7, 249-259.

Clarke-Stewart, K.A. (1973). Interactions between mothers and their young
children: Characteristics and consequences. Monogaphs of the Society for Research in
Child Development, 38, (6-7, Serial No. 153).

Crittenden, RM. (1981). Abusing, neglecting, problematic and adequate dyads:
Differentiating be patterns of interaction. Merrill Palmer Quartemp27, 201-218.

Davis, L.V., & Carlson, BE. (1987). Observations of spouse abuse: What
happens to the children? J ourpal of Interpersoaal ViolenceLZ, 278-291.

Dawud, S., Cortes, R.M., Lewensohn, 0., Hart, J ., Posner, S., Cohen, E.,
Stemberg, K.J., & Lamb, ME. (1991, April). Effects of domestic violence on children’s
adjustment in school. Presented at the meeting of the Society for Research in Child
Development, Seattle, WA.

117

Downey, G., & Coyne, J .C. (1990). Children of depressed parents: An
integrative review. Psychological Bulletin. 108. 50-76.

Dunn, L.M. (1965). Peabody Picture Vocabulapy_T est. Circle Pines, MN:
American Guidance Services.

Dunn, L.M., & Dunn, S. (1981). Revised manual for the Peabody Picture
Vocabulagy Test. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Services.

Eckenrode, J ., Laird, M., & Doris, J. (1993). School performance and
disciplinary problems among abused and neglected children. Developmentaﬁychology,
22, 53-62.

Elmer, E. (1977). A follow-up study of traumatized children. Pediat_rics, 59,
273-279.

Erickson, M.F., Egeland, B., & Pianta, R. (1989). The effects of maltreatment on
the development of young children. In D. Cicchetti & V. Carlson (Eds), gm
maltreatment: Theory and research on the causes and consequences of child abuse and
neglect (pp. 647-684). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.

Fantuzzo, J .W., DePaola, L.M., Lambert, L., Matino, T., Anderson, G., & Sutton,
S. (1991). Effects of interparental violence on the psychological adjustment and

competencies of young children. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psycholggy, 52 258-
265.

Fantuzzo, J .W., & Lindquist, C.U. (1989). The effects of observing conjugal
violence on children: A review and analysis of research methodology. Journal of Family
Violence 4 77-94.

 

Fox, L., Long, S.H., & Langlois, A. (1988). Patterns of language comprehension
deﬁcit in abused and neglected children. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorderg53,
239-244.

Friedrich, W.N., Einbender, A.J., & Luecke, W.J. (1983). Cognitive and
behavioral characteristics of physically abused children. Journal of Consultiag and
Clinical Psychology/.51. 313-314.

Garrnezy, N., Masten, A.S., & Tellegen, A. (1984). The study of stress and
competence in children: A building block for developmental psychopathology. Child
Development. 55. 97-111.

Graham-Bermann, S., & Levendosky, A. A. (1998). Social functioning of
preschool-age children whose mothers are emotionally and physically abused. J oumal of
Emotional Abuse 1 59-84.

 

118

Graham-Bermann, S., & Levendosky, AA. (in press). Traumatic stress
symptoms in children of battered women. Journal of Interpersonal Violence.

Greaney, V. (1986). Parental inﬂuences on reading. The Reﬂng Teacher,39,
813-818.

Herman, J .L. (1992). Complex PTSD: A syndrome in survivors of prolonged and
repeated trauma. Journal of Traumatic Stress 5 377-391.

 

Hinchey, F.S., & Gavelek, J .R. (1982). Empathic responding in children of
battered mothers. Child Abuse and Nemct, 6, 395-401.

Hoffrnan-Plotkin, D., & Twentyman, CT. (1984). A multimodal assessment of
behavioral and cognitive deﬁcits in abused and neglected preschoolers. Child
Development, 55, 794-802.

Holden, G.W., & Ritchie, KL. (1991). Linking extreme marital discord, child
rearing, and child behavior problems: Evidence from battered women. Child
Development, 62, 31 1-327.

Hollingshead, AB. (1975). Four factor index of social status. Unpublished
manuscript. Yale University, New Haven, CT.

Houck, G.M., & King, MC. (1989). Child maltreatment: Family characteristics
and developmental consequences. Issues in Mental Health Nursing,_ 10, 193-208.

Hughes, HM. (1988). Psychological and behavioral correlates of family violence
in child witnesses and victims. American Journal of Orthggaycllatry, 58, 77-90.

Hughes, H.M., & Barad, SJ. (1983). Psychological functioning of children in a
battered women’s shelter: A preliminary investigation. American Journal of

Orthopsychiat_ry, 53, 525-531.

Hughes, H.M., Parkinson, D., & Vargo, M. (1989). Witnessing spouse abuse and

experiencing physical abuse: A “double whammy”? Journal of Family Violence, 4, 197-
209.

J affe, P., Wolfe, D., & Wilson, SK. (1990). Children of battered women.
Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

Jaffe, P., Wolfe, D., Wilson, 8., & Zak, L. (1985). Critical issues in the
assessment of children’s adjustment to witnessing family violence. Canada’s Mental
Health 33 15-19.

 

119

 

Jaffe, P., Wolfe, D., Wilson, 8., & Zak, L. (1986). Similarities in behavioral and
social maladjustment among child victims and witnesses to family violence. American
Journal of Orthopsychiatry. 56, 142-146.

 

Jastak, S., & Wilkinson, GS. (1984). Wide Range Achievement Test-Revised.
Wilmington, DE: J astak Associates, Inc.

Jouriles, E.N., Barling, J ., & O’Leary, K.D. (1987). Predicting child behavior
problems in maritally violent families. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 15. 165-
173.

 

Jouriles, E.N., Murphy, C.M., & O’Leary, K.D. (1989). Interspousal aggression,
marital discord, and child problems. J om] of Consulting 2mg Clinical Psghology, 57,
453-455.

Jouriles, E.N., & Norwood, W.D. (1995). Physical aggression toward boys and
girls in families characterized by the battering of women. Journal of Familj Pj/Chology,
2, 69-78.

Levendosky, A.A., & Graham-Bermann, S.A. (1997a). Parenting in battered
women: A develcmmentaLpsychopathology approach. Manuscript submitted for
publication.

Levendosky, A.A., & Graham-Bermann, S.A. (1997b). Parenting in battered
women: The effects of domestic violence on women and their children. Manuscript
submitted for publication.

Luthar, S.S., & Zigler, E. (1991). Vulnerability and competence: A review of
research on resilience in childhood. American Journal of Orthopsychiat_ry, 61, 6-22.

Marjoribanks, K. (1972). Environment, social class, and mental abilities. Journal
of Educational Psychology. 63, 103-109.

 

Marshall, LL. (1992). Development of the severity of violence against women
scales. Joumal of FaprilLViolence, 7, 103-121.

Martin, HP. (1979). Child abuse and child development. Child Abuse and
Neglect, 3, 415-421.

Mathias, J .L., Mertin, P., & Murray, A. (1995). The psychological functioning of
children from backgrounds of domestic violence. Australian Psychologiat,30, 47-56.

McCarthy, D. (1972). McCarthy Scales of Children’s Abilities. New York: The
Psychological Corporation.

120

 

McCloskey, L.A., Figueredo, A.J., & Koss, MP. (1995). The effects of systemic
family violence on children’s mental health. Child Development, 66, 1239-1261.

McGlaughlin, A., Empson, J ., Morrissey, M., & Sever, J. (1980). Early child
development and the home environment: Consistences at and between four preschool
stages. International Journal of Behavioral Development 3. 299-309.

McGowan, R.J., & Johnson, D.L. (1984). The mother-child relationship and
other antecedents of academic performance: A causal analysis. Hispanic J oumal of
Behavigal Sciences. 6. 205-224.

Mercy, J .A., & Steelman, LC. (1982). Familial inﬂuence on the intellectual
attainment of children. Ameriﬁcan Sociological Review, 47, 532-542.

Moore, T. E., & Pepler, D. J. (1998). Correlates of adjustment in children at risk.
In G. Holden & R. Geffner (Eds), Children expﬁosed to marital violence: Theom.
research, and intervention. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

 

Neale, MD. (1988). Neale Analysis of Reading Ability-Revised. Australian
Council for Educational Research.

O’Keefe, M. (1994). Adjustment of children from maritally violent homes.
Families in Socieg: The Journal of Contermporag/ Human Services, 403-415.

O’Keefe, M. (1995). Predictors of child abuse in maritally violent families.
Journal of Interpersonal Violence. 10, 3-25.

Osofsky, J .D. (1995). The effects of exposure to violence on young children.
American Psychologist. 50, 782-788.

Perry, M.A., Doran, L.D., & Wells, EA. (1983). Developmental and behavioral
characteristics of the physically abused child. Journal of Clinical Child Psycholggwy. 12.
320-324.

Porter, 3., & O’Leary, D. (1980). Marital discord and childhood behavior
problems. J ournyal: of Abnormal Child Psychology, 8. 287-295.

Rohrbeck, C.A., & Twentyman, CT. (1986). Multimodal assessment of
impulsiveness in abusing, neglecting, and nonmaltreating mothers and their preschool

children. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 54, 231-236.

Ross, L.T., & Hill, E. (1996). The family unpredictability scale: Reliability and
validity. Manuscript submitted for publication.

121

Rossman, B.B.R., Bingharn, R.D., Cimbora, D.M., Dickerson, L.K., Dexter, R.M.,
Balog, S., & Mallah, K. (1993, August). Relationship of trauma severity to ma
syrmnoms for child witnesses. Paper presented at the meeting of the American
Psychological Association, Toronto, Canada.

 

Rossman, B.B.R., Kimura, M.S., Mallah, K., Dominguez, M., & Boyer-Sneed, G.
(1995, March). Cogpitive ﬁmctioning of children exposed to parental conﬂict and

violence. Paper presented at the meeting of the Society for Research in Child
Development, Indianapolis, IN.

 

Sarneroff, A.J. (1975). Early inﬂuences on development. Fact or fancy? Merrill-
Palmer Ouarierly. 18, 65-79.

Sattler, J .M. (1992). Assessment of Children, Third Edition. San Diego, CA.
Jerome Sattler, Publisher, Inc.

Spaccarelli, S., Sandler, I.N., & Roosa, M. (1994). History of spouse violence
against mother: Correlated risks and unique effects in child mental health. Journal of
Family Violence, 9, 79-98.

Sroufe, L.A., Cooper, R.G., & Marshall, ME (1988). Child Development. Its
Nature and Course. New York, NY. Alfred A. Knopf, Inc.

Stagg, V., Wills, G., & Howell, M. (1989). Psychopathology in early childhood
witnesses of family violence. Topics in Eaﬁy Childhood Special Educationj, 73-87.

Stemberg, K.J., Lamb, M.E., Greenbaum, C., Cicchetti, D., Dawud, S., Cortes,
R.M., Krispin, O., & Lorey, F. (1993). Effects of domestic violence on children’s
behavior problems and depression. Developmental Psychology, 29, 44-52.

Stollak, G. E. (1997). Who are children for? Manuscript in preparation.

Straus, MA. (1979). Measuring intrafamily conﬂict and violence: The conﬂict
tactics (CT) scales. J oumal of Marriage and the Family. 41, 75-88.

Terrnan, L.M., & Merrill, MA. (1960). §_t_anford-Binet Intelligence Scale.
Boston: Houghton Mifﬂin.

Thorndike, R. L., Hagen, E. P., & Sattler, J. M. (1986). Guide for administering
and scoring the Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale: Fourth Edition. Chicago: Riverside
Publishing.

US. Census Bureau. Poverty Thresholds: 1996. [Online] Available
http://www.census.gov/ftp/pub/hhes/poverty/threshld/thresh96.htrnl, June 16, 1998.

122

Walker, LE. (1978). Battered women and learned helplessness. Victimology.2,
525-534.

Walker, LE. (1979). The battered woman. New York: Harper & Rowe

Walker, LE. (1994). Abused women and survivor therapy: A practical gpide for
the psychotherapist. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Wechsler, D. (1974). Manual for the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children.
New York: The Psychological Corporation.

Wechsler, D. (1967). Wechsler Preschool and Primary Scale of Intelkence.
New York: The Psychological Corporation

Wechsler, D. (1989). Wech_sler PreschooLand Primary Scale of Intelligeaice-
Revised. New York: The Psychological Corporation.

Westra, B., & Martin, HP. (1981). Children of battered women. Matemal-Child
Nursing Journal, 10, 41-54.

Wolfe, D.A., Jaffe P., Wilson, S.K., & Zak, L. (1985). Children of battered
women: The relation of child behavior to family violence and maternal stress. Journal of

Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 53, 657-665.

Yeates, K.O., MacPhee, D., Campbell, F.A., & Ramey, CT. (1983). Maternal IQ
and home environment as determinants of early childhood intellectual competence: A
developmental analysis. Devel_opmental Psychology, 19, 731-739.

Zimmerman, 1., Steiner, V., & Evatt, R. (1979). Preschool Language Scale.
Columbus, OH: Charles E. Merrill

123

 

HICHIGnN STATE UNIV. LIBRARIES
111111111111111HImm1111111111111111111111111111
31293018017156