THesxs

f“)

m ‘ x xxx'x‘xxxx‘xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xx‘xxxx'xxxxx

3129

F

This is to certify that the

dissertation entitled

THE INCIDENCE AND IMPACT OF NEGLECT 0N CHILDREN OF
WOMEN WITH ABUSIVE PARTNERS

presented by

Lisa M. Gauthier

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

Ph . D . degree in Psychology

 

 

 

   

Z Major professor
Date MP.

MS U is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution 0-12771

 

LIBRARY

Mlchlgan State
Unlvorslty

 

 

 

._ ,

‘ ‘O— ‘

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

 

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1m animus-m4

 

 

THE INCIDENCE AND IMPACT OF NEGLECT ON CHILDREN OF
WOMEN WITH ABUSIVE PARTNERS

By

Lisa M. Gauthier, MA.

A DISSERTATION
Submitted to Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements

for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of Psychology

1 996

ABSTRACT

THE INCIDENCE AND IMPACT OF NEGLECT ON CHILDREN OF
WOMEN WITH ABUSIVE PARTNERS

By

Lisa M. Gauthier, MA.

This study examined the impact of emotional and physical neglect on children of
battered women. Sixty-four children between the ages of 7 and 11, and their mothers who
had violent partners participated in this study. The current study addressed several gaps in
the literature on the adjustment of children in violent homes. First, it examined the incidence
of maternal, paternal and male caregiver neglect in homes where children have been exposed
to domestic violence. Second, while most research on domestic violence and child
maltreatment has relied on mothers as the sole source of information regarding children’s
adjustment, the current study obtained both mothers’ and children’s reports about children’s
experiences of neglect and physical abuse as well as children’s psychological adjustment.
Finally, while previous research has emphasized the role of mothers as perpetrators of
maltreatment, the current study obtained children’s reports about neglect and physical abuse
by mothers, fathers, and male caregivers.

Mothers completed questionnaires about their emotional and physical neglect of their
children, physical abuse their children witnessed and experienced, and their children’s
behavior problems. Children responded to questions about emotional and physical neglect
by their mothers, their mother’s assailant (e.g., father, stepfather), and their non-assailant

fathers, and about their depression and self-competence. It was hypothesized that neglect

would predict increased reports of depression and behavior problems and decreased self-
competence in children, and that neglect would moderate the relationship between exposure
to violence in the home and children’s adjustment.

Results of multiple regression analyses supported the first hypothesis: children’s
reports of emotional neglect by assailants and physical neglect by mothers were significantly
related to higher depression and diminished feelings of self-worth, as were mothers’ reports
of emotional neglect of their children. Results provided only partial support for the second
hypothesis. In only one instance did high levels of neglect act as a releaser for children’s
adjustment problems; emotional neglect by mothers moderated the relationship between abuse
and children’s feelings of self-worth. Results are discussed with regard to their implications
for understanding the critical impact of parental “omissions” in childrearing (i.e., neglect) in

a sample of children whose mothers have experienced domestic violence.

_ -‘.‘ 1‘

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

For helping me complete this dissertation, I owe my gratitude to many people:

1) First, the mothers and children who participated in this study, without whose willingness
to talk with us in their homes and honesty about their lives and experiences, this study would
not have been possible.

2) All the members of MSU Family Follow-up Study; Cris Sullivan, Bill Davidson, Charlene
Baker, Kelly Bennet, Angel Prewitt, Jennifer Juras, Huong Nyugen, Nicole Allen, Jennifer
Veldhoff, Elaine Shpungin, Glenn Stutzky, Sean Hankins, Linda Humes, Laurenza Riojas,
Jamie Yeomans, and all the student interviewers and advocates who worked with the mothers
and the children in their homes.

I would like to give a special thanks to Charlene Baker who recruited the families into
the study and did all the mothers’ pre-interviews. Her compassion when recruiting the
women and children and her tenacity in following up with all women, regardless of whether
they had phones or their own homes, were invaluable to the quality of this study.

3) Members of my committee; My chair, Dr. Gary Stollak, for his support and encouragement
of me while I explored the area of child neglect, and his help regarding difficult conceptual
issues related to doing research in child maltreatment.

Dr. Cris Sullivan, for allowing me to include my neglect measures as part of the MSU
Family Follow-up Study interview, for her ecological perspective which broadened the scope
of my dissertation, and for teaching me how to do community research that puts the women

and children first.

iv

Dr. Lawrence Messé, for his availability, statistical knowledge, excellent editorial
skills, and for helping me work through diflicult questions regarding my hypotheses about the
impact of neglect on children.

Dr. Ellen Whipple, for her support of my research ideas, her in-depth knowledge of
the literature on child maltreatment, and particularly for encouraging me to focus on the

importance of demographic variables and how they relate to child neglect and maltreatment.

I would also like to thank my boyfriend, Gary Shrewsbury, for his enduring patience,
emotional support, cooking, cleaning, and backrubs, all which saved me while I worked long
hours to complete this dissertation.

Finally, I would like to thank my mother and father, from whom I learned a serious
work ethic, and who never doubted that I would complete this dissertation, despite the long

road.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES .................................................. ix
LIST OF APPENDICES ............................................... xi
INTRODUCTION ................................................... 1
CHAPTER 1
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE ........................................ 3
What is Missing in the Current Literature? ................................... 5
Neglect in Children of Battered Women: Incidence and Impact ............ 6
Obtaining Children’s Reports of Neglect .............................. 8
Fathers and Other Caregivers as Perpetrators of Neglect ................. 10
Differentiating Emotional and Physical Neglect ........................ 11
Conceptual Issues in Defining Neglect ..................................... 1 1
Definitions of Physical and Emotional Neglect ......................... 14
Cultural Bias in Definitions of Neglect ............................... 15
Impact of Neglect on Children’s Adjustment; Theoretical Considerations ........... 16
Contextual Factors and Parent-child interaction ........................ 16
Neglect, Attachment and Mutual Interaction .......................... 17
Neglect as Psychological Abandonment .............................. 21
How Neglect Affects Children’s Adjustment and Moderates Responses
to Stress ...................................................... 22
Empirical Evidence for Harmfirl Impact of Neglect ........................... 25
Neglect as a Moderator of Adjustment Problems in Children Exposed to ......
Family Violence ................................................ 28
Considerations in the Current Sample ..................................... 31
Impact of Battering on Women’s Adjustment and Parenting ............... 31
Ecological Factors that Affect the Parenting of Battered Women:
Social Isolation and Poverty ....................................... 32
Theoretical Framework For Understanding the Impact of Neglect ................ 34
Theoretical Framework for the Current Study ........................ 36
Research Questions .................................................. 37
Hypotheses ......................................................... 37
CHAPTER 2
METHOD .......................................................... 39
Participants ......................................................... 39
Sample ....................................................... 39
Setting for Recruitment of Participants ............................... 41
Recruitment Procedures .......................................... 42
Procedures ......................................................... 43
vi

Training and Supervision of Interviewers ............................. 43

Interviewing Procedures .......................................... 45
Measurement Development ............................................. 45
Measures ........................................................... 46

Measurement of Demographic Information ........................... 46
Predictor Variables (Neglect and Trauma) .................................. 46
Emotional and Physical Neglect: Development of Scales and Psychometric ...........

Properties .......................................................... 46

Children’s Reports of Neglect by Mother ............................. 48

Children’s Report of Neglect by Mother’s Assailants and Fathers ........... 56

Neglect: Mothers’ Reports of Parenting .............................. 60
Children’s Experience of Trauma in the Home ............................... 67

Children’s Reports of Abuse Witnessed .............................. 67

Mothers’ Reports of Abuse Child Witnessed .......................... 67

Child Abuse: Children’s Reports ................................... 70

Child Abuse: Mothers’ Reports .................................... 76

Overall Trauma Children Experienced ............................... 80
Outcome Measures: Child Adjustment ..................................... 82

Children’s Report of Internalizing Behavior ........................... 82

Children’s Reports of Perceived Self-Competence ...................... 84

Mother’s Reports of Children’s Internalizing and Extemalizing Behavior ..... 89
Construct Validity of Neglect Measures: Correlations with Social Support ......... 93
Research Design ..................................................... 93
CHAPTER 3
RESULTS .......................................................... 94
Demographic Characteristics ............................................ 94
Psychometric Tests of Reliability and Validity of Neglect Scales ................. 95

Test-Retest Reliability ........................................... 95

Mother-Child Agreement ......................................... 96

Construct Validity of Neglect Scales ................................ 96
Incidence of Neglect by Mothers, Mothers’ Assailants and Fathers ............... 97

Incidence of Neglect as a Function of Assailant’s Relationship to Child ...... 98
Comparisons Between Reports of Depression and Self-Competence in the Current
Sample and Normative Samples .......................................... 99
Tests of Hypotheses ................................................. 102

Neglect as a Predictor of Negative Outcomes ......................... 102

Neglect as a Moderator of the Relationship between Trauma and Child

Adjustment .................................................. 109
Supplemental Analyses ............................................... 125

Relationship Between Demographic Variables and Indices of Neglect and

Trauma ..................................................... 125

vii

Relationship Between Demographic Variables and Dependent Variables . . . . 126

CHAPTER 4

DISCUSSION ...................................................... 128

Contribution of the Current Study to the Literature and Theoretical

Implications of the Results ............................................. 128
Incidence of Neglect by Different Caregivers ......................... 128
Obtaining Children’s Reports and Mother-Child Agreement about Neglect . . . 130
Impact of Physical and Emotional Neglect by Different Caregivers ......... 131
Neglect and Trauma as Differential Predictors of Internalizing and
Externalizing Symptomatology .................................... 134
Neglect as a Moderator of Adjustment ............................. 135
Conceptual Issues in Defining Emotional and Physical Neglect ............ 136
Theoretical Implications of the Current Study: Attachment and Psychological
Abandonment ................................................. 136
Research and Clinical Implications ................................. 137

Methodological Considerations ......................................... 137

Directions for Future Research ......................................... 139

Summary and Conclusion ............................................. 140

REFERENCES ..................................................... 142

viii

LIST OF TABLES

1. Psychometric Properties of Neglect Questionnaires ...........................

(Child Report)
Table 1 - Item-Total Correlations for Emotional Neglect by Mother .............. 50
Table 2 - Item-Total Correlations for Physical Neglect by Mother ................ 51
Table 3 - Item-Total Correlations for Combined Neglect Index .................. 52
Table 4 - Factor Loadings for Items on Combined Neglect Index ................. 54
Table 5 - Item-Total Correlations for Emotional Neglect by Assailant ............. 58
Table 6 - Item-Total Correlations for Emotional Neglect by Father ............... 59

(Mother Report)
Table 7 - Item-Total Correlations for Emotional Neglect by Mother .............. 62
Table 8 - Item-Total Correlations for Physical Neglect by Mother ................ 63
Table 9 - Item-Total Correlations for Items on Combined Neglect Index ........... 64
Table 10 - Factor Loadings for Items on Combined Neglect Index ................ 65
Table 11 - Mean Subject Scores and Standard Deviations for Neglect Scales ........ 66

2. Psychometric Properties of Trauma Scales ..................................
Table 12 - Item-Total Correlations for Abuse by Assailant and Father Child Witnessed

(Child and Mother Report) ..................................... 68
Table 13 - Mean Subject Scores and Standard Deviations for Abuse Child Witnessed . 69
Table 14 - Item-Total Correlations for Abuse Child Experienced

(Child and Mother Report) ..................................... 72
Table 15 - Item-Total Correlations for Injuries Child Experienced (Child Report) . . . . 73
Table 16 - Mean Subject Scores and Standard Deviations for Abuse Child Experienced 74
Table 17 - Mean Subject Scores and Standard Deviations for Injuries Experienced . . . 75

Table 18 -1tem-Total Correlations for Abuse Child Experienced (Mother Report) . . . . 77
Table 19 - Item-Total Correlations for Injuries Chidl Experienced (Mother Report) . . . 78
Table 20 - Summary of Abuse and Neglect Reports Obtained in the Current Study . . . 79
Table 21 - Intercorrelations Among Trauma Scales ........................... 81

3. Psychometric Properties of Outcome Measures ..............................

Table 22 - Item-Total Correlations for the Children’s Depression Inventory ......... 83
Table 23 - Item-Total Correlations for the Hatter Scale of Perceived Self-Competence 85
Table 24 - Item-Total Correlations for the Harter Subscales ..................... 87
Table 25 - Item-Total Correlations for the Revised Child Behavior Checklist ........ 91
Table 26 - Item-Total Correlations for the Internalizing and Externalizing Scales of the
Revised CBCL .............................................. 92

Table 27 - Mean Subject Scores for the Current Sample and Normative Samples on . . . .
Depression and Self-Competence ............................... 101

ix

4. Relationship between Neglect and Outcome Variables Multiple Regression Analyses)
Table 28 - The Relationship Between Neglect (Child Report) by Mothers, Assailants, and

Fathers and Children’s Depression .............................. 104
Table 29 - The Relationship Between Neglect by Mothers, Assailants and Fathers and . .
Children’s Global Self-Worth ................................. 105
Table 30 - The Relationship Between Mothers Reported Emotional and Physical Neglect
and Children’s Global Self-Worth ............................... 107
Table 31 - The Relationship Between Mother’s Reported Emotional and Physical Neglect
and Children’s Depression .................................... 108

5. Relationship between Neglect, Trauma and Neglect X Trauma Interaction on Outcome
Variables (Multiple Regression Analyses)
Table 32 - Relationship Between Children’s Reported Emotional Neglect by Mother,
Trauma by Mother, and Neglect by Trauma Interaction and Depression . . 112
Table 33 - Relationship Between Children’s Reported Emotional Neglect by Mother,
Trauma by Mother, and Neglect by Trauma Interaction and Self-Worth . . 113
Table 34 - Relationship Between Children’s Reported Emotional Neglect by Mother, . . .

Abuse by Mother, and Neglect by Abuse Interaction and Self-Worth ..... 114
Table 35 - Moderating Effect of Levels of Emotional Neglect by Mother on the ......
Relationship Between Abuse by Mother and Children’s Self-Worth ...... 115

Table 36 - Relationship Between Children’s Reported Physical Neglect by Mother, . .
Trauma by Mother, and the Neglect X Trauma Interaction on Children’s . . .

Depression ................................................ 1 17
Table 37 - Relationship Between Children’s Reported Physical Neglect by Mother, . . .
Trauma by Mother, and Children’s Global Self-Worth ................ 118
Table 38 - Relationship Between Emotional Neglect by Assailant, Abuse by Assailant, . .
and Neglect by Abuse Interaction on Children’s Behavior Problems ..... 120
Table 39 - Relationship Between Mother’s Reports of Emotional and Physical Neglect, .
Trauma by Assailant and Father, and Children’s Behavior Problems ..... 122

Table 40 - Relationship Between Mother’s Reports of Emotional and Physical Neglect, .
Trauma by Assailant and Father, and Children’s Internalizing and Extemalizing

Behavior .................................................. 123
Table 41 - Relationship Between Mother’s Reports of Combined Emotional and Physical
Neglect, Trauma by Assailant and Father, and Children’s Depression . . . . 124

ozzrarrmcamcow?

LIST OF APPENDICES

Recruitment Procedures and Experimental Intervention for Larger Study . 157

Variables Measured in Intervention Study ......................... 159
Demographic Information on Children and Mothers ................ 161
Pilot Procedures and Development of the Neglect Questionnaires ....... 163
Questionnaire on Mother ..................................... 165
Questionnaire on Assailant and Father ........................... 167
Parenting Questionnaire ...................................... 168
Scale Assignment of Neglect Items .............................. 170
Child and Mother Reports of Child Witnessing Violence .............. 172
Conflict Tactics Scale: Child Report ............................. 173
Conflict Tactics Scale: Mother Report ........................... 174
Children’s Depression Inventory ................................ 175
. Harter Scale of Perceived Self-Competence for Children .............. 177
Child Behavior Checklist (Revised) ............................. 181
Children’s Social Support Questionnaire .......................... 182

 

INTRODUCTION

While numerous studies in the area of domestic violence have documented the
detrimental effects of children witnessing and experiencing violence (Davis & Carlson, 1987;
Hughes et al.,1989; Jatfe et al., 1990; Kalmuss, 1984), few have examined how parental
neglect may be related to the adjustment of children of battered women (O’Keefe, 1994).
Evidence from the maltreatment and attachment literatures indicates that neglect is harmfiil
to children’s psychological adjustment (Augoustinos, 1987; Egeland & Erickson, 1987) and
suggests that it is critical to thoroughly examine how neglect may contribute to children’s
psychosocial dimculties. In addition, findings in the literature on risk and resilience,
particularly that positive relationships with adults help buffer children against the negative
impact of stress (Garmezy, 1993; Werner, 1989), suggest that it is important to explore how
neglect may increase children’s vulnerability to psychological problems when they are
exposed to violence in the home.

The current study examined several areas that have not been closely studied either in
the literature on child neglect or on the adjustment of children of battered women. This study
assessed the incidence of maternal, paternal and male caregiver neglect, obtained both
mother’s and children’s reports of emotional and physical neglect, physical abuse and
children’s adjustment, and examined the impact of paternal and male caregiver neglect in a
literature that has focused primarily on mothers. In addition, the current study moved beyond
the focus on how physical abuse negatively affects children by examining how caregiver

neglect contributes to children’s adjustment problems.

2

This study provides a potentially important contribution to the child maltreatment
literature by focusing on the negative impact of neglect on children’s adjustment. By finding
a link between neglect and psychological maladjustment, this study would demonstrate a need
for research and intervention to move beyond a focus on physical abuse in homes where
children are exposed to other forms of trauma. The current research explored the impact of
neglect on children of battered women by relating children’s and mothers’ reports of
emotional and physical neglect by different caregivers to children’s depression, feelings of

self-worth, and internalizing and externalizing behavior problems.

Chapter 1

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

A growing awareness about the harmful impact of domestic violence on women has
prompted researchers to examine the impact on children of witnessing such violence (Davis
& Carlson, 1987; Penfold, 1982', Rosenbaum& O' Leary, 1981; Rosenberg, 1987; Stemberg,
Lamb, Greenbaum, Cicchetti, Dawud, Cortes, Krispin, & Lorey, 1993; Wolfe, Zak, Wilson,
& Jaffe, 1986). This examination has led to an increased understanding of the harmful
consequences for children exposed to violence. Such research has consistently found that
relative to control groups, children exposed to domestic violence experience significant
behavioral and emotional difficulties, including depression, anxiety, school problems, and
health problems (Davis & Carlson, 1987; Penfold, 1982', Rosenbaum & O’Leary, 1981;
Rosenberg, 1987). However, to date, little is known about the mediating factors between
exposure to violence and children's adjustment (Depner, Leino, & Chun, 1992', O’Keefe,
1994). For example, in their recent review of the literature, Kolbo, Blakely, and Engleman
(1996) found that data bearing on the relationship between exposure to violence and
children’s behavior problems and adjustment are equivocal. Part of this equivocation is due
to a lack of studies examining other factors in violent homes that may affect how children
cope with exposure to violence. Evidence that emotional neglect has a significant negative
impact on children’s psychological adjustment (Augoustinos, 1987; Egeland & Erickson,
1987) and that positive relationships with adults help children to be resilient in the face of

stress (Garmezy, 1993; Werner, 1989) suggests that neglect and parental availability may

4

mediate the adjustment of children who are exposed to domestic violence.

Despite the fact that neglect comprises about 45 to 55% of the cases of reported and
substantiated maltreatment (Jones & McCurdy, 1992', Lewitt, 1994; McCurdy & Daro, 1994;
Nelson, Saunders, & Landsrnan, 1993: US. Dept. of Health and Human Services, 1995), the
majority of research on domestic violence and child maltreatment has focused upon the
negative impact of physically abusive acts, rather than on the impact of neglect (Ammerrnan,
1990), and has treated abused and neglected children as if comprised a single group (W idom,
1989a). Research on domestic violence has yet to examine the impact of more subtle forms
of maltreatment to which children in violent homes may be subjected, an ommission that is
most likely due to the salience of the physical violence present in their homes and because
these children are at increased risk to be physically abused by one or both parents (Davis &
Carlson, 1987; Depner et al., 1992', Rosenbaum & O’Leary, 1981; Rosenberg, 1987; Ross,
1996; Weiss, Dodge, Bates, & Pettit, 1992). It is likely that the risk for child abuse is high
in such families because the number and intensity of stressors is so elevated. Researchers
have suggested that multiple stressors, including a high degree of family chaos, increase the
likelihood of violence because they place the caregiver in an aversive state of arousal (Emery,
1989) and decrease her or his tolerance for children's perceived misbehavior (Lahey, Conger,
Atkeson, & Treiber, 1984).

There is a clear need for research to move beyond a focus on the impact of physical
abuse both in general and in families where wife abuse has occurred. Brassard, Hart, & Hardy
(1993) argue that measures of physical abuse do not always clearly predict developmental

dysfimction, probably because they do not account for the emotional and psychological abuse

5

accompanying the physical injury; and, these less obvious forms of maltreatment may be more
harmful than the severity of abusive acts (Brassard et al., 1993). In support of this idea,
Claussen & Crittenden (1991) found that psychological maltreatment was more predictive of
negative outcomes for abused children in their study than was severity of injury.

The current study addressed several gaps in the literature on the adjustment of
children whose mothers had been physically abused by their partners. First, it examined the
incidence and impact of emotional and physical neglect on children of battered women, as yet
an unstudied area. Second, most research on domestic violence and child maltreatment has
relied on mothers as the sole source of information about children’s adjustment (Stemberg,
Lamb, Greenbaum, Cicchetti, Dawud, Cortes, Krispin, & Lorey, 1993). The current study
obtained children’s reports about their experiences of neglect and physical abuse and their
current adjustment. Third, most of the previous research has emphasized the role of mothers
as perpetrators of abuse and neglect (Martin, 1983). The current study addressed the need
to better understand the role of fathers and father figures in perpetrating child maltreatment
by obtaining children’s reports about neglect and physical abuse by their mothers, their
mother’s assailants (e. g., fathers, stepfathers), and non-assailant fathers.1 Finally, the current
study examined the role of neglect, not only as a risk factor for negative outcomes, but also
as a moderator between children’s exposure to family violence and their psychological

adjustment. It is important to examine how neglect may increase children’s vulnerability to

 

lWhen fathers are mentioned separately from mother’s assailants, they are “non-assailant” fathers in that
mother’s assailant was either a stepfather, mother’s boyfriend or err-boyfriend. There were 18 non-assailant
fathers in the current study. When the word “assailant” is used, this always refers to mother’s assailants.

6

adjustment problems in homes in which there is domestic violence because we still know very
little about the mediating factors between parental conflict and child adjustment (Depner et
al., 1992) . Given the continuing need in the literature to understand the impact of emotional
neglect on children of battered women, the current study examined the effects of neglect on
the psychological adjustment of 64 children, aged 7 to 11, whose mothers experienced
domestic violence within 4 months prior to the study.

. It is particularly

 

important that research begin to explore the incidence of child neglect in families in which the
mother is physically abused because no studies have specifically examined this phenomenon.
Understanding the impact of neglect on children of battered women is important because such
children are at increased risk to be maltreated. Given the findings that different forms of
maltreatment tend to occur together (Carlson, Cicchetti, Barnett, & Braunwald, 1989; Kinard,
1994; Ney, Fung, & \Vrckett, 1994), it follows that children of battered women who are at
increased risk for physical abuse may also be at increased risk to be neglected. It is likely that
the same stressors that predisposed a man to physically abuse his partner and his children may
also reduce his ability to be responsive and available to his children. Additionally, the physical
injuries, and high levels of anxiety, depression, suicidal ideation, psychological numbing, and
post-traumatic stress reactions that battered women experience as a result of the abuse (Berk,
Fensterrnaker Berk, Loske, & Rauma, 1983; Browne, 1993; Dobash, Dobash, Wilson, &
Daly, 1992), will likely affect their child caregiving. Factors found to characterize families
in which parents become abusive toward their children-- including family disruption, marital

discord and unemployment, parental history of abuse by their own parents, and child behavior

7
problems (Culp et al., 1989; Gaines et al., 1978; Lyons-Ruth et al., 1989; Pakizegi, 1985)--
are all stressors that are likely to decrease parents’ ability to be consistently available to their
children. Lahey et al. (1984) found, for example, that physically abusive mothers of low
socio-economic status displayed significantly less positive affect toward their children than
subjects in low or middle SES comparison groups.

Sparked by findings that there is not a one-to-one relationship between the existence
of risk factors and negative outcomes (Emery, 1989; Gannezy, 1993), and evidence to
suggest that the quality of caregiver-child interactions has a significant impact on children's
psychological adjustment (Augoustinos, 1987', Egeland & Erickson, 1987; Kobak & Sceery,
1988), many researchers have begun to examine the parent-child relationship as a critical
moderator of children’s adjustment to stress. Longitudinal studies on risk and resilience
factors have consistently found a lack of positive interactions with a significant adult to be a
risk factor for later emotional and behavioral dimculties in children (Garmezy, 1993; Werner,
1989). In particular, some studies have found that neglect may be particularly harmful to
certain aspects of social and emotional development (Augoustinos, 1987; Claussen &
Crittenden, 1991; Egeland & Erickson, 1987; Erickson, Egeland, & Pianta, 1989; Gauthier,
Stollak, Messé, & Aronotf, 1996).

The current study was expected to add to the literature on maltreatment and resilience
by examining the role of parental and caregiver neglect or support in families experiencing
multiple stressors. Understanding the impact of emotional neglect on children who witness
or experience abuse may help to explain why not all these children develop emotional or

behavioral problems. Children who have a stable, positive relationship with a caring adult

8

may be more resilient in the face of violent behavior than children who are chronically
neglected.

W991. Most research in the area of domestic
violence and child maltreatment has relied on mothers as the sole source of information about
children's adjustment (Stemberg et al., 1993). While the mother's point of view is important,
it is clear that researchers also need to begin to understand children's feelings about their own
adjustment and the quality of their relationship with their parents/caregivers (Herzberger,
Potts, & Dillon, 1981). Evidence suggests that children's perceptions often do not coincide
with adults' perceptions, particularly about such topics as physical abuse, neglect, family
firnctioning and children’s adjustment (Jessop, 1981; Moretti, Fine, Haley, & Marriage,
1985). Moreover, children often make attributions for events that adults may consider
surprising. For example, they are likely to blame themselves rather than their parents for
their being physically abused and neglected (Herzberger et al., 1981; Ney, Moore, McPhee,
& Trout, 1986).

The fact that there is not perfect correspondence between parents’ and children’s
reports calls for additional efl'orts by researchers to obtain children’s perspectives on events
in their lives and about their own adjustment, and to examine how well parent and child
reports coincide. However, researchers need to be wary of assuming that if parent-child
agreement is high they have measured objective "reality." Jessop (1981) suggests that low
agreement between parents and children indicates that there are "multiple versions of reality
with no reason to consider one version more authoritative than the other”(p. 95). It is likely

that the extent of inter-respondent agreement is affected by how "threatening" the topic is,

9

as well as how salient or aversive is the reported behavior. The survey literature indicates that
agreement between parents and children is generally low on less "objective” t0pics, lower on
threatening topics such as abuse, and that reports of family functioning are biased in a positive
direction, particularly for parents (Jessop, 1981).

Research that relies on self-report in attempting to assess the quality of family life and
parent-child relationships is inevitably open to concerns about reporting bias. Brassard et al.
(1993) caution that maltreating mothers tend to make socially desirable responses to self-
report instruments and interviews, and Hernenway et al. (1994) suggest that some adults may
be hesitant to describe parenting practices that might be viewed as abusive. However, it is
unlikely that this tendency to make socially desirable responses or to deny, distort or even
unconsciously forget painful experiences when responding to questionnaires (Belsky, 1993',
Paulhus, 1991) is unique to mothers who may have abused or neglected their children.

To decrease possible reporting bias in the current study, many of the questions about
neglect were asked in a non-threatening way (i.e., positive items reverse-scored--”I find time
to play with my children”), the wording of mothers’ and children’s items was parallel for each
item (e. g., “My mom finds time to play with me”), and questions focused on specific, concrete
behaviors rather than asking about more global impressions. This focus on concrete
behaviors has been found to increase consistency between parent and child reports (Kashani,
Orvaschel, Burk, & Reid, 1985). Ideally, if there are discrepancies between mothers’ and
children’s reports, these are due to true differences in perceptions rather than to invalidity of

the interviews or instrument utilized.

10

21' -..r0 o -r' 9'1r .. var r . o r‘°__‘ .. ‘1'... Whileprevious
research has emphasized the role of mothers as the perpetrators of physical abuse and neglect
of children (this excludes studies of sexual abuse which have generally focused on fathers,
stepfathers and male relatives as perpetrators; e. g., Deblinger, McLeer, Atkins, Ralphe & Foa,
1989, Finkelhor, 1993), it is clear that we need to better understand the role of fathers or
paternal figures in perpetrating child maltreatment (Martin, 1983). In addition, many studies
have focused on the impact of father absence on children (W eintraub & Wolf, 1983), but have
yet to examine the impact of inconsistent or neglectful “fathering.” Such nonoptirnal parenting
may be particularly important in homes where a male caregiver has been violent toward the
mother and therefore is at increased risk to maltreat the children. Ross (1996) for example,
found that of the 2706 husbands interviewed for the 1985 National Family Violence Survey
(Straus & Gelles, 1986, 1990) who had engaged in acts of violence toward their wives, 22.8%
had also been physically abusive toward their children, a rate lower than most clinical studies
have found, but higher than the abuse rate for husbands who had not been violent toward their
wives. While studies such as Ross’s have yet to examine the potential for an increased rate
of child neglect in men who are abusive toward their partners, it is likely that the antisocial,
violent behavior of abusive men is likely to spill over and also affect their parenting abilities.
The absence of studies examining rates of neglect by fathers indicate that it is critical to
research this area. Such an examination should also permit exploration of potential

differences in the impact of neglect perpetrated by different significant adults.

11

WNW. Many studies that report prevalence

rates of child neglect base their rates on substantiated Child Protective Services reports of
physical neglect (e. g., Giovannoni & Billingsly, 1970; Jones & McCurdy, 1992', Nelson,
Saunders, & Landsrnan, 1993). Because of the emphasis on physical neglect, and because of
dificulties in defining and identifying emotional neglect, relatively little is known about the
differential impact, if any, of physical and emotional neglect. The current study addressed this
issue by asking mothers and children about both physical and emotional neglect. In addition,
it examined whether or not neglect is a unitary construct involving both physical and
emotional components or whether the physical and emotional components of neglect are
separate, particularly in terms of their impact on children’s psychological firnctioning.
C l I . II E . 11 l

Clear operational definitions of "abuse" and "neglect" are essential when conducting
maltreatment research (Kinard, 1994), particularly when working with children of battered
women who likely have been exposed to multiple forms of trauma in their homes. Without
clear definitions, understanding the unique impact of different forms of abuse and the
cumulative impact of maltreatment is made more difficult. However, there remains a lack of
consensus about definitions of different types of abuse in the literature, a circumstance that
likely reflects the theoretical and empirical confirsion about the point at which discipline
becomes abusive, as well as difficulty in operationalizing more subtle forms of maltreatment,
including emotional neglect and psychological abuse (Weiss et a1, 1992). Because
maltreatment is defined in part by acceptable community standards regarding treatment of

children, there are no ”absolute" definitions of abuse or neglect (Emery, 1989). For example,

12

Emery (1989) suggests that a common misconception about physical abuse is that prevalence
estimates reflect very severe acts, when in fact behaviors such as spanking are often included
in these estimates.

Given that there is confusion in the child abuse literature about the point at which
physical discipline becomes abusive (Weiss et al, 1992; Whipple & Richey, under review), it
is not surprising that defining and measuring neglect has been even more difficult. Neglect
is not a discernible physical or violent act, and tends to be more chronic and pervasive than
physical abuse (Lutzker, 1990; Pakizegi, 1985). While physical abuse is defined by
commissions of abusive acts, neglect is defined by omissions of physical or psychological
nurturant and caring behaviors (Pakizegi, 1985). In order to measure neglect one must assess
the absence rather than the presence of behavior. In addition, definitions of neglect also must
distinguish between physical and emotional neglect. While the effects of physical neglect
may be noticeable (e. g., being inadequately clothed), the effects of emotional neglect may be
more difficult to detect. Wald (1982) suggests that while professionals generally agree that
intervention is necessary to protect children from physical abuse, “when it comes to emotional
harm the consensus ends” (p. 13).

Many researchers have conceptualized maltreatment as occurring along a continuum
of parenting behaviors rather than as a dichotomous variable. It appears to be useful to
conceptualize neglect as occurring on a continuum because this type of maltreatment tends
to be chronic and pervasive, rather than occurring episodically in the form of specific, salient
acts. Burgess & Conger (1978) argue that there are conceptual difficulties in defining abuse

and neglect because they fall along a continuum of behavior, whose underlying dimensions

13

are unclear. They suggest that verbal punishment lies at one end and physical punishment that
exceeds community standards for acceptable punishment (i.e., burning a child) lies at the other
end. However, Burgess & Conger (197 8) note that it is unclear whether frequency and/or
intensity of the harmfirl act should be used as criteria for placement on the continuum from
an interactional standpoint. Because it is difficult to define neglect in terms of dimensions
such as intensity, Gauthier et al. (1996) have described maltreatment in terms of the quality
and degree of parent-child interaction that characterize different forms of maltreatment;
emotional and physical neglect lie at one extreme of a continuum of parent-chfld attachment
behavior (e.g., child seeking comfort from the parent and parent responding sensitively) that
ranges fi'om positive interactions to complete disengagement between parents and their
children. This approach is similar to Wolfes’ (1987) transitional model wherein maltreatment
is one pole of a continuum of parenting behavior ranging from appropriate to deviant.
Researchers have described multiple forms of neglect, including physical, emotional,
educational, and supervisory (Nelson et al., 1993; Zuravin, 1991). The categories of physical
and emotional neglect appear to encompass these other forms (Erickson et al., 1989). For
example, failing to supervise a child is considered a component of physical neglect. Because
physical neglect often coincides with poverty and low socioeconomic status, a demographic
group that is highly represented in the current sample (i.e., the average monthly income for
a family of 4 in the present study was $1,100), it was particularly important to determine if
physical and emotional neglect co-occurred in these families. That is, if mothers in the current
sample are under extreme stress - due to, among other factors, the abuse they have

experienced - this stress may affect their parenting across all areas, including attending to the

14

physical and emotional needs of their children. It should be noted that while definitions of
physical neglect focus on parental failures to meet children’s physical needs, it is likely that
physical neglect has a significant emotional component to it and that children also feel some
psychological impact of being physically neglected.

W In the present study, the construct of
physical neglect was defined broadly as "the failure to provide needed, age-appropriate care"
(National child abuse and neglect data system; 1990 summary data component. Working
Paper No. 1. Washington, DC: DHHS, April, 1992, cited in Lewitt, 1994). This broad
construct includes supervisory neglect, educational neglect (Nelson et al., 1989), daily child
care, health, and home safety.

Emotional neglect also was defined broadly as "acts or omissions that caused, or could
have caused, cognitive, affective or other mental disorder" and includes emotional
unresponsiveness, failure to encourage a child's individuality (Brassard et al., 1993), deficient
daily interaction, lack of consistent availability, lack of physical and verbal affection, and lack
of enjoyment of children. These definitions of neglectful behavior are not absolutes; parental
resources and contextual factors will likely influence what is considered neglectfirl versus
responsive parental behavior. For example, a mother who has a supportive partner or
husband, and lives in a safe, stress-free community, likely has more resources to be
consistently available to her children's needs than a mother with little support, who lives in
low-income housing in an unsafe and stressfirl community.

It should be noted that deciding on a definition of neglect or maltreatment in the

current study does not imply measurement of a "dichotomous phenomenon" or a "pure

15

maltreatment type" (Ammerrnan, 1990; Belsky, 1993; Wolfe, 1987). Mash & Wolfe (1991)
suggest that there are degrees of maltreatment and that judgments of abuse are typically based
on a pattern of parenting rather than specific acts. Even though physical abuse has often been
dichotomized in the literature because studies have tended to rely on Child Protective Service
samples, interactions in families are rarely simple or dichotomous; and, neglect appears to be
even less "dichotomous" or identifiable than physical abuse. Thus, it does not appear to be
conceptually useful or empirically possible to utilize "either-or" definitions of maltreatment.

W. The possibility that currently accepted
definitions of neglect (as described above) may be culturally biased is critical to address with
regard to the sample of the current study because nearly half of the women and children
interviewed were minorities; 39% were Afiican American, 5% were Hispanic, and 2% were
Asian American. Rose and Meezan (1996) suggest that the lack of consistency in definitions
of neglect has a major effect on minority and low income families who are most often
subjected to child welfare investigations. The current study addressed potential bias in
definitions of neglect by referring to the literature on parental rejection and warmth and social
support across cultures (Rohner, 1986; Werner & Smith, 1982). This literature provided
evidence that the construct of parental availability or emotional neglect has validity in many
ethnic and cultural groups. Rohner (1986), for example, found that perceived rejection by
parmts is related to negative developmental outcomes across many cultures. Because social
support and parental availability have been found to be significant buffers against negative
outcomes in children in high risk environments cross-culturally (Werner & Smith, 1982), it

follows that neglect may have a negative impact regardless of ethnicity or culture. While

l6

precise definitions of neglect and abuse may vary by culture, it appears that parental
availability and support are critical to children's development.
II..".1‘1 0 \'° an or r. c 'r' at ‘rrr‘r r‘I ‘° 1. or c‘ 0.1.!

WWW. Comprehensivel models of abuse
describe the myriad of ecological, child, parental, and interactional factors that contribute to
the likelihood of maltreatment (Ammennan, 1990; Belsky, 1993; Burgess & Conger, 1978;
Nelson et al., 1993). Because maltreatment often occurs in families in which parents are
highly stressed, economically deprived, lacking in social supports, and have little childrearing
knowledge, maltreatment must be viewed within the context in which it occurs (Corse et al,
1990; Emery, 1989; Polansky, Gaudin, Ammons & Davis, 1985; Whipple & Webster-
Stratton, 1991). Garbarino & Crouter (1978, p. 604), for example, conceptualize
maltreatment as "a problem of support systems and resources. "

Environmental stressors such as those described previously have been shown to
influence the quality of child-caregiving. In particular, stressors such as economic deprivation
and unemployment have been associated with decreased responsiveness to children and
increased risk for physical abuse (Whipple & Webster-Stratton, 1991). This decreased
responsiveness may adversely affect children's adjustment by diminishing parents' roles as
interpreters of events for their children. Parents help children to make sense of, and respond
to events in the environment through " social referencing," a process whereby a child relies on
an adult's interpretation of a stressor or an event to determine what an appropriate reaction
might be (Bretherton, Fritz, Zahn-Waxler, & Ridgeway, 1986). If a parent is extremely

stressed (e.g., a woman who is battered by her partner), she may be less able to be responsive

17

to her child. Without an available social referent to help make sense of events and
interactions in the environment, the child's social world may seem threatening and
uncontrollable. In support of this view, Wolfe et al. (1985) suggest that the impact on
children of witnessing their mother being abused may be affected by factors associated with

maternal stress.

 

. Attachment theory -- as conceptualized
by Bowlby (1969, 1980), Ainsworth (1972), Erickson (1950), and Stern (1985) -- provides
a usefirl fi'amework for understanding the potentially harmfirl impact of neglect on children’s
development. Within this framework neglect can be conceptualized as a characteristic of the
attachment relationship between a parent and child rather than as isolated parental behaviors
or lack of behaviors. Emotional and physical neglect lie at one end of a continuum of parent-
clrild attachment behavior (e. g., child seeking comfort from the parent and parent responding
sensitively) that ranges from positive interactions to complete disengagement between parents
and their children. Understanding neglect as a segment of a continuum of attachment
behaviors fits aptly with the observation that neglect tends to be chronic and pervasive and
is not readily defined by discrete behaviors (Lutzker, 1990).

Bowlby (1969, 1980, 1988) has theorized that the secure attachment relationship
between a parent and infant allows the infant to explore, to learn to interact within its
environment, and to develop autonomy. Bowlby (1969) based his attachment theory on a
behavioral control system wherein survival mechanisms allow an infant to explore her/his
environment under safe conditions (i. e. , when the caregiver is in proximity). Attachment is

a ”goal-corrected system" with the goal being a sense of felt security. Infant attachment

18

behaviors such as smiling, looking, and crying serve to achieve proximity and physical and
psychological contact with the caregiver (Sroufe & Waters, 197 7), and to allow the infant to
be comforted when distressed. Bowlby extended his theory to refer to the continual
transactions between the infant and the caretaker that allow the infant to develop "working
models” of the world. These models ideally offer security and predictions about what
caretakers, and eventually others, will do in certain situations, and about the child's ability to
elicit such care.

With a similar emphasis on responsive parent-child interactions, Erikson (1950)
described a number of critical interpersonal events that occur during infancy between infants
and caregivers that contribute to the infant's sense of continuity between her/his expressed
needs and the reactions of others. He describes the infant on its own as an unregulated being,
a being with "immaturity of homeostasis.” However, while the infant relies a great deal on
caregivers, it is important to understand that he or she is not simply a passive recipient of
care. If the infant experiences a pattern of consistently responsive caregiving, he or she
begins to understand that there is a continuity between the expression of needs and emotions
(e.g., crying and smiling) and the responses of others, what Erikson calls "mutual regulation."

Stern (1985) expanded upon the ideas of Bowlby and Erikson to discuss how the
infant's ability to abstract from one experience to another (e.g., a calm voice is soothing and
so is stroking of the head) allows the infant to realize that continuity exists in interactions with
caregivers. Stern emphasized the importance of the quality of parent-child interactions for
the interpersonal and psychological development of the child. He suggested that through

interactions with a responsive caregiver, the infant develops “evoked companions,” similar

19

to Bowlby’s internal working models, which are representations of people in the infant’s life
that accompany the infant when it is alone. Having experienced a self-regulating caregiver,
the infant is able to feel secure and explore the world when the caregiver is not present
because of these evoked companions.

Ainsworth, Blehar, Waters, and Wall’s (197 8) research on the quality of attachment
in infants provided empirical support for Bowlby and Stem’s theories. Their research
suggested that attachment to the caregiver affects children's ability to interact with others and
to develop a sense of self-efficacy in new situations. Ainsworth and her colleagues found that
patterns of parent-child interactions are related to the ability of infants to deal with stress and
unfamiliar situations. Her study of infants' reactions to a stranger entering the room and to
separation from and reunion with their mothers revealed three attachment types into which
infants' behavior fell: secure, avoidarrt and resistant. The secure infants easily separated from
their caregivers and explored, but quickly sought out and were comforted by their caregivers
when distressed. Avoidarrt infants looked away fiom and avoided caregivers even when levels
of stress rose. These infants were urrimaginative and apathetic in their exploration. Resistant
infants displayed little exploration and an inability to be comforted by their caregivers upon
reunion.

Consistent with the fiamework of Bowlby, Erikson, and Stern, it is likely that children
who are neglected would fail to perceive continuity between their behaviors and caregivers’
actions because they would not experience the caregivers’ actions as responsive or attuned
to their needs. Parents who are neglectfirl do not, by definition, engage in the process of

"interactive error” and "interactive repair" that has been argued to characterize normal

20

interactions (Tronick, 1989). In this process, a parent adjusts the quality and intensity of
interactions to better respond to the needs of the child. According to Tronick (1989), an
accumulation of interactive failures and an inability to repair these failures results in the infant
perceiving the caregiver as unreliable and her/himself as ineffective. The parent may then
begin to perceive the infant or child as uncontrollable and experiences a sense of helplessness
about his/her ability to affect the infant or child's behavior (Frodi, 1981). Parental
insensitivity to a child’s needs may disrupt the “affective bond” that forms the basis for
healthy attachment (Sroufe & Waters, 1977). Evidence suggests that neglectful mothers,
indeed, show lower rates of positive interaction and displays of positive affect with their
children than do non-neglectfirl mothers (Bousha & Twentyman, 1984; Burgess & Conger,
1978)

After repeatedly experiencing insensitivity to expressed needs, the child cannot feel
safe enough to leave the caregiver and explore the environment. Carlson, Cicchetti, Barnett,
& Braunwald (1989) suggest that “because anxiously attached infants spend so much
attention producing attachment behavior and monitoring the whereabouts of the caregiver,
these children have relatively little time for play and exploration” (p.501). The inability to
explore and achieve success in mastering early stage-salient issues, such as trusting and
attaching to the caregiver, may prevent the child fiom negotiating later, more complex
developmental tasks such as engaging in prosocial behavior or developing autonomy
(Erikson, 1980; Sroufe, 1979). These developmental failures, in conjunction with children’s
attempts to understand why they are neglected (e.g., “I am not good enough to be loved”),

likely contribute to diminished feelings of self-competence and self-worth and increased

21

feelings of depression (Aber, Allen, & Cicchetti, 1989; Garbarino, 1993).

While it is clear that the intensity of one-on-one parent-child interaction (upon which
most attachment research has focused) decreases as children grow older, it is likely that
parental availability and responsiveness to the child's needs is equally important to older
children. There is empirical evidence to suggest that neglect has as negative an impact on
older children as it does on infants. Just as neglect is associated with a pattern of avoidant
attachment in infants (Crittenden, 1985), it has been found to be linked to nonoptirnal
functioning in older children. For example, neglected children aged 2 to 5 have been shown
to initiate fewer interactions with their peers, display less positive or negative affect with their
peers, and to direct fewer positive behavior toward their peers than a non-neglected
comparison group (Mueller & Silverrnan, 1989). Neglected children aged 3 to 6 have been
found to be more socially anxious and withdrawn with their peers (Hofi‘man-Plotkin &
Twentyman, 1984), and neglected children aged 5 to 6 have been shown to present with some
of the most severe problems in social-emotional and academic functioning when compared
with other maltreatment and control groups (Erickson, Egeland, & Pianta, 1989).

Neglflpmhglgflgalahandgnment. I am arguing that psychological neglect and
emotional unavailability as conceptualized by attachment theorists is devastating to children
on both an affective (e. g., affecting feelings of self-worth) and behavioral level (e.g. , engaging
in competent behavior) because neglect is experienced by children as psychological
abandonment. Delozier (1982) has suggested that anxious attachments, including patterns
of fearful, anxious, and depressed behavior, result from threatened separation and loss of

caretaking. This psychological abandonment and “threat” to a sense of security in

22

relationships may be particularly problematic for children who have witnessed their mothers
being abused and whose sense of security in the social environment is likely already
compromised (Cummings, Zahn-Waxler, & Radke-Yarrow, 1981).

Because neglectfirl parents abandon their roles as "caretakers and authority figures,"
leaving children to care for themselves (Dean et al., 1986), neglected children may feel
unworthy of attention and emotional closeness. The need to. maintain emotional and physical
closeness with parents is critical to children. In their study of the effects of maltreatment on
children's understanding of interpersonal relationships, Dean, Malik, Richards & Stringer
(1986) found that maltreated children responded to scenarios where parents were neglectfirl
or abusive by explaining the parents' unkind actions as punishment for the child's nrisbehavior.
Dean and colleagues argue that such rationalizations are attempts by children to maintain
closeness with their parents, even if it means blanring themselves for their own maltreatment.

u. r‘° ‘0r :i'vm rc -r’ as r‘r .u rrH‘ .- ‘Hr.’ . ‘r' .Itis
likely that neglect is devastating to children not only because it prevents children from
successfirlly negotiating “normal” developmental milestones (e.g., secure attachment, healthy
peer relationships), but also because it may make children more vulnerable to developing
adjustment problems in the face of more extreme stressors, such as physical abuse. It is
suggested that there are three primary mechanisms through which neglect may diminish
children’s sense of self-competence and contribute to feelings of depression. These three
mechanisms are based on the assumption that neglect involves, to some extent, the
psychological loss of a primary caregiver.

First, a lack of consistent interaction and social and emotional stimulation may inhibit

23

children's feelings of trust and security in the adults in their environment and impair their
ability to actively engage with the environment (Houck & King, 1989); neglectfirl
relationships may also prevent children from exploring their environment and mastering
developmental tasks. Such impediments will likely contribute to feelings of incompetence as
children are unable to negotiate important tasks as they grow (e.g., achieving a sense of
autonomy, successful peer relationships). There is both clinical and empirical evidence to
indicate that the lack of parental guidance often accompanied by a lack of environmental
stimulation in neglectful families, reduces exploratory and inquisitive behavior in neglected
children (Bousha & Twentyman, 1984; Egeland & Erickson, 1987). When children are
psychologically abandoned, not only do they lose their caregiver as a potential helper when
new challenges confront them, but they also may stop attempting to seek help from others
because they expect caregivers, generally, to be unavailable.

Second, because neglect may not be related in children’s minds to nrisbehaviors in the
same way that they may believe that they “caused” physical abuse by their inappropriate
actions (Herrenkohl & Egolf, 1983), the noncontingent and chronic quality of neglect may
contribute to feelings of learned helplessness. Learned helplessness, a feeling that one is
unable to influence events in one's life, has been found to contribute to feelings of depression,
anxiety, and firtility (Bandura, 1982), and can cause individuals to give up after many
unsuccessful attempts at maintaining control (Abramson, Garber, & Seligrnan, 1980; Taylor,
1983). Neglected children may feel helpless to affect their environment because there is rarely
a discernible event that precipitated neglect and because a general sense of inefiicacy and lack

of affect may pervade neglectfirl relationships (Crittenden & Ainsworth, 1989; Pakizegi,

24

1985). They may also feel that their parents fail to interact with them regardless of how they
behave, and therefore their ability to associate behavior with outcomes may be diminished.
Empirical evidence that children often blame themselves for their own neglect may indicate
tint children may attempt to gain control over seemingly uncontrollable events. Consistent
with this idea, Ney et al. (1986) studied children's perceptions about abuse (n = 57, age 5 to
12 years) and found that children are likely to blame themselves for physical and emotional
neglect.

The success with which children are able to engage their environment and to see the
result of their own actions will likely affect how much competence and efficacy they feel
(Harter, 1983; Loevinger, 1976). In support of this idea, Rossman & Rosenberg (1992)
found evidence that children's perceptions of control positively affect adjustment; they
examined the relationship between children's perceptions of control over marital conflict and
behavioral outcomes in 94 children, aged 6 to 12 years. They found that increased conflict
control beliefs helped to compensate for stress and were associated with less problem
behavior across stress levels.

Third, through a modeling efi’ect, it is possible that when children see their parents as
unable or unwilling to get them what they need emotionally or physically, they fail to learn
strategies to meet their own needs. After observing social withdrawal in their parents,
children may themselves become more withdrawn (Hoffman-Plotkin & Twentyman, 1984).
There is evidence that the lack of exposure to normal interactions in which children can learn
specific social skills, diminishes the ability of neglected children to discrinrinate emotions in

others (Frodi & Smetana, 1984) and to develop language skills (Allen & Oliver, 1982).

25

In addition to contributing to poor developmental outcomes, neglect also may increase
children’s vulnerability to developing difficulties when they are exposed to other forms of
trauma, in particular, witnessing or experiencing violence in the home. Sroufe & Waters
(1977) suggest that one of the central roles of a positive affective bond with a caregiver is that
it allows the child to develop adaptive behavior during each developmental period. This
adaptive behavior, which helps infants and children deal with “normal” stressors and
challenges in the environment, can be seen as a mechanism for coping with other, more
extreme stressors (i.e., witnessing violence). Ifchildren do not feel competent to deal with

moderate stress, it is more likely that extreme stress will have a significant negative impact

on them.

 

It is clear from past research that neglect and physical abuse have detrimental effects
on children's functioning (Cicchetti, 1989; Egeland & Erickson, 1987; Erickson et al., 1989,
Kinard, 1982; Wodarski, Kurtz, Gaudin, & Howing, 1990). Maltreated children have been
shown to display considerable psychological and behavioral difficulties, including physical and
verbal aggression, low self-esteem, problematic peer relationships, and poor school
adjustment (Emery, 1989; Hemenway et al., 1994; Perry, Doran & Wells, 1983). Many
studies (e. g., George & Main, 1979; Main & George, 1985; Rivera & Widonr, 1990; Widom,
1989) have found that children who were abused engage in more approach/avoidance
behavior and aggression with peers and caretakers.

Studies that have focused specifically on the impact of neglect indicate that chronic

neglect may have a powerful "organizational" impact on development, afi’ecting various

26

developmental domains including cognitive, social, and emotional functioning (Aber et al.,
1989, Houck & King, 1989). In their longitudinal study of 267 high-risk families, Egeland &
Erickson (1987; Erickson et al, 1989) examined the differential effects of physical abuse,
verbal abuse, neglect and psychological unavailability on children. The authors found that the
children whose mothers had been psychologically unavailable, but not physically abusive,
showed marked declines in intellectual and social competence and significant attachment
disturbances from two to six years of age. These authors found that neglected children at 6
years of age had more problems in multiple areas of functioning than the control group and
also showed more problems than the physically abused group, including poorer school
adjustment and behavior problems. The results of this study suggest that psychological
unavailability and neglect were more detrimental to certain aspects of adjustment than
physical abuse.

In a longitudinal observational study of 29 mother-child pairs (followed from the age
of 6 months), Pettit & Bates (1989) found that positive maternal involvement was related to
the absence of problem behaviors in 4 year old children. These authors found that displays
of family coercion were not as strongly predictive of behavioral problems at age 4 as was the
absence of positive interactions early on. In a study of parent-child interactions in 30
families, Roberts & Strayer (1987) found that parental responsiveness to children's distress
and encouragement of emotional expressiveness were significantly positively related to
children's competence in preschool.

Studies have found neglectful mothers to be different from physically abusive and

control mothers in both amount and quality of interaction with their children. Bousha &

 

lxx‘

m0

ab'

SCI

00h

and-

27

Twentyman (1984) studied mother-child interaction in three groups of mothers with 12
mother-child pairs per group. The three groups included those with a history of child physical
abuse (as defined by at least one substantiated instance of child abuse according to social
service records), a history of child neglect (at least one substantiated instance of child
neglect), and a matched comparison group with no known history of maltreatment. They
observed the verbal and nonverbal behaviors of the three groups for three consecutive days
for 90 minutes a day. They found that neglectfirl mothers had the lowest rates of interaction
with their children of any of the three groups, and that abusive mothers showed higher rates
of verbal and physical aggression. The neglected children also had the lowest rates of
interaction with their mothers of any of the three groups. This pattern makes sense in light
of the fact that parent-child interaction is a reciprocal process. While Bousha & Twentyman
(1984) found, as expected, that the physically abused children displayed higher rates of
physical and verbal aggression than the other two groups, they also found that neglected
children showed high rates of physical aggression. In explaining this last finding, the authors
suggest that children who are neglected may receive attention from their mothers only when
they are negative and aggressive.

Studies suggest that what little interaction does occur in neglectfirl families is aversive.
Aragona & Eyberg (1981) observed 27 mother—cth dyads and found that neglectfirl mothers
(those referred for parent training following failure to provide adequate supervision or a
suitable environment for their children) gave less praise than control mothers (those who had
no history of neglect or abuse of their children), showed their children less acknowledgment,

and were more critical of their children. Burgess & Conger (1978) collected observational

or:

28

data in the homes of 17 abusive families (those with substantiated occurrences of
nonaccidental physical injury), 17 neglectful families (those who failed to provide adequate
supervision and/or nourishment), and 19 non-maltreating control fanrilies (matched on
income, education, number of children and age of parents and children, with no record of
abuse or neglect) and found that of all three groups, neglectfirl parents showed the most
negative behavior and the least positive interaction toward their children. The impact of the
lack of interaction as well as high negativity that characterizes neglectful families clearly needs
to be examined further.

k -.,- am .. .rr on a. o 0 (.0 :1-" an o o - an 'r r 0. ‘-rl 9.0.0 9.0 o :n n m .‘
In homes where domestic violence occurs, a large number of children are either "direct"
victims who actually witness violence, or "indirect" victims who see the afierefi’ects of the
violence. Hilton (1992) found that 70% of the women in their sample (n = 24) reported that
their children witnessed violence or its aftereffects, and suggests that this number is probably
an underestimate because the women may have failed to recall the presence of children in all
instances of violence. Because children who witness domestic violence are at increased risk
to be maltreated (Davis & Carlson, 1987; Rosenbaum & O'Leary, 1981), they experience
cumulative risk factors which may make them susceptible to adjustment problems.

Not only is there evidence of higher rates of internalizing and externalizing behavior
problems for children whose mothers have been battered than for community comparison
groups (Christopoulous et al., 1987), there is evidence that children who were both
maltreated and witnessed family violence show higher rates of behavioral difficulties than

children who only witnessed violence (Davis & Carlson, 1987; Hughes, Parkinson, & Vargo,

29

1989; Jaffe et al., 1990; Kalmuss, 1984). In their study of 78 children (aged 4-16) and their
mothers, Davis & Carlson (1987) found that children who both witnessed and experienced
abuse showed more internalizing behaviors and lower competence scores on the Child
Behavior Checklist than children who had only witnessed abuse, and that battered women
report that their daughters display more internalizing behavior problems on the Child
Behavior Checklist than the non-shelter comparison group (Christopoulous, Cohn, Shaw,
Joyce, Sullivan-Hanson, Kraft, & Emery, 1987).

However, some studies call into question a direct link between exposure to domestic
violence and children’s adjustment problems. Instead this work suggests that the detrimental
impact of parental violence is a firnction of marital discord and not necessarily violence per
se. Hershom & Rosenbaum (1985) examined the impact of marital violence on male children
in three groups: (1) maritally abused (n = 15); (2) nonviolent maritally discordant (n = 12);
and, (3) satisfactorily married (n = 18). Assessing marital discord and child behavior
problems, the authors found that children from the abuse and nonviolent discordant families
did not differ significantly fi'om one another. However, children from both these groups
differed significantly from families in which parents were satisfactorily married. Yet other
studies (cf Kolbo, Blakely & Englemen, 1996 for review) have failed to find a relationship
between witnessing domestic violence and children’s behavior problems and social-emotional
functioning (e.g., Rosenbaum & O’Leary, 1981). For example, Hughes & Barad (1983) did
not find reliable differences on scores of anxiety, self-esteem or behavior problems between
a sample of children who witnessed domestic violence and a comparison group .

The mixed findings in the literature indicate that it is critical to begin to examine how

30

factors such as neglect may moderate children’s adjustment to exposure to family violence.
While attempts to explain why witnessing violence may be detrimental have focused mostly
on the violence and the impact of exposure to violent role models, few researchers have
attempted to delineate other factors, such as neglect, that also may moderate the relationship
between witnessing/experiencing violence and children’s adjustment. Much of the focus has
been on how children who witness and experience violence are exposed to violence in two
"developmentally crucial relationships": the relationship between their parents (or their mother
and her partner) and the parent-child relationship (Stemberg et al., 1993). Some family
violence researchers have begun to implicate the emotional unavailability of caregivers as
contributing to children’s adjustment problems (e.g., Jaffe et al., 1990; O’Keefe, 1994).
According to Jaffe and his colleagues (1990), children of battered women may be
vulnerable to adjustment problems, not only because they are exposed to violent role models
and witness the marital discord that accompanies wife abuse, but also because they may have
physically and emotionally unavailable caregivers. In her study of 185 children from 120
families whose mothers had been at a shelter for battered women, O’Keefe (1994) found that
a positive mother-child relationship was the best “buffer” against children developing behavior
problems including aggression and hostility. While researchers have suggested that risk
factors associated with abuse (e. g., single parenthood or poverty) may be partly responsible
for the deleterious impact of abuse (Stemberg et al., 1993), few have examined how increased
parental neglect that may result fi'om the mother’s experience of violence (and that may

coincide with the father’s antisocial violent behavior), might affect children’s psychological

adjustment.

31

In summary, the previous review of the literature on attachment, maltreatment, and
risk and resilience in conjunction with the literature on children of battered women, suggests
tint it is critical to examine the impact of neglect on children who are exposed to other forms
of trauma in the home. Because previous literature has focused on salient forms of
maltreatment (e. g., physical violence), as well as on maltreatment by mothers, there is a need

for an examination of the impact of neglect by maternal and paternal caregivers in homes

where children are exposed to family violence.

While studies have

 

focused on the increased tendency of men who batter and women who are battered to be
abusive to their children (Ross, 1996), few studies have examined how the impact of being
battered might affect the mother’s ability to be emotionally available to her children, or how
the man’s antisocial behavior might coincide with neglectful parenting on his part. It has been
suggested that discordant and violent marital relationships prevent parents from meeting the
emotional and developmental needs of their children (Elbow, 1982) and increase their
likelihood of engaging in punitive, abusive, and/or neglectfirl behaviors (Corse et al., 1990;
Holden & Ritchie, 1991).

An obvious risk factor for children’s adjustment problems in families in which the
mother is abused is the impact of the violence on the woman's psychological adjustment and
parenting abilities. Studies of battered women indicate that along with physical injuries,
victims of domestic abuse also frequently experience high levels of anxiety, depression,

suicidal ideation, substance abuse, psychological numbing, and post-traumatic stress reactions

 

sex:
difix
(in
com
Who
The
or d

ants

32

(Browne, 1993; Cascardi, Langhinrichsen, & Vivian, 1992; Goodman, Koss, Fitzgerald,
Felipe Russo, & Keita, 1993; Herman, 1992a, 1992b). Many of these psychological problems
arise not only from the physical abuse but also from the chronic and extreme psychological
abuse and control that battered women frequently experience in their relationships (Walker,
1979). In addition, the stress of parenting may be compounded for battered women by the
connection between being battered and childcare issues; that is, women often have described
being battered after being accused of not being good mother, for being pregnant, or following
discussions of their children (Browne, 1993; Goodman, Koss, & Russo, 1993; Hilton,1992).

It is not surprising that children living in families where their mother has experienced
severe trauma may receive less than optimal parenting and may experience behavioral
difficulties as a result (Patterson, 1989). Goodman et al. (1993) argue that being battered
dramatically affects a woman's interpersonal interactions, such that women decrease
connnunity involvement and socialize less. In addition, it is likely that the father/ father figure
who is engaging in antisocial behavior by abusing his wife, also has poor parenting abilities.
The fact that (based on mothers’ report) 50% of the assailants in the current sample punished
or deprived the children when they were angry at their partners, indicates that assailants’
antisocial behavior indeed “spills over” into their parenting.

1.0 on. _. o “.331 r' 0-,..‘11' 0 rural .r-r :o "our ‘ 0°
W. In addition to the stress caused by the physical and emotional abuse
battered women experience, they often are also socially isolated and economically
disadvantaged. Because attempts are often made by assailants to keep the family isolated in

order to hide abuse -- and because women often remain with the abuser for fear of the

 

llx

rel
inx

sra

inx
of

1163

33

assailants potential violence should she try to leave or make the abuse public (Browne, 1993)
- children of battered women face the additional risk factor of not having access to potential
outside support systems. For the current sample, it was important to address the potential
link between social isolation and neglect which has previously been found in the literature
(Polansky et al., 1985) because 67% of the women in the current study reported having been
socially isolated by their batterers (i.e., their assailant discouraged their contact with family
and fiiends). Polansky et al. (1985), for example, interviewed neglectfirl mothers (i.e., those
referred to protective services for poor physical care, lack of supervision and emotional
indifference, n = 152) and non-neglectful mothers (N = 154) matched for socioecononric
status, race, and urban or rural living situation, and found that neglectfirl mothers were more
likely to report that they were socially isolated.

In addition, it is critical to acknowledge the relationship between neglect and poverty
in the current study, given the low income of most of the women in the sample. In their study
of chronic versus recent-onset child neglect, Nelson et al. (1993) found that the chronic
neglect group experienced more poverty, poor hygiene of children, money management
problems, and inadequate housing than the newly neglecting or unconfirmed neglect groups.
Nelson et al. (1993) conducted a longitudinal cohort case study of 55 chronically neglecting
families (i.e., known to Children and Youth Services for more than 3 years), 36 newly
neglecting, and 91 cases where neglect was not confirmed. They found that families in the
chronically neglecting group in their study were poorer than average families living in the

same neighborhoods.

Many of the factors that are associated with the occurrence of child neglect and abuse,

Sa

lo

\ll

“0]

xxhi

5”

fun
Vietr
com
and

toner

Outer

 

34

such as family disruption, social isolation, unemployment, poverty, lack of social support,
substance abuse (Corse, Schmid, & Trickett, 1990; Culp, Culp, Soulis, & Letts, 1989; Gaines,
Sandgrund, Green & Power, 1978; Krugrnan, Lenherr, Lynn, & Fryer, 1986; Lyons-Ruth,
Zoll, Connell, & Grunebaum, 1989; Pagelow, 1984; Pakizegi, 1985; Pelton, 1981, 1994;
Whipple & Webster-Stratton, 1991) -- are also factors that characterize the lives of battered
women who utilize shelters. Thus, I thought that it was important to examine the extent to

which these demographic factors were related to the occurrence of neglect in the current

sample.

 

While some models of the etiology of child neglect have described demographic
factors and farrrily isolation as antecedents to this form of maltreatment (Nelson et al., 1993;
Vietze et al., 1980), few of these perspectives have attempted to account for the unique
contribution of neglect to child outcomes. As such, integrating the literature on risk factors
and social support with the literature on neglect may prove a usefirl strategy for
conceptualizing how neglect may influence child adjustment.

Given that there is not a one-to—one relationship between physical injury and negative
outcomes for children, it is important to identify factors that may mediate the relationship
between such risk factors and children’s psychosocial problems. There is extensive evidence
that supportive relationships act as arneliatorive bufi’ers against the negative impact of stress
(Sandler et al., 1989; Wahlsterr, 1994; Wyman et al., 1991). Wyman et al. (1991) interviewed
parents of demographically similar groups of highly stressed urban children (agele to 12)

and compared children who were stress-resilient (n = 40) with those who were adversely

 

35

affected by stress (n = 30), as assessed by measures of stressfirl life events and adjustment.
These authors found that compared to stress-affected children, the children who were resilient
reported both closer care—giver child relationships, and more support from extended and
extra-familial sources. The importance of supportive extra-familial relationships appears to
be a particularly critical buffer when parents are neglectfirl. Studies have consistently found
that neglectful mothers feel extremely isolated and experience little social support in contrast
with comparison mothers (Polansky et al., 1985).

Risk factors have been described as factors that increase the likelihood of developing
behavioral/emotional difficulties as compared to a random sample of a "normal" population
(Garmezy, 1983; Grizenko & Fisher, 1992; Seifer et al., 1992). As discussed previously,
neglect can be conceputalized as a risk factor for poor outcomes, as well as a moderator of
children’s adjustment in the face of other stressors (i.e., witnessing and experiencing abuse).
I suggest that neglect will not simply contribute another stressor to children’s lives (i.e., as
in an additive model), but that such maltreatment also will have a mutiplicative effect in that
it will tend to diminish children’s abilities to deal with other stressors (i.e., abuse) because of
its impact on children’s feelings of security, self-competence, and self-worth. Garrnezy et al.
(1984) describe this protective factor model in terms of “attributes of personal vulnerability,”
in the presense of which “the impact of variations in stress on competence becomes more,
rather than less pronounced” (p. 102). According to Wemer's (1989) definition of
vulnerability, children who are emotionally neglected may be more vulnerable to poor
developmental outcomes under conditions of high risk (e.g., in homes where children witness

and/or experience abuse) than children with responsive caregivers.

 

 

36

WW. I propose the following framework for

understanding the potential role of neglect versus positive interaction in moderating children’s
outcomes when they have witnessed abuse and/or has been abused. Parental responsivity to
children will affect the quality of the parent-child relationship. A parent-child relationship
characterized by emotional neglect and non-responsiveness will contribute to a child's lack
of security in the environment, lack of feelings of self-efficacy and competency, and feelings
of abandonment. This constellation of negative experiences, in turn, should contribute
directly to poor child adjustment (i.e., feelings of depression, behavior problems, low self-
competence). Additionally, children’s perceived lack of security in the environment and
feelings of low efficacy also diminish their abilility to deal with other stressors, including
witnessing and experiencing abuse. Because, by definition, children in the current study have
been exposed to some form of trauma (i.e., being aware that their mother has been abused,
witnessing the abuse, and/or being abused themselves), differential outcomes for the children
may be more related to the level of neglect than the level of abuse. In summary, the quality
of parent-child interactions (either neglectful or positive) is expected to influence children’s
psychological adjustment. Children who have a positive relationship with a significant adult
will likely be able to better recover from exposure to violence in the home than children who
are emotionally neglected.

Based upon the unresolved questions reviewed earlier about neglect and the
adjustment of children of battered women, this study had two broad missions: First, it
attempted to exanrine the incidence of neglect by mothers, by mothers’ assailants, and by non-

assailant fathers that children reported -- and at the same time, it assessed the pscyhometric

37

properties of a new measure of this type of maltreatment. Second, this study tested
hypotheses concerning the link between children’s perceptions of neglect by significant
caregivers and their psychological adjustment.

Researchfluesticns

In addition to testing specific hypotheses (presented below), the study examined two
more general questions:

(1) What is the incidence of neglect in the current sample? A number of indices were
used to exrnplore this issue including the percentage of children who reported low, moderate
and high physical and emotional neglect by their mothers, their mothers’ assailants and their
non-assailant fathers, as well as the percentage of mothers who reported low, moderate to
high emotional and physical neglect of their own children.

(2) How reliable and valid are the Neglect questionnaires with the current sample? To
examine this question, tests for inter-rater agreement, test-retest reliability and construct
validity were conducted for these measures In addition, extent of agreement between
mothers and children’s reports of neglect was examined using correlational analyses.
Hypotheses

The quality of parent-child interactions (either neglectfirl or positive) was expected
to influence child outcomes. It was expected that children who have a positive relationship
with a significant adult would be more able to c0pe with exposure to violence in the home
(both witnessing and experiencing abuse and injuries) than would those children who are
neglected. Specifically, it was predicted that high neglect would be related to higher reported

depression (child report), lower self-competence (child report), and higher internalizing and

38

externalizing behavior problems (mother report). More formally:

W: A higher amount of reported neglect by significant caregivers will be
related to more negative child adjustment, as indicated by higher scores on depression
(children’s report - Children’s Depression Inventory), lower scores on self-competence
(children’s report - Harter Scale of Perceived Self-Competence) and higher Internalizing and
Extemalizing behavior problems (mother’s report - Child Behavior Checklist).

Willa): Higher accumulated neglect by caregivers (i.e., by both mom and dad
or mom and assailant) will be more related to negative outcomes than reported neglect by
only one caregiver.

Hymthesisz: Neglect will moderate the relationship between children’s experiences
of trauma (witnessing mother’s abuse, experiencing abuse, and/or receiving physical injuries
from abuse) and adjustment. That is, higher reported neglect will be associated with a
stronger relationship between abuse children have experienced (both child and mother’s
report) and poor adjustment (i.e., higher scores on depression, internalizing and externalizing
behavior problems, and lower self-competence scores).

Taken together, these hypotheses lead to the expectation that there will be a
significant main effect for Neglect on outcomes, and a significant Neglect X Trauma

interaction in predicting child outcomes.

Chapter 2

METHOD2

Data for the current study were collected as part of a larger community-based intervention
program for women and children who have experienced domestic violence and who have
turned to the services of a battered women's shelter for help. This program entitled the “MSU
Family Follow-Up Study,” was developed primarily to examine the efiicacy of an intervention
for promoting the psychological health and well-being of children who witness domestic
violence. However, the primary focus of the current study was on the relative impact of
neglect and trauma within the subject population, rather than on the outcomes of the
intavention. Therefore, the methods and procedures of the larger study that are not pertinent
to the current study are described in Appendix A.

E . .

Sample. Sixty four mothers and their children between the ages of 7 and 11 were
recruited and interviewed from March 1995 to June 1996. Families who used shelter services
during the past four months and women who had experienced physical violence in their
relationship, and who had at least one child between the ages of 7 and 11 were approached
for inclusion in the study. (However, four children who were 6 years old, but were within 2-3

months of tunring 7 years old were also recruited into the study). Children of this age group

 

2The description of procedures, including all information regarding participants, recruitment procedures,
experimental intervention, training of interviewers, and measure development was taken from the CDC-
funded grant entitled "Preventing Family Violence: An Experimental Evaluation" (Davidson, W., Sullivan,
C.M., & Basta, J.M.). The title of the research project rmder wihch the grant is implemented is the ”MSU
Family F allow-up Study.”

39

were
and]
to b

lov

15p

40

were selected for inclusion in the study primarily for two reasons: (1) they have the cognitive
and language abilities to understand their family situation, to provide reliable information and
to be disclosing about sensitive t0pics (Amato & Ochiltree, 1987; Smith & Cowie, 1988;
Tower, 1993); and, (2) fiom an intervention standpoint, the literature suggests this age group
is particularly vulnerable to developing mental health problems.

The following summary of mothers’ and children’s reports speaks to the extent of abuse
and injuries that study participants experienced. One hundred percent of mothers reported
they had been pushed, grabbed, or shoved by their assailant; 67% had been punched, kicked,
or choked; 47% of mothers had sexual activity forced upon them; 45% had been tied up or
physically restrained; and 44% had been threatened with a weapon. As a result of this
violence, 86% of the women received cuts, scrapes or bruises, 38% experienced strains or
sprains, 35% experienced preganancy complications or miscarriage, ll % had loose or broken
teeth, 11% had broken bones, and 5% were wounded by a knife or gun.

Fifty-nine percent of the children reported that they had witnessed the physical abuse of
their mothers; and of those children who were not direct witnesses, 27% reported that they
were aware that their mothers had been hurt by the assailant. While children experienced
some physical abuse by non-assailant fathers and mothers, they were most victimized by their
mothers’ assailants: 25% of the mothers reported that their children had been physically hurt
by the assailant when he was angry at the mother. F orty—one percent of children reported
they had been pushed grabbed or shoved by the assailant (in contrast to 16% by mothers ,
and 6% by nonassailarrt fathers). Thirteen percent of children reported they had been kicked

by the assailants (5% by mothers, and 0% by fathers). Ten percent of children had been hit

 

 

41

with a fist by the assailant, whereas 6% of children had been hit by their mothers and no
children had been hit by their fathers. While 5% of children had been threatened with a gun
or knife by the assailant, no children reported being threatened with a weapon by mothers or
non-assailant fathers. Of the children who reported experiencing physical violence (n = 41
by assailants, n = 45 by mothers, n = 4 by non-assailant fathers), 56% experienced soreness
without bruises from the assailant, 33% from mothers, and 50% from fathers (n = 2). Fifty-
five percent of children who reported physical violence said they experienced cuts, scrapes,
and bruises from the assailant, 33% from mothers, and 50% from non-assailant fathers. In
addition, 5% had received broken bones from assailants, and no children reported broken
bones from mothers or father’s physical violence.

W13. This study took place in the greater Lansing area
of Ingham County, Michigan and involved the cooperation of Michigan State University,
under whom the project is implemented. There were several referral sites for research
participants.

The Council Against Domestic Assault (CADA) was involved in this research as the
primary source for potential research participants. CADA is the local battered women's
shelter, and houses approximately 30 women and children per month. Besides shelter, CADA
provides a range of services to both women and children residents and non-residents including
short-term counseling, legal assistance, children's programs, job club, domestic violence
education, support groups, substance abuse education, and social activities. The management
staff at CADA allowed researchers to recruit shelter residents and non-residents who use

shelter services and have enthusiastically supported the current study. An administrative

 

W0]

 

 

 

42

agreement between the Council's director and the principal investigator outlining each party's
role and responsibilities has been negotiated in writing.

Fifty-three of the families in the current study (83%) were recruited from CADA. In
addition, a small percentage of families were recnrited in the waiting-room of the Department
of Social Services (14%) and at the F anrily Growth Centers (publically-firnded facilities that
provide parenting classes and services to parents) (3%).

W. The recruitment procedures described here are those pertinent
only to the current study. Recruitment procedures used in the larger intervention study are
sunrrnarized in Appendix A. One project staff member recruited participants from the local
battered women's programs. At least once a day (6 days a week) she went to the shelter and
identified eligrhle participants. Mothers were approached first. The staff member explained
to each eligible mother that we were interested in finding out more about the needs of the
children who have witnessed or experienced domestic violence; and, to this end, we would
like to interview her about one of her children, aged 7 to 11, three times over the course of
nine months. The staff member also asked the mother for permission to interview any of her
children who are between the ages of 7 and 11. It was explained that for her first interview
she would be paid $10; for the second interview 16 weeks later she would receive $50; and
finally $75 would be paid for participation four months after that. Children who were
interviewed were offered $5 in cash or toys for their first interview, $10 in cash or toys for
their second interview, and $20 in cash or toys for their third interview. Ifmothers granted
their permission, the staff member approached each of her eligible children and explained the

project to them. The mother and at least one child had to be interested in order to qualify for

4x

CC

Chi

43
participation in the study.

In addition, as noted above, a small percentage of families were recruited in the waiting-
room of the Department of Social Services and at the Family Growth Centers. At these sites,
women were approached and first asked if they had children aged 7 to 11 years old. If so,
they were given the opportunity to answer a brief screening questionnaire to determine
whether they had experienced physical violence in their relationship in the last 4 months. If
they had not experienced violence, they were thanked for their time and given an opportunity
to choose a pair of earrings as compensation. If they had experienced violence, the study was
explained to them in firll so they could decide whether or not to participate.

If there was more than one child between the ages of 7 and 11 in a given family, the
recruiter randomly chose a child’s name who then became the target child about whom
mothers would be interviewed. This target child was interviewed in depth; the mother’s other
children received a shortened version of the interview.

Pracedures
WW. Interviewers for the current study were

undergraduates at Michigan State University who received college credits in a Psychology
490 class in exchange for conducting interviews for this project. All interviewers comnritted
to work on the project at least two semesters. For each semester that this study was
conducted, a new group of 5 to 7 students was trained together as a class by graduate
students skilled in on-site interviewing. During the first eight weeks, students were instructed
about methods of community research as they relate to woman battering and its effects on the

children. Although many of the tenets of good interviewing with adults apply to interviewing

44

children, there are some differences. Thus, the importance of developing rapport and trust
was particularly emphasized in training for the child interviews. Specific techniques for
facilitating this rapport were taught, such as engaging in play with the child before or after the
interview and being attentive to the child's needs. Since the interviewers asked children about
sensitive topics, they were trained to identify whether the content of the interviews were
disturbing for the children.

Psychology 490 students were trained to administer the Neglect measures and all other
instruments that were used in this study. It was assumed that asking children to answer the
more negative and threatening items about abuse they had witnessed or experienced would
have afl’ected childlren’s responses to the items regarding neglect. Therefore, instruments
were administered in a standard order for all subjects, and were not randomized. Any
deviations from standard protocol were recorded on the instrument.

Psychology 490 students conducted mock interviews with one another (in which one
student was the “chil ” being interviewed) and coded their responses until percent agreement
in accurately coding the interviews was over 95%. At the completion of the training period,
interviewers were assigned one-to-two participants per week to interview. Students were
supervised closely in weekly 3-hour supervision meetings and informally as necessary.
Supervisors listened to the tapes of each interview in order to provide feedback about the
quality of the interview and the coding of the interview. To insure that all interviewers
confirmed to code the data they collected correctly over time, completed tapes of interviews

were randomly assigned to interviewers who had not previously listened to them, to recode.

45

W Eighty percent of the interviews were held in the participants’

homes. Of the remaining 20% (not conducted in the home), 9% took place at the women’s
shelter (CADA), 3% occurred in offices at Michigan State University, and 4% were
completed outside (i.e., at picnic tables) at parks in the Lansing area. At the same time
mothers were being interviewed and responded to questionnaire about their own experiences
of being battered, their psychological adjustment and their children’s experiences of
witnessing abuse or being abused, interviews of the children were being conducted in another
room (90% of these were done in the children’s bedrooms). Thus, at a minimum, two
interviewers went out to the participant's home in order to collect data. When there were
multiple children to interview, every attempt was made to complete all of the interviews on
the same day, with the aid of extra interviewers. Data collection with children took an
average of 1 hour and 45 nrinutes to complete.
Meaarrememllexelcpmem

The measures in the current study were used to examine the incidence of emotional and
physical neglect, as well as hypothesized relationships among neglect, physical abuse and child
outcomes in the sample. These instruments were integrated into the protocol of the larger
study. Appendix B contains a description of the variables measured by instruments in the
larger intervention study on the adjustment of children of battered women. Any measures
not relevant to the present research project are not described in detail here, but are available

from the author upon request.

46

 

. Appendix C contains the demographic questions that
mothers answered. Mothers responded to demographic questions about the target child’s
age, sex, ethnicity, grade, and relationship of the mother’s assailant to the child. In addition,
mothers answered questions about their own age, ethnicity, number of children, number of
children currently living with thenr, employment, student status, educational level, income,
whether they received government assistance, and their current relationship with the
assailant.

Bredictouariahles

, 1101!01.«.. :r' err ' ...- . =29 _ '01 her 'lo our-n1 c ..., as 1..., o r on ‘er u 0 er: I ' . The
Neglect questionnaires used with mothers and the Neglect interviews used with children were
developed fiom the following sources:

(1) The constructs of emotional and physical neglect were derived in part from current
definitions of terms used in national child abuse and neglect statistics and in current research
on multiple forms of neglect including physical, emotional, educational, and supervisory
neglect (Zuravin et al., in Nelson et al., 1993; National child abuse and neglect data system;
1990 summary data component. Working Paper No. 1. Washington, DC: DHHS, April,
1992 cited in Lewitt, 1994). These definitions include "Neglect or deprivation of necessities:
A type of maltreatment that refers to the failure to provide needed, age-appropriate care" and
'Tsychological or emotional maltreatment: ...acts or omissions that caused, or could have

caused, cognitive, affective or other mental disorder, such as emotional neglect, psychological

 

3All the measures used in the current study have receive full UCHRIS approval.

 

 

 

47

abuse or mental injury."

(2) Items fiom the Neglect and Nonresponsivness scales from the author’s Masters thesis
(Gauthier, 1994; Gauthier et al., 1996) were adapted for use with the children and mothers
in the current sample. These scales were shown to have adequate internal consistency with
a sample of college undergraduates (coefficient alpha = .80 and .85 respectively). After
consultation with Cris Sullivan (Principal Investigator of the MSU Family F ollow-up study)
and other project staff, several items believed to be appropriate for assessing emotional and
physical neglect with the current sample were added. This modification was implemented to
allow for greater conceptual clarity in understanding the dimensions of neglect and how they
potentially relate to children's functioning. Items were designed to assess specific day-to-day
behaviors about which children and parents could accurately report (e. g., “I make sure my
child gets enough sleep so s/he is not tired the next day"). The form of some of the items (i.e.,
focusing on specific parenting behaviors) and the format of the responses (i.e., using visual
“thermometers” for children) were adapted in part from the Parent Perception Inventory
(Hazzard, Christensen & Margolin, 1983) which asks children about their perceptions of
positive and negative parenting behaviors.

(3) Finally, once Neglect instruments were developed, they were tested with women and
children who were not participants in the actual study in oder to refine the items and make
them more understandable. Appendix D contains a more detailed explanation of these pilot-

testing procedures.

48

MW. Items for the child's Neglect scales were designed

to correspond with the mother’s Emotional Neglect and Physical Neglect scales. The protocal
was entitled "Questionnaire on Mother. " Items were worded to be appropriate for children,
aged 7 to 11. After the psychometric properties of the original 27-item measure were
examined, three items were excluded due to low item-total correlations.

The final version of the “Questionnaire on Mother” is a 24-item measure containing 12
Emotional Neglect items and 12 Physical Neglect items, in which the child was asked to
indicate on a 4-point Likert scale how true the items are for her/his mother. The responses
include "Not At All True (Never),” “Not Very True (A Little),” “Somewhat True
(Sometimes),” and “Very True (A lot)." The Neglect measure contains visual "thermometers"
to help the children understand the concepts of “a little” and “a lot.” As noted earlier, this use
of “thermometers” has been found to be usefirl with children in other studies (Hazzard et al.,
1993). The questions were read aloud to the children by the interviewer with a written copy
of the measure placed in front of the child so that s/he could use the "thermometers" to
answer each question. The 12-item Physical Neglect by Mother scale had a coefficient alpha
of .76 (child’s report) and the 12-item Emotional Neglect by Mother scale had an alpha of
.69. Appendix E contains the "Questionnaire on Mother. " Tables 1 and 2 contain the
individual scale items and item total correlations for the Emotional Neglect by Mother Scale
(child report), Physical Neglect by Mother (Child report).

A principle components factor analysis with orthogonal rotation was performed to
determine whether the Physical and Emotional Neglect scales reflected completely separate

or irrtercorrelated constructs. This analysis revealed that several Neglect items on both scales

49

loaded highly on a single neglect factor (for child’s report). As such, items that loaded most
highly and that had the highest item-total correlations were combined into an overall Neglect
index containing 12 emotional and 12 physical neglect items for children’s report. (i.e., all
items with item-total correlations less than .30 were dropped from the scales). The combined
Neglect scale had an alpha of .84 for child’s report. Additionally, there was a significant
correlation between children’s reports of emotional and physical neglect by mothers, r = .71,
p < .001, which indicates that it is useful to combine these into an overall neglect index.
Table 3 contains the item-total correlations for the Combined Neglect by Mother scale, and

Table 4 contains the factor loadings for this scale.

50

 

 

Table l

or am" arr - o ,__ or : ._ or o em or .-mo ' . \‘L‘OI t M H.
(Cl 1 l’ B I]
Items fi'om Emotional Neglect Scales Item - total r
*Mom hugs me .56
*Mom tells me that she loves me .54
*Mom asks me how I am feeling .45
*I feel safe around my mom .41
*Mom asks me about my day at school .40
*Mom seems to have firn when she is with me .36
*Mom asks me to tell her about my problems .36
*I can always count on mom to answer my questions .28
and talk to me
*Mom finds time to play with me .27
*My mom asks me to tell her what I think and listens .24

to what I say
Mom seems bored when I talk to her .21
Mom ignores me; that is, she doesn’t pay attention to .21
me
Scale Alpha: .69

 

* Item reverse-scored

Item 7, “I think mom wishes she didn’t have to spend time with me.” and item 28,” Mom is there for me" were
deleted due to item-total correlations less than .20.

51

 

 

Table2

u'u'r ‘rr 0a.- u-lrnqo _o_‘n unr'r_-. 1'1er Oh' - ..-: “'1
Report).

Items fiom Physical Neglect Scales Item - total 1:

I eat a lot of junk food because mom doesn’t have .58

time to cook or make sure I eat good food

*Mom makes sure I get what I need .54
Mom leaves me alone when she goes out .46
I eat a lot of junk food because mom doesn’t have the .46
money to buy food to cook meals

*Mom makes sure I have breakfast on schooldays and .45
weekends

*Mom makes sure I get to school everyday, even if .44
she has to take me herself

*Mom makes sure I have clean clothes to wear .37
everyday

*Mom makes sure a responsible adult watches me .37
*Mom makes sure our home is a safe place for me .33

(and my brothers and sisters)

*Mom makes sure she knows where I am .33
*I know where my mom is and how to reach her .27
Scale Alpha: .76

 

*ltem reverse-scored
Item 13, “Mom makes sure I eat healthy meals every day” was deleted due to an item-total correlation < .20

52

 

 

Table 3
0 WI" ‘omTq- o .111. fr0'_ 0 “mi :Qk‘fl‘u Q‘X 'l’wu
Item fi'om Emotional and Physical Neglect Scales Item- Physical Neglect (PN),
total 1; Emotional Neglect (EN)
I eat a lot of junk food because mom doesn’t .64 PN
have time to cook or make sure I eat good food
*Mom tells me that she loves me .61 EN
*Mom makes sure 1 get what I need .56 PN
*Mom bugs me .53 EN
*Mom makes sure I have breakfast on schooldays and .50 PN
weekends
*Mom seems to have firn when she is with me .50 EN
*Mom asks me how I am feeling .48 EN
*Mom makes sure our home is a safe place for me .47 PN

(and my brothers and sisters)

*Mom makes sure a responsible adult watches me .44 PN
*Mom makes sure I have clean clothes to wear .44 PN
everyday

*Mom makes sure I get to school everyday, even if .44 PN
she has to take me herself

*I feel safe around my mom .43 EN
Mom leaves me alone when she goes out .41 PN
I eat a lot of junk food becasue mom doesn’t have .39 PN

money to buy food to cook meals

 

* = Item reverse scored

53

Table 3 (cont’d).

 

Item— Physical Neglect (PN),

 

Item from Emotional and Physical Neglect Scales total r Emotional Neglect (EN)
*Mom asks me about my day at school .37 EN
*Mom makes sure she knows where I am .36 PN
*Mom finds time to play with me .34 EN
*Mom makes sure I get enough sleep every night so .33 PN
I’m not tired the next day

*Mom asks me to tell her about my problems .32 EN
*1 can always count on mom to answer my questions .32 EN
and talk to me

Mom seems bored when I talk to her .30 EN
Mom ignores me; that is, she doesn’t pay attention to .29 EN
me

*I know where my mom is and how to reach her .25 PN
*Mom asks me to tell her what I think and listens to .17 EN
what I say

Scale Alpha: .84

 

* = Item reverse scored

54

 

 

Table 4
«'1' -040: .h- .0 ' 0 tr" 'z‘trlno,‘ r'l’ "u
Factor Physical Neglect (PN),
Item fiom Emotional and Physical Neglect Scales loading Emotional Neglect (EN)
*Mom tells me she loves me .72 EN
I eat a lot of junk food because mom doesn’t .68 PN
have time to cook or make sure I eat good food
*Mom makes sure I get what I need .67 PN
*Mom hugs me .62 EN
*Mom seems to have firn when she is with me .59 EN
*Mom asks me howl am feeling .57 EN
*Mom makes sure I have breakfast on schooldays and .56 PN
weekends
*Mom makes sure our home is a safe place for me .56 PN
*Mom makes sure I have clean clothes to wear .56 PN
everyday
*Mom makes sure I get to school everyday, even if .54 PN
she has to take me herself
*Mom makes sure a responsible adult watches me .53 PN
*I feel safe around my mom .49 EN
Mom leaves me alone when she goes out .49 PN
*Mom makes sure she knows where I am .46 PN
*Mom asks me about my day at school .42 EN
*Mom asks me to tell her about my problems .42 EN

 

* = Item reverse scored

55

Table 4 (cont’d).

 

Factor Physical Neglect (PN),

 

Item from Emotional and Physical Neglect Scales loading Emotional Neglect (EN)
*Mom makes sure I get enough sleep every night so .42 PN
I’m not tired the next day
*Mom finds time to play with me .40 EN
I eat a lot of junk food because mom doesn’t have .40 PN
money to buy food to cook
*I can always count on mom to answer my questions .37 EN
and talk to me
Mom seems bored when I talk to her .36 EN
Mom ignores me; that is, she doesn’t pay attention to .33 EN
me
*I know where my mom is and how to reach her .28 PN
*My mom asks me to tell her what I think and listens .19 EN
to what I say

 

"' = Item reverse scored

56

' f m h r' 'l n n f h r . Neglect measures about
mothers’ assailants (e.g., stepfathers, mother’s boyfiiends, fathers) and children’s non-
assailarrt fathers were included in order to assess children's perceptions of being neglected by
important adults in their lives. Children also reported about neglect by parenting figures (e.g.,
grandmothers); however, there were so few of these parenting figures in the sample, these
were excluded from analyses. All items fiom the Emotional Neglect scales for mothers were
used in measures about the assailant and the father (a total of 13 items), except the question

(C

_asks me about my day at school” was excluded. It was assumed, based upon the
population being interviewed, that the children in the current sample would not have regular
enough contact with either mothers’ assailants or fathers to respond to the Physical Neglect
items (e.g., "_makes sure I get up on time for school everyday"). The l3-item Emotional
Neglect scale had a coefficient alpha of .91 for Neglect by Assailant, and .81 for Neglect by
Father (child’s report).

All 64 children in the study completed the Neglect measures on mothers and mothers’
assailants. In 41% of the cases, mother’s assailant was the child’s biological father, so
"Questionnaire on Father" was not completed (because children had already answered
questions regarding their father during “Questionnaire on Assailant”). The format for these
scales is identical to the format for Questionnaire on Mother, with the exception that the
appropriate name or title was inserted in the instrument. Interviewers wrote in the
appropriate name before administering the “Questionnaire on F ather/Assailant”. All the child

Neglect scales were administered prior to items about witnessing or experiencing physical

abuse so that the child's responses were not affected by the negative cast of the abuse

57

questions. Appendix F contains the Questionnaire on (A) (Assailant) and the Questionnaire
on BF (Biological Father). Tables 5 and 6 contain item-total correlations for Emotional

Neglect by Assailant and by Father.

58

 

 

Table 5
01%.!" ‘11 '1_ 0!‘l-.0 _0 m 0! _ 001:. k’i‘l'
IChildiaRcuon)
Items from Emotional Neglect Scales Item-total r
*_ tells me that he loves me .77
*_ asks me to tell him about my problems .75
*_ hugs me .74
*_ finds time to play with me .69
*_ asks me to tell him what I think and listens .69
to what I say
*I feel safe around __ .68
*I can always count on __ to answer my questions .65
and talk to me
*_ seems to have firn when he is with me .64
*_ asks me how I am feeling .64
*_ asks me to tell him about my problems .61
*_ ignores me; that is, he doesn’t pay attention to .61
me
*_ seems bored when I talk to him .43
I think _ wishes he didn’t have to spend time with .39
me
Scale Alpha: .91

 

gem reverse-scored

59

 

 

Table 6
01“er 3m .1- 0 'le’ 0 ' or._rrorrro.._ ‘zrtro rr'
[Cl '1 1, 1]
Items from Emotional Neglect Scales Item-total r
*My father seems to have fun when he is with me .84
*My father hugs me .75
*My father tells me that he loves me .78
*My father asks me to tell him what I think and .75
listens to what I say
*I feel safe around my father .73
*My father is there for me .62
*My father asks me how I am feeling .53
*My father finds time to play with me .49
*My father asks me to tell him about my problems .40
My father seems bored when I talk to him .28
My father ignores me; that is, he doesn’t pay attention .23
to me
I think my father wishes he didn’t have to spend time .15“
with me
*I can always count on my father to answer my .13"
questions and talk to me
Scale Alpha: .81

 

*Item reverse-scored
'Note that two items with low item total correlations were retained so that items on Emotional Neglect by
Father and by Assailant scales would be consistent

60

W3. The "Parenting Questionnaire" is a self-report

measure in which mothers were asked to choose on a 4-point Likert scale ranging fiom “Not
At All True (N ever)” to “Very True (Frequently)” how true the statements are of them in
regard to their child(ren). After the psychometric properties of the original 27-item
questionnaire were examined, eleven items with low-item-total correlations were eliminated.

The final “Parenting Questionnaire” is a 21-item measure containing 12 Emotional
Neglect items that assess the degree of mothers’ emotional availability, and 9 Physical Neglect
items that assess day-to-day physical care of the child. These items correspond to the
emotional and physical neglect items to which children responded. Because neglect is
defined, in part, by the absense of positive interactions, many of the items had positive
wording, but were reverse scored. After items with low item-total correlations were
removed, the final scales were a 12—item Emotional Neglect by Mother scale (Mother report)
with an alpha of .67, and a 9-item Physical Neglect scale (Mother report) with an alpha of .56.
Tables 7 and 8 contain the individual scale items and item total correlations for the Emotional
Neglect by Mother scale (Mother report), and Physical Neglect by Mother (Mother report).

A principle components factor analysis with orthogonal rotatation was also performed to
determine whether the Physical and Emotional Neglect subscales were intercorrelated versus
independent constructs based upon mother’s report. Items that loaded most highly on this
factor, and that had the highest item-total correlations, were combined into a Combined
Neglect index containing 9 emotional and 6 physical neglect items for children’s report. (i.e.,
all items with item-total correlations less than .30 were dropped from the scales). There was

a significant correlation between mother’s report of her own emotional and physical neglect

61

of her children, r = .57, p < .001, which indicates that it is useful to combine these into an
overall neglect index. The Combined Neglect scale had an alpha of .76 for mother’s report.
Tables 9 and 10 contain the item-total correlations and factor loadings for items on the
Combined Neglect scale based upon mother’s report.

While many of the Emotional and Physical Neglect items were intecorrelated, separate
Emotional and Physical Neglect scales were retained for the purposes of analyses; because
it is possible that even though these constructs were highly correlated as measured, they still
may have been differentially related to the outcome variables. It should be noted that the
parallel mother and child scales that retain all the original items were used when comparing
mother’s and children’s reports. Appendix G contains the "Parenting Questionnaire."
Appendix H contains all the corresponding child and mother neglect items. Table 11 contains

mean subject scores and standard deviations for all the Neglect measures.

62

 

 

Table 7
0! ‘tr -. ‘11-,‘2- or ‘ 201.0 ‘11 0r _mo o.r-.. .L‘: ‘ 0 M015. .1:
Manama
Itenrs from Emotional Neglect Scale Item-total r
*I am accessible and available to my children .58
I ignore my children .51
I am bored and disinterested when my children talk to me .41
*I respect my children’s opinions and encourage them to .39
express them
*I find time to play with my children .37
It seems I talk with and spend time with my children .37
only when it is necessary
*I ask my children about their day at school .27
*I tell my children that I love them .26
*My children feel safe around me .26
I am inconsistent in how I respond to my children; .20

that is sometimes I respond and sometimes I don’t

*I hug my children .17‘
*1 encourage my children to talk with me about their .16’
problems

Scale Alpha: .67

 

'Note that two items with low item total correlations were retained so that items would be consistent with
Emotional Neglect by Father and by Assailant scales

*Item reverse-scored

Item 39, “I can tell how my children are feeling” and 40, “I enjoy the time I spend with my children” were
deleted due to item total correlations < .15

63

 

 

Table 8
0131310,.‘11'02. o lo 0 ‘r or' 1 ° r u... l
Mmheriarepnrt).
Items from Physical Neglect Scale Item-total r
*I know where my children are and how to reach them .41
*I make sure my children eat healthy meals every day .35
*My children can rely on me to meet their needs .34
My children eat too much junk food because I do not .30
have time to cook or monitor what they eat
My chidlren eat too much junk food because I do not .29
have the money to buy food to cook meals
*I make sure my children get to school every day, even if .25
it means that I have to take them myself
I feel that where we live is an unhleathy or dangerous .24
environment for my children
*1 make sure my children get enough sleep every night .23
so that they’re not tired the next day
*I make sure my children have breakfast on schooldays .21
and on weekends
Scale Alpha: .56

 

*Item reverse-scored
Item 4,(“I leave my children alone when I go out), 13 (“My children receive constant supervision”) and 30

(“My children have clean clothes to wear everyday”) were removed due to item-total correlations less than .10.

64

 

 

Table 9
ore-mac 'rr 0... 0|‘,o.'-l.0_'1101 OIJ|.13r'\‘!°‘I it. nor: ’t‘ou
Item- Physical Neglect,
Item from Emotional and Physical Neglect Scales total [ Emotional Neglect
*I respect my children’s opinions and encourage them to .60 EN

express them

*I am accessible and available to my children .53 EN
I ignore my children .51 EN
*1 know where my children are and how to reach them .46 PN
I am bored and disinterested when my children talk to me .43 EN
*My children can rely on me to meet their needs. .43 PN
It seems I talk with and spend time with my children .43 EN
only when it is necessary
My children eat too much junk food because I do .39 PN
not have the time to cook or monitor what they eat
My children eat too much junk food because I do .36 PN
not have the money to buy food to cook meals
I feel that where we live is an unhealthy or .33 PN
dangerous environment for my children
*I make sure my children eat healthy meals everyday .32 PN
1'] tell my children that I love them .30 EN
*1 ask my children about their day at school .29 EN
I am inconsistent in how I respond to my children; .27 EN
that is sometimes I respond and sometimes I don’t
*My children feel safe around me .24 EN
Scale Alpha: .76

 

* = Item reverse scored

65

 

 

Table 10
are rotor! 0 ‘11 or r' 0 r-nw k': ' I 07.510 _r'r. {‘00
Factor Physical Neglect (PN),
Item fiom Emotional and Physical Neglect Scales loading Emotional Neglect (EN)
*1 am accessible and available to my children .70 EN
*I respect my children’s opinions and encourage them .66 EN

to express them

*I know where my children are and how to reach .65 PN
them
I ignore my children .61 EN

*My children can rely on me to meet their needs. .55 PN

*I tell my children that I love them .51 EN
It seems I talk with and spend time with my children .50 EN
only when it is necessary

*I make sure my children eat healthy meals everyday .45 PN

*I find time to play with my children .42 EN
My children eat too much junk food because I do .42 PN
not have the money to buy food to cook meals
I am bored and disinterested when my children talk .41 EN
to me

*I ask my children about their day at school .37 EN
I feel that where we live is an unhealthy or .37 PN
dangerous environment for my children
I am inconsistent in how I respond to my children; .33 EN
that is sometimes I respond and sometimes I don’t

*My children feel safe around me .29 EN

 

*=ltemreversescored

Table 11

 

 

 

 

 

Emotional Neglect Physical Neglect Combined Neglect
By Mother By Mother by Mother
Report by: Child Mother Quid. M91112; Child. MQIhQIb
Mean 1.51 1.37 1.33 1.33 1.42 1.34
(SD) (.36) (.25) (.36) (.25) (.33) (.21)
Emotional Neglect Emotional Neglect
By Assailant by Father
Report by: Child cum
Mean 2.29 1.62
(SD) (.85) (.56)

 

‘ Responses on items on the Neglect scales range from 1 to 4

”Mother’s items are the 24 items that correspond to child’s combined Neglect scale

67
' ' ' H m

WW Children responded to 5 items that asked about
how much physical and psychological abuse of their mother they witnessed on a 4-point
Likert scale ranging from "Never" to "A lot.” Alpha coefficients for these scales were .79 for
abuse by assailant child witnessed and .83 for abuse by father child witnessed. Appendix I
contains these items.

WWW Mothers responded to three items about how
much of their physical and psychological abuse the child witnessed (by the assailant and the
biological father) during the last four months on a 4-point Likert scale ranging fiom "Never"
to "Often." Witness of Abuse subscales for assailant and for father were obtained by
calculating the mean of these items. Coefficient alphas for these scales were .81 for Abuse
that Child Witnessed by Assailant and .59 for Abuse by Father that Child Witnessed.
Appendix I contains these items. Table 12 contains the item total correlations for Abuse Child
Witnessed scale for both child and mother reports. Table 13 contains the means and standard

deviations for the Abuse Child Witnessed subscales for both child and mother reports.

68

Table 12
013mm 'rr- ..r- ”nor _0 ‘ _0 A0. ‘
IN. 1:51.“ ill 1 E

r'l

 

Items from Abuse Child Witnessed Scale

Item-total r Item-total r

 

Assailant Father
Childhpntt:
How often have you seen/heard _:
Threaten to hurt your mom .7 0 .84
Mom and _ argue .67 .42
Mom and _ yelling or screaming at each other .63 .75
Make fun of, call mom names, say thing to make her .60 .83
feel bad
Hurt mom physically .46 .84
Scale Alpha: .79 .89
1% child seen/heard___:
Threaten to hurt you .75 .64
Ridicule, criticize or control you .68 .35
Hurt you physically .59 .35
Scale Alpha: .81 .59

 

69

 

 

Table 13
u r ’vr'l 0 er: H .I c o .n til I 0
Abuse Child Witnessed“: Abuse Child Witnessed:
Child report” Mother report
BxAssailant We; BxAssailant exam;
Mean 2.99 1.70 2.89 2.29
(SD) (1.10) (.95) (1.06) (.87)

 

'Abuse Child Witnessed was derived by computing the valid mean of items on the Abuse Child witnessed

scales.

bResponses on items on the child and mother scales ranged from 1 to 6

7O

Qhfliahusefihfldmimmfls. Children responded to 16 items adapted from the

maternal Conflict Tactics Scale regarding their mother, mother’s assailant, and non-assailant
father’s disciplinary tactics ranging fi'om verbal aggression to extreme physical violence. The
original Conflict Tactics Scales contains four subscales including verbal reasoning, verbal
aggression, physical aggression and physical violence; however, because the current study
focused on trauma children had experienced, the verbal reasoning subscale was not utilized.
The Conflict Tactics Scales have been used extensively to assess verbal aggression and acts
of physical violence; most studies (e. g., Schumm & Bagarozzi, 1989; Straus & Gelles, 1986)
have found alpha coefiicients for the scales ranging from .62 to .88 for verbal aggression and
.42 to .96 for physical violence.

The physical abuse scale contains eightitems assessing physically abusive behaviors
ranging from throwing something at the child, to beating the child, to using a gun or knife
against the child. Children were asked to think about how often their mother/father had done
certain things in the last four months and to respond on a 4-point Likert Scale ranging fiom
"Never" to "A lot. " For the current sample, coefficient alpha was .76 for Abuse by Mother,
.82 for Abuse by Assailant, and .82 for Abuse by Father. The verbal abuse scale contains 8
items assessing verbally abusive behavior irrlcuding yelling at the child, insulting the child, or
threatening to throw something at the child. For the current sample, coefficient alphas for
verbal abuse by mother, mother’s assailant, and non-assailant fathers were .60, .82, and .84
respectively. Coefiicient alphas for the combined physical abuse and verbal aggression scales
was .82 for abuse by mothers, .90 for abuse by assailants, and .87 for abuse by non-assailant

fathers. Note that while the assailants’ combined physical and verbal abuse scale had 16

71

items, no child endorsed two of the items about their mothers and 7 of the items about their
non-assailant fathers, so that mother’s scale had 14 items, and father’s had 9 items. Table 14
lists all these items and contains item total correlations for abuse by assailant, father and
mother (child report).

Children also responded to eight items about injuries that may have resulted from abuse
(ranging from "soreness without bruises," to "permanent scars"). Coefficient alphas for
Injuries by Mother was .72 and Injuries by Assailant was.62; a coefficient alpha for Injuries
by Father could not be computed because there was no variance in responses. Table 15
contains item-total correlations for injuries by assailant, father and mother (child report).
Tables 16 and 17 contain mean scores and standard deviations for the Abuse Child
Experienced and Injuries Child Experienced scales (child and mother report). Appendix J

contains these items.

72

 

 

Table 14
Heme. 'u- 0: or.” 0 'n 0 so.‘ r0 .01“; ‘00 s ...»r
W
Items from Abuse Child Experienced Scalea Item- Item— Item-
total 1: total 1: total I
W: how often in the last 4 months has _: Assailant: Father" Mother:"
Pushed, grabbed, or shoved you .7 3 .84 .47
Hit you with a hand, like a spanking or slap .69 .85 .55
Hit you with something hard, other than his hand .69 .62 .58
Yelled at you .66 .70 .43
Kicked you .66 c .28
Threatened to throw something at you .65 .87 .51
Insulted you, called bad names .65 c .52
Threatened to abandon or leave you .62 .84 .60
Criticized, ridiculed, made firn of you .61 c .09
Got so mad at you, he stomped out of the room .59 .94 .06
Threw something at you .56 c .61
Beat you .52 .87 .63
Threw or smashed something, but not at you .50 c .50
Threated you with a gun or knife .45 c c
Hit you with a fist, like punching .38 c .62
Used a gun or knife against you .21 c c
Scale Alpha: .90 .92 .82

 

'This scale includes physical and verbal abuse items
1’Father and Mother items are not in descending order because they correspond to items on assailant
cItem had zero variance

73

 

 

Table 15
Irma! ‘u— 0-“ or°-,or 0 'rr or .r‘ __0 .0'1'n‘to a,
WWW).
Items from Injuries Child Experienced Scale“ Item- Item— Item-
total 1 total 1 total [
Child Report: how often did you receive the
following injuries from _ ‘s violence? Assailant: Father:al Motherz‘
Cuts, scrapes, bruises, redmarks or welts .47 c .72
Soreness without bruises .42 c .67
Burns, including rug burns .40 c .35
Permanent scars .35 c .54
Other injuries .29 c .49
Loose or broken teeth .23 c .20
Broken bones or fractures b c c
Knife or gunshot wound c c 0
Scale Alpha: .62 d .72

 

'Father and mother scales are not in descending order because they correspond to items on assailants
l’Item-total correlation < .20

cItem had zero variance

dAlpha could not be computed

74

 

 

Table 16
u 1 run ,0 gr gr “0’ 1 o o .0 at u gr 0
Abuse Child Experiencedz‘ Abuse Child Experienced:
Child reportb Mother report”
BxAssmlant amine: Emma Madam Mather
Mean 1.63 1.13 1.28 1.32 1.33
(SD) (.60) (.28) (.32) (.29) (.66)

 

'Abuse Child Experienced is derived by computing the mean of physical and verbal abuse items on the
Revised Conflict Tactics Scale
wponses on items on the child and mother scales ranged from 1 to 4

75

 

 

Table 17
M r o .01 o r r r r r J ‘ o 1 o r I r r r I g r
Injuries Child Experienced“: Injuries Child Experienced:
Child report” Mother report"
mm Emma amass; Malian]; Banthet
Mean 1.24 1.14 1.13 1.11 1.19
(SD) (.20) (.16) (.18) (.13) (.08)

 

'Injuries Child Experienced is derived by computing the mean of the Injury items.
l’Resporrses on items on the child and mother scales ranged from 1(No) to 2 (Yes)

76

WW. Mothers’ perceptions of child’s physical abuse by the

assailant and the biological father were measured via a revised version of the Conflict Tactics
Scale (Straus, 1979). Mothers responded "Yes" or "No" to 5 items about whether or not the
child experienced certain forms of physical abuse by the assailant or the non-assailant father
in the last four months. Coefficient alpha for child abuse by assailant was .41', no coeflicient
alpha was computed for abuse by father because mothers responded no to every item.
Mothers also responded to 11 items ("Yes" or "No") about injuries the child may have
received as a result of physical abuse. Due to low item variance, 6 items were deleted and
3 items were removed due to low item-total correlations less than .20. The alpha coefficent
for this 3-item scale was .52 for Injuries by Assailant; coeflicient alpha could not be computed
for Injuries by Father because of low item variance. Appendix K contains these items.
Tables 18 and 19 contain the item-total correlations for the Abuse Child Experienced scale
(mother report) and Injuries Child Experienced (mother report). Table 20 contains a
summary of children’s and mothers’ reports of all abuse and neglect scales used in the current

study.

77

 

 

Table 18
”fair! ‘00- I«.. 0I°201._0. ‘u 0 53.7 L0 Arr"! ”at. a. -.
WNW).
Items from Abuse Child Experienced Scale“ Item- Item-
total r total 1:
MW: how ofien has _: Assailant: Father“
Broken child’s glasses or torn child’s clothing .42 c
Punched, kicked, choked, or burned child .27 c
Pushed, shoved, grabbed, or slapped child .21 c
Thrown something at, tried to hit child with object .20 c
Threatened child with a weapon or used a weapon b c
against child
Scale Alpha: .42 d

 

“Father items are not in descending order because they correspond to items on assailant
bItem total correlation was negative

“Item had zero variance

“Alpha could not be computed

78

 

 

Table 19
transit 'or- 0., .I'£.I. I ‘n o ..r‘ rt .o‘r‘r ‘00 a.
EathsflMclhflmfl).
Items from Injuries Child Experienced Scale Item- Item-
total 1 total [
MW: how often has child received the
following injuries from __ ‘s violence? Assailant: Fatherz’
Soreness without bruises .44 c
Cuts, scrapes, bruises, red marks or welts .43 c
Permanent scars .25 0
Burns, including rug burns b c
Broken bones or fiactures b c
Loose or broken teeth c c
Internal injuries c c
Dislocated joints c c
Strains or sprains c c
Knife or gunshot wound c c
Scale Alpha: .52 d

 

“Father items are not in descending order becasue they correspond to items on assailant
“Item-total correlation < .20

“Item had zero variance

“Alpha could not be computed

79

Table 20

.uma 0 an. ‘orr.L‘°‘-l~i (an: O: .__r‘c .r r' 1‘: .l.‘

 

Child Report Mother Report

 

! 1 Cl '1 l IE I
Between mother and assailant
Between mother and father

5 l C! 'l l E . I
By mother

By assailant

By father
Emoticnallfleglect

By mother

By assailant

By father
Physicalfleglecl

By mother X X

XX
><><

><><><
><><

><><><

 

80

W A “Trauma” index was computed in order to assess

the totality of traumatic experiences by assailants, nonassailant fathers, and mothers. Scores
on the three scales (1) Abuse Child Witnessed, (2) Abuse Child Experienced (physical +
verbal), and (3) Injuries Child Experienced were converted into z-scores.‘ After the scores
were converted, an overall Trauma Index for assailants and non-assailant fathers was derived
by calculating the mean of these three items. Trauma by mother was computed by calculating
the mean of Abuse Child Experienced (physical + verbal) and Injuries Child Experienced.
The coefficient alpha for the Trauma by assailant was .74, Trauma by Father was .7 3, and
Trauma by Mother was .74. The intercorrelations among these scales indicates that it was
useful to combine these into an overall index. Table 21 contains the intercorrelations among

scales comprising the Trauma index.

 

4Converting scores into z-scores indicates where a score falls in standard deviation units above and below the
mean, and allows for a description of the relative position of subjects scores within the distribution (Norusis,
1993).

81

Table 21

 

 

 

By Assailant By Father By Mother
Childiermt;
Abuse witnessed— .58 * * .74 * * NA
Abuse experienced
Abuse witnessed- 34* .11 NA
Injuries
Abuse experienced- .61 * * .80’I . 59* *
Injuries
Motheueprm;
Abuse witnessed- 26* .32 NA
Abuse experienced
Abuse witnessed- .14 .11 NA
Injuries
Abuse Experienced- .30 -.86’ NA
Injuries

 

' This high correlation was nonsignifrcant because of the small sample size in these analyses (n = 4).
*p< .05, **p<.001

82

WW. Internalizing problem behaviors were
measured using the Children's Depression Inventory (CDI). This is a 27-item self-report
measure designed for children aged 7-17 (Kovacs, 1983, 1992) derived from the Beck
Depression Inventory (Beck, 1967). This scale was designed to assess both behavioral and
cognitive depressive symptomatology including sadness, suicidal ideation, and sleep and
appetite disturbance. The CDI has been shown to have adequate internal consistency with
coefficient alphas of .94 for a normal population and .80 for an emotionally disturbed
population of children (Saylor, Finch, Spirito, & Bennett, 1984); and, past work indicates that
it discriminates well between depressed and nondepressed children (Kovacs, 1982; Trieber
& Mabe, 1987). Children receive a total depression score based upon the valid mean of all
the items. For the current sample, coeflicient alpha for the total scale was .78. After eight
items with low item-total correlations were deleted (i.e., item total correlations of less than
.20) coefficent alpha for the total scale was found to be .81. Table 22 contains item-total

correlations for the revised scale. Appendix L contains the Children’s Depression Inventory.

83

 

 

Table 22
oral-rm 'n- 0.. 01-1.,- 0,-‘1101 c”._"0'.lIVorr‘ o
museum).
Items from CD1“ Item - total ;
I feel alone (once in a while, many times, all the time) .68
I am tired .53
I do things wrong .52
I am sad .48
I do not like being with people .47
I worry about aches and pains .46
I think about bad things happening to me .45
I look 0k. .41
Bad things are my fault .36
I have to push myself to do my schoolwork .36
I have trouble sleeping .35
Nothing will work out for me .33
I do what I am told .32
I am bad .29
I have friends .29
I feel like crying .25
Scale Alpha”: .81

 

“For exact wording of item, see Appendix L; Items are in three parts (e.g., _ once in a while, many times, all
the time)
”Items 4,9,11,13,18,21,24,25,27 deleted due to item total correlations less than .20

84

WW. Harter's (1985) Scale of Perceived Self-

Competence for children was used as an outcome measure to explore the hypothesized
negative impact of neglect on children's competence. This is a 36-item questionnaire in which
the child is asked to choose from two descriptions of children which kid is more like her/him,
and then is asked whether this is “sort of true” or “really true” of her/himself. A child would
read, for example, "Some kids often forget what they learn BUT Other kids can remember
things easily. " Harter (1985) suggests that this "structured alternative format" is effective
because either choice is legitimized for the children. The Harter contains six subscales of six
items each that tap into five separate domains of competence: (1) Scholastic Competence; (2)
Social Acceptance; (3) Athletic Competence; (4) Physical Appearance; (5) Behavioral
Conduct; and (6) Global Self-Worth. Factor analyses of these scales by Harter (1985)
indicated that all items had moderate to high loadings on their designated factors (ranging
from .50 to .67) and subscales had reliabilities ranging from . 73 to .83.

A copy of the scale (entitled "What I Am Like") was placed in front of the child and read
aloud to her/her. From their responses, children received an overall self-competence score
as well as separate domain scores. The coefficient alpha for the total scale was .88 and
coefficients for the separate subscales were .62 for Global Self- Worth, .75 for Behavioral
Conduct, .76 for Scholastic Competence, .71 for Social Acceptance, .74 for Athletic
Competence, and .79 for Physical Appearance. Tables 23 and 24 contain item total
correlations for the Harter questionnaire and subscales. Appendix M contains the Harter

Questionnaire.

85

 

 

Table 23

Ol‘vfil‘v.‘ 3111-0.» OI‘eQOI. 0 3111.0!!ej‘ _ -.._‘0 _" . " ‘ - 010"l'
[Cl '1 l’ B i I]

Items from Harter Scale“ Item - total ;
Some kids feel they are better than others at sports .59
Some kids are often unhappy with themselves .56
Some kids act the way they know they are supposed to .55
Some kids feel they are very good at their schoolwork .52
Some kids are popular with others their age .52
Some kids think they could do well at a new sports activity .47
Some kids wish more people their age liked them .46
Some kids do well at all kinds of sports .46
Some kids are happy with the way they look .44
Some kids are happy being the way they are .44
Some kids wish their body was different .43
Some kids usually get in trouble because of things they do .42
Some kids have trouble figuring out the answers in school .42
Some kids are pretty slow in finishing their schoolwork .41
Some kids are happy with themselves as a person .41
Some kids wish they could be a lot better at sports .40
Some kids are happy with their height and weight .40

 

“For exact wording of items see Appendix M. Items are presented in two parts (only the first part is presented
in this table): Children are asked to choose which characterisic of the two is most like them, and then to decide
if that characteristic is “sort of true” or “really true” for them.

86

Table 23 (cont’d).

 

 

Items from Harter Scalea Item - total ;
Some kids do very well at their classwork .40
Some kids have a lot of friends .39
Some kids feel they are just as smart as other kids their age .39
Some kids wish something about their face or hair looked .38
different

Some kids think they are good-looking .38
Some kids often do not like the way they behave .38
Some kids are not happy with the way they do things .38
Some kids wish their physical appearance was different .37
Some kids do things they know they shouldn’t do .37
Some kids behave themselves very well .34
Some kids usually do the right things .34
Some kids would like to have a lot more friends .34
Some kids often forget what they learn .33
Some kids like the kind of person they are .32
Some kids find it hard to make friends .32
Some kids do well at new outdoor games .29
In games and sports, some kids watch instead of play .27
Some kids don’t like the way they are leading their life .22
Scale Alpha”: .88

 

1’Item 20 deleted due to item-total correlation < .20.

87

Table 24

Ha ‘0 ‘rr- 0... o_r‘-.or_ .0 ..‘11 orjd‘ .0

a ’ ..
L0 u 00I

 

 

Items fi'om Harter Scale‘I Item - total ; Scale
alpha

We: .76

Some kids feel they are very good at their schoolwork .61

Some kids do very well at their classwork .59

Some kids are pretty slow in finishing their schoolwork .53

Some kids have trouble figuring out the answers in school .51

Some kids feel they are just as smart as other kids .45

Some kids often forget what they learn .33

We: .71

Some kids have a lot of fiiends .59

Some kids would like to have a lot more friends .49

Some kids find it hard to make fiiends .44

Some kids are popular with others their age .40

Some kids wish that more people their age liked them .34

Athleticfihmnerence .74

Some kids feel they are better than others their age at sports .62

Some kids do very well at all kinds of sports .52

Some kids Some kids think they could do well at new sports .51

Some kids wish they could be a lot better at sports .44

In games and sports, some kids watch instead of play .40

Some kids don’t do well at new outdoor games .38

 

88

Table 24 (cont’d).

 

 

Items from Harter Scale’ Item - total ; Scale
alpha

W .79

Some kids are happy with the way they look .63

Some kids wish their body was different .63

Some kids their physical appearance was different .61

Some kids wish something about their face or hair looked .50

difl‘erent

Some kids think they are good looking .49

Some kids are happy with their height and weight .43

Belmdcralfignduct .75

Some kids act the way they know they are supposed to .63

Some kids usually do the right thing .56

Some kids do not like the way they behave .49

Some kids get in trouble because of things they do .48

Some kids do things they know they shouldn’t do .40

Some kids behave themselves very well .39

filohalfiefl-flmth .62

Some kids are very happy being the way they are .54

Some kids are happy with themselves as a person .53

Some kids are often unhappy with themselves .38

Some kids are not happy with the way they do a lot of things .26

Some kids don’t like the way they are leading their life .22

Some kids like the kind of person they are .21

 

. Mothers

 

completed a revised version of the Child Behavior Checklist (Achenbach & Edelbrock, 1983)
to assess internalizing and externalizing child behavior problems. This measure is designed
to assess behavior problems and social competence of children aged 4 to 16. The original
measure contains 118 items describing childhood problems. Respondents are asked to rate
how true each item is for their child on a scale of 0 to 2. A child's scores can be compared
to clinical and "normal” scores. This measure has been shown to lmve reasonable (short-term)
test-retest reliability; CBCLs completed by mothers of non-referred children at one-week
intervals had correlations that ranged from .81 to .96.

Because mothers became fatigued in filling out this measure in the first wave of data
collection, the measure was shortened, even thought it was understood that this alteration
may have affected the validity of the measure. The following changes were made: Fourteen
low-fiequency items that were reported for less than 5% of the sample of children aged 4-16
according to the Achenbach CBCL manual were deleted. I chose the four scales most highly
correlated with total behavior problems --Depressed, Social Withdrawal, Hyperactive, and
Aggressive— and then identified overlapping items for each subscale for girls and boys aged
6 - 11. I retained all overlapping boy and girl items on the Depressed scale; these 6 items,
combined with the three overlapping boy and girl Social Withdrawal items, yielded a 9 item
Internalizing Scale. The 5 items that correlated most highly with the overall Aggressive and
Hyperactive scales were retained. This formed a 10-item Extemalizing scale. Finally, item
1, " acts too young for his/her age" was replaced with item 10 from the Hyperactive scale,

"Can't sit still, restless or hyperactive”; this latter item had more face validity as an

9O

externalizing behavior item. Coefficient alphas indicated that these revised scales had
adequate internal consistency. Coefficient alpha for the total, revised CBCL was .86, for
Internalizing behavior, .77, and for Extemalizing behavior, .83. Tables 25 and 26 contain
item-total correlations for the CBCL and the two subscales. Appendix N contains the revised

CBCL.

91

 

 

Table 25
Hana. ‘u— 0-,, ”mu. .0 ‘rrn r‘i‘r‘c l._:.’!l. Hr.
Items fiom CBCL’ Item - total ;
Temper tantrums or hot temper .56
Day-dreams or gets lost in his/her thoughts .55
Complains of lonliness .54
Can’t sit still, restless or hyperactive .53
Disobedient at home .52
Gets in many fights .52
Clings to adults or too dependent .49
Worries .48
Poor school work .47
F eels worthless or inferior .46
Can’t concentrate, can’t pay attention for long .46
Argues alot .46
Stubborn, sullen, or irritable .43
Poorly coordinated or clumsy .39
Fears he/she might do or think something bad .38
Feels or complains that no one loves him/her .35
Underactive, slow-moving, or lacks energy .35
Unhappy, sad or depressed .35
Would rather be alone than with others .29
Scale Alpha .86

 

“For exact wording of items see Appendix N.

92

 

 

Table 26
‘u- .-. or!” 0 ‘rr 0 l..914!.°.€-!' 1‘rrq_-__2_ ...: or
B . lCl'llEl . :1 11
Items from CBCL Item - Scale alpha
tmfl;

Intemalizing .77
Complains of loneliness .64

Worries .55

Clings to adults or too dependent .53

Feels worthless or inferior .49

Feels or complains that no one loves him/her .43

Fears he/she might do something bad .42

Unhappy, sad or depressed .39

Underactive, slow moving or lacks energy .29

Extemalizing .83
Can’t sit still, restless or hyperactive .60

Can’t concentrate, can’t pay attention for long .58

Disobedient at home .56

Temper tantrums or hot temper .54

Argues alot .54

Daydreams, gets lost in thoughts .50

Gets in many fights .49

Stubborn, sullen or irritable .46

Poorly coordinated or clumsy .43

Poor school work .42

 

93
or r. act 0.. '9' ' irr-_..orw1 -01.. -.on

To assess the construct validity of the Neglect scales, correlations were calculated
between children's reports of neglect by a particular adult and the number of times children
identified that adult on a social support measure. These analyses allowed for an examination
of construct validity of the scales by measuring the extent to which the neglect measures are
related to social support, a measure consistent with the construct of neglect or availability
(Carmines & Zeller, 1979). Social support was measured using a revised version of a
measure developed by Bogat, Chin, Sabbath, & Schwartz (1985) that asks children to list
people in their lives who provide support in five areas: socialization, information and advice,
practical assistance and emotional support. Children were asked to describe their relationship
to each person they mentioned (e.g., parent, relative). Because this social support measure
is an open-question format, it was expected that whether or not a child identified a given
individual as supportive would provide a good validity check for perceptions of an adult as
emotionally neglectful or available on the Neglect questionnaires. Appendix 0 contains the

Social Support Questionnaire utilized.

Waist)

This research examined two independent (or predictor) variables --Neglect (emotional
and physical) and Trauma (witnessing abuse of the mother and/or being abused or injured),
and three dependent variables that are indicators of child adjustment: depression on the
Children's Depression Inventory, self-competence on the Harter Self-Competence scale), and

internalizing and externalizing behaviors on Achenbach's Child Behavior Checklist.

Chapter 3

RESULTS
E l . :1 . .

The demographic characteristics of the women in the current study were comparable
to those of women who use shelters in general (Gondolf, Fisher, & McFerron, 1988; Okun,
1986; Sullivan et al., 1992). Of the mothers in the sample 50% were Caucasian, 39% were
Afiican American, 5% were Hispanic, 2% were Asian American, and 5% were of other ethnic
descent. Mothers’ ages ranged from 23 to 46 years, with the mean at 31.2 years. The
women had an average of three children. Of the women participating, 30% were unemployed
and 89% were receiving some type of government assistance. Their mean monthly income
was $1,112, an amount that, on average, supported four people. Twenty-three percent of the
women had less than high school education, 23% had completed high school or obtained a
graduate equivalence degree, 9% were trade school graduates, 3 8% had some college
experience, and 6% were college graduates. At the time of the pre-interviews 5% of the
women were married and living with their assailants, 29% were married but separated fiom
their spouses, 6% were divorced, 8% were girl/boyfiiend (living together), 6% were
girl/boyfiiend (not living together), 44% had assailants who were ex-boyfiiends, and 2% were
dating their assailant.

Fifty six percent (n = 36) of the children in the study were female. Of the children,
45% were Afiican American, 39% were Caucasian, 5% were Hispanic, 2% were Asian Pacific
and 9% were of other (mixed) descent. Children’s ages ranged from 6 to II years of age, with

the mean at 8.8 years. Children were in Grades 1 to 6 with a mean at third Grade (mean =

94

95

3.2). In terms of the relationship of mothers’ assailants to the children, 41% were biological
fathers, 13% were stepfathers, 2% were adoptive fathers, 22% were mothers’ boyfriends
(father figures), 22% were mothers’ boyfiiends (not father figures), and 2% were mother’s
ex-boyfriends.
W

W. Test-retest reliability coefficients were obtained by correlating
scores on the Neglect scales at the pre-interview and at the post-interview (16 weeks later)
for the 40 subjects whose post-interviews had been completed. Of these, there were 28
interviews available on mother’s assailant at post-interview because children did not have
contact with the assailant, and eight interviews available for fathers at post-interviews. It is
assumed that the tendency for memory to inflate test-retest results (Carmines & Zeller, 1979)
was attenuated by the long time period between the two interviews (i.e., 4 months). Results
indicated that every Neglect scale at pre-interview significantly correlated with its
corresponding scale at post-interview Correlations between pre—interview and post-interview
child reports of emotional neglect by mother were ; = .47, 9 < .01 (n = 40), for Combined
Emotional and Physical Neglect by Mother, ; = .35, 9 < .05, for Emotional Neglect by
Assailant, ; = .50, 9 < .01 (n = 28), and for Emotional Neglect by Fathers,_; = .71, 9 < .05 (n
= 8). Correlations for mothers’ reports of Combined Emotional and Physical Neglect were
; = .67, 9 < .001, for Emotional Neglect were L: .51, 9 < .01 (n = 40), and for Physical
Neglect, ; = .57, 9 < .001. The consistent pattern of significant correlations for these scales
is notable, particularly in light of the small number of subjects available for some of the

analyses, as well as the long time period between interviews.

96

MmhetckaagLegmem. As another index of the validity of the neglect scales,

agreement was computed between mother and child reports. These analyses revealed positive
but non-significant correlations between the mother and child subscales. The correlation
between mother and children’s reports of combined emotional and physical neglect was ; =
.16, ns (11 = 63), for emotional neglect, ; = .20, ns, and for physical neglect, ; = .11, ns.

WW9; As noted previously, the construct validity of the
Neglect scales was assessed by computing the correlation between emotional neglect by a
particular caregiver, and the number of times each caregiver was spontaneously named by the
child on a 5-item social support measure (Bogat et al., 1985). When correlations were
conducted using the combined number of times a caregiver was named on all five social
support items, it became apparent that certain of the items were more discriminating measures
of true social support by caregivers. Items 1 and 2 (“Who do you like to hang out with?” and
“Who do you think is fun to talk to?”) appeared to tap into social support by fiiends rather
than by caregivers. Items 4 and 5 (“Who do you think really cares about you?” and “Who
can you count on to always be there for you?”) were the most negatively correlated with
emotional neglect by assailants (Item 4;; = -.57, 9 < .001, Item 5;; = -.45, 9 < .001, n = 63),
and by mothers (Item 4;; = -.23, 9 = .07, and Item 5; ;_= -.27, 9 < .05, n = 64). For non-
assailant fathers, ltem 3, “Who listens to you when you need to talk about something
special?” was most highly negatively correlated with emotional neglect of all the items, ; =
-.41, 9 = .10 (n = 18). While this correlation was high, it was non-significant due to the small
number of non-assailant fathers in this analysis.

When the items that were the most discriminating for each caregiver were utilized

97

these analyses provided good evidence for construct validity of the neglect scales. That is,
the higher the neglect score, the fewer times that particular caregiver was named on social
support. When items 4 and 5 were combined for mothers and assailants, the correlation
between social support and neglect for assailants was ; = -.58, 9 < .001, and for mothers,

; = -.30, 9 < .05.

1.! [“11”] ”1,51 Hi]

The percentage of children and mothers reporting moderate to high neglect was
determined by examining mean scale scores. Because the range of possible responses was
from 1 to 4, a mean score ranging from 1 to less than 2 was labelled low neglect, from 2 to
less than 3 was labelled moderate neglect, and from 3 and greater was considered high
neglect. Given these criteria, 41% of children reported low, 32% reported moderate and 27%
reported high emotional neglect by their mother’s assailants. In contrast, 90% of children
reported low emotional neglect by their mothers, 10% of children reported moderate
emotional neglect by mothers, and 0% reported high neglect. Ninety-four percent of children
reported low physical neglect by their mothers, 6% reported moderate physical neglect by
mothers and 0% high physical neglect by mothers. Additionally, 78% of children reported
low emotional neglect by their fathers, 22% of children reported moderate emotional neglect
by their fathers, and 0% reported high neglect. When asked whether they had neglected their
children, 98% of mothers reported low emotional neglect, only 2% of mothers reported
moderate emotional neglect and 0% reported high emotional neglect. In addition, no mothers
reported moderate or high physical neglect of their children.

Paired-samples t-tests indicated that children and mothers reported similar levels of

98

combined emotional and physical neglect by mothers (t[62] = 1.65, ns), similar levels of
physical neglect by mothers (t[62] = -.30, ns), but children reported significantly more
emotional neglect by mothers than mothers did (t[62] = 2.83, 9 < .01). In addition, children
reported significantly more emotional neglect by their mothers’ assailants than by mothers
(t[62] = 6.93, 9 < .001). While t-tests revealed that children reported similar levels of
emotional neglect by fathers and mothers (t[62] = .99, ns, 11 = 18), mean scores for fathers
scales were higher (fathers = 1.62, and mothers =1 .51). The small number of fathers available
in the analysis may have accounted for this nonsignificant result.
WWW To determine
whether or not there were differences in levels of (nonmatemal) neglect reported by children
depending on the assailant’s relationship with the child, analyses of variance were conducted
with the assailant’s relationship to the child as the independent variable and emotional neglect
as the dependent variable. Assailant’s relationship to child was based on mothers’ reports in
which they selected fiom the following six categories; biological father, stepfather, adoptive
father, boyfiiend-father figure, boyfiiend-not father figure, and ex-boyfiiend. These six
relationship categories were combined into four because there was only one adoptive father
and one ex-boyfiiend; biological father and adoptive fathers were combined, and mother’s
boyfiiend—not father figure was combined with ex-boyfiiends. The modified categories were:
(1) biological father/adoptive father (n = 26, 41%); (2) stepfather (n = 8, 13 %); (3) mother’s
boyfriend-father figure (n = 14, 22 %); and, (4) mother’s boyfriend- not father figure and ex-
boyfiiend (n = 15, 24%). The ANOVA indicated that there were significant difi‘erences in

emotional neglect reported depending on the child’s relationship with the assailant, E (3,59)

99

= 13.41, 9 <.001. Children reported the lowest neglect scores for biological fathers and
adoptive fathers (mean = 1.73, sd = .59) and the highest neglect scores for ex—boyfriends, and
boyfiiends, not father figures (mean = 3.08, sd = .79) and intermediate levels by stepfathers
(2.22, sd = .52) and boyfiiends--fatherfigures (2.52, sd = .75). Tukey Honestly Significant
Difi‘erence post-hoc comparisons, indicated that there were significant differences in reported
neglect between three of these groups:(1) biological fathers and boyfriend-father figures; (2)
biological fathers and boyfiiend-not father figure/exboyfiiend, and; (3) stepfathers and
boyfiiend--not fatherfigure/exboyfiiend.
nun.” 3%: am 1‘0” ........1,.. '- our-1m ; 'r _r‘ .r “u .1“:

andflgmrafixefiamples

In order to determine whether levels of reported depression and self-competence in
the current sample differed from reports of children in other samples, scores on the Children’s
Depression Inventory (Kovacs, 1983) and the Scale of Perceived Self-Competence (Harter,
1985) were compared with normative samples. One sample t-tests comparing means for
depression in the current sample and a normative sample of girls and boys aged 7-12,
indicated that girls in the current sample reported significantly higher depression scores than
the normative sample, t[3 6] = 2.64, 9 < .05, whereas boys reported significantly lower
depression scores than the comparison sample, t[28] = -6.38, 9 < .01.

Tests (t-scores) comparing the current sample and a normative sample of third-grade
girls and boys on scores of self-competence revealed only one signifcant difference between
the groups; girls in the current sample scored significantly lower on athletic competence than

the normative sample, t[36] = -2.40, 9 < .05. None of the other subscale scores were

100

significantly different. Because an abbreviated form of the Child Behavior Checklist was
utilized, it was not possible to compare these scores with Achenbachs’s (1991) normative

sample. Table 27 contains mean scores for the current sample and comparison samples.

101

 

 

Table 27

u r I r r-n mo: ...rc K'lflrl' «no: or .r‘ r0 0'07 or

W

Girls: Comparison Boys: Comparison
Current sample sample Current Sample Sample

9121“ 10.11 (6.27) 9.0 7.89 (5.72) 10.76
Hatter“
Global SelfWorth 3.10 (.70) 3.01 3.27 (62) 3.14
Behavioral Conduct 2.94 (.82) 3.16 2.83 (.71) 3.14
Social Acceptance 2.86 (.72) 2.80 2.93 (.72) 2.87
Athletic Competence 2.48 (.79) 2.84 2.89 (.78) 3.21
Scholastic Competnce 2.66 (.78) 2.80 2.71 (.87) 2.87
Physical Appearance 3.05 (.86) 2.99 3.27 (.70) 3.15

 

“CDITotalScoreof27 itemsscoredO, 1,0r2

bMean of Harter subscales

102
W

W- To test the hypothesis that higher
reported neglect by caregivers would be related to negative outcomes, three separate
simultaneous multiple regression analyses were conducted to determine the relationship
between children’s reports of neglect by difi‘erent caregivers entered as the independent
variables and depression, self-competence and child behavior problems entered as the
dependent variables. Variables entered into the regression analysis as predictors were
Physical Neglect by Mother (child report), Emotional Neglect by Mother (child report),
Emotional Neglect by Assailant (child report), and Emotional Neglect by Father (child
report).

Table 28 contains the results of simultaneous multiple regression analyses that
indicated that children’s reports of both Physical Neglect by Mother and Emotional Neglect
by Assailant were significant predictors of children’s depression, while Emotional Neglect by
Mother and (nonassailant) Father were not. The combination of Physical Neglect by Mother
and Emotional Neglect by Assailant accounted for 7 0% of the variance in predicting
depression. Stepwise regression analyses indicated that Physical Neglect by Mother
accounted for 36% of the variance (Mult. R = .60, R2 = .36) and the addition of Emotional
Neglect by Assailant resulted in a 33% increase in the variance accounted for (Mult. R = .83,
R2 = .69).

There was no significant relationship between Neglect by caregivers and children’s
behavior problems (mother’s report), or children’s overall self-competence (child report).

However, analyses that focused on the subscales of the Harter Perceived Self-Competence

103

scale, indicated that Physical Neglect by Mother was predictive of decreased Global Self-
Worth, and Emotional Neglect by father was positively related to the Global Self-Worth
Scale, the combination of these accounting for 38% of the variance in explaining children’s
Global Self-Worth. Table 29 contains the results of this analysis.

Analyses in which children’s reports of Combined Neglect by Mother was entered as
a predictor indicated that the effects of the combined scale for children’s reports were due to
the Physical Neglect by Mother scale. Therefore, results will focus only on the separate
Physical Neglect and Emotional Neglect Scales for children’s report. In addition, when
analyses combined Neglect by Caregivers (and Trauma by Caregivers) into an overall scale,
none of these analyses was significant. Therefore results focused only on separate Emotional

Neglect and Trauma scales for each caregiver.

104

 

 

Table 28
1'1. 0 u.-0‘i '1 .l5'!. 1 1.9.1I.:'AH'.K.'KU.
’ r ' n“

Variables“ Mult. R R“ B Beta t Sign t
Physical Neglect .57 .61 2.57 .02
by Mother
Emotional Neglect -. 16 -. 16 -.67 ns
by Mother
Emotional Neglect .59 .59 3.80 .002
by Assailant
Emotional Neglect .21 .09 .52 us
by Father
Total .84 .70

 

“Depression is based upon the valid mean of scores on the Children’s Depression Inventory
l’All Neglect scales are based upon children’s reports, and are parallel neglect items to ensure consistency in
predictors; analyses done with the revised scales yielded essentially the same results.

105

 

 

Table 29
't o u t I '4 orau o r In.” tfiaha'rk‘°auo
U01 . r H r 10 to r, H °-r0 ha
Variablesb Mult. R R“ B Beta t Sign t.
Physical Neglect -.81 -.72 -2.09 .06
by Mother
Emotional Neglect .44 .36 1.03 ns
by Mother
Emotional Neglect .02 .04 .18 as
by Assailant
Emotional Neglect .37 .50 2.02 .12“
by Father
Total .61 .38

 

“Self-Worth is derived from the mean of items on the Global Self-Worth subscale of the Scale of Perceived

Self-Competence (Hatter, 1985)
“All Neglect scales are based upon children’s reports

“Because the beta was not in the predicted direction, this was a two-tailed test.

106

Table 30 contains the results of analyses in which Emotional Neglect by Mother
(Mother report) and Physical Neglect by mother (mother report) were entered as predictors
of children’s self-worth. As indicated, there was a significant negative relationship between
Emotional Neglect by Mother and Global Self-Worth, and a non-significant relationship
between Physical Neglect by Mother and Global Self-Worth. Because the variables
Emotional Neglect by Mother and Physical Neglect by Mother were highly correlated (r: =
.57, 9 < .001), when these were entered as predictors in a simultaneous regression analysis
neither contributed uniquely to the variance, F_(2,60) = 2.02, 9 = .14. However, when these
were entered in a stepwise regression analysis, the relationship between Emotional Neglect
by Mother was significantly related to children’s depression. Emotional Neglect by mother
accounted for 9% of the explained variance in this stepwise analysis, while Physical Neglect
was not a significant predictor of depression. Table 31 contains these results.

In summary, based upon children’s reports, assailant’s emotional neglect and mother’s
physical neglect were more predictive of children’s internalizing problems including increased
depression and diminshed feelings of self-worth, than were emotional neglect by mothers or
fathers. Based upon mothers’ reports, emotional neglect was more predictive of children’s

negative self-worth and depression than was physical neglect.

107

Table 30

" 1.. H 3311.":110 r' ’ L‘Hr‘o

,.
.
C
r.
a:
..
.D
V
.
'

 

 

Variables Mult. R R“ B Beta t Sign t.
Emotional Neglect -.92 -.35 -2.32 .02

by Mother

Physical Neglect .75 .28 1.88 .14“
by Mother

Total .30 .09

 

“Because the beta was not in the predicted direction, this was a two-tailed test.

108

Table 31

o ‘orr'u .o'i'u‘ or“... ' o, !.\.!I.l._.=.'l"a..lu...,

 

 

 

Variables Mult. R R“ B Beta t Sign t.
Emotional Neglect .25 .06 .28 .25 2.02 .05

by Mother“

Physical Neglect ------------- Beta in: .23 ns

by Mother .04

Total .25 .06

 

“This refers to the Emotional Neglect items that parallel the child report Emotional Neglect by Mother items“

109
L" 3911.5.UH'eIO r‘ 1‘ -. or .0 3am“; .1..H¢.-..!. Lt. ‘r 50.1w:

To test the hypothesis that neglect would moderate the relationship between trauma
and adjustment, multiple regression analyses were conducted with neglect, trauma, and the
neglect by trauma interaction entered as predictors. The notion of moderation entails a
conditional efi’ect; that is, it refers to a relationship between a risk factor (e.g, abuse) and an
outcome (e.g., child adjustment) that depends on the “presense, absense or level of the
modifier” (Cleary & Kessler, 1982, p. 160) (e. g., level of neglect). Utilizing a term involving
the product of an independent variable and a potential moderator has been used successfirlly
to test moderation (Baron & Kenny, 1986).

It was thought that because children and mothers were recruited into the study based
on mother’s experience of abuse, by definition, all children in the study would have some
exposure to trauma. As such, scores on the Trauma scales might be less variable than scores
on the Neglect scales. In order to determine whether variance in responses to the Neglect and
Trauma scales differed, the standard deviation for each scale was divided by the range of
responses. It was important to determine whether there was differential variability of
responses on the Neglect and Trauma indices as an such differences might have biased the
results. However, this did not appear to be the case as the average corrected standard
deviation for the Neglect scales and Trauma scales was virtually the same (. 10 and .11
respectively).

Multiple regression analyses performed on the dependent variables, children’s

depression, behavior problems, overall self-competence, and global self-worth, utilized the

following three sets of predictors:

110

(1) Neglect indices: This predictor included child’s report of, Emotional Neglect by
Mother, Physical Neglect by Mother, Emotional Neglect by Assailant, Emotional Neglect by
Father; Mother’s report of Emotional Neglect by Mother, and Physical Neglect by Mother,
and Combined Neglect by Mother.

(2) Trauma imlices: This predictor included child’s report of Trauma by Mother, by
Assailant, and by Father. These scales were computed by computing the valid mean of scores
on the three scales (converted to z-scores): Abuse Child Witnessed, Abuse Child Experienced
(physical + verbal), and Injuries Child Experienced. Trauma by mother was computed by the
valid mean of the Abuse Child Experienced (physical and verbal) and Injuries Child
Experienced subscales. In addition, analyses were also conducted utilizing the individual
scales of the Trauma Index (i.e., Abuse Child Witnessed, Abuse Child Experienced, and
Injuries Child Experienced) as predictors; this additional analysis was performed to check for
the possibifity that standardizing the subscales of the Trauma Index might have obscured the
results.

(3) The interaction between Neglect and Trauma: This predictor variable included
child report of Neglect by Mother (Emotional and Physical) X Trauma by Mother, Emotional
Neglect by Assailant X Trauma by Assailant, and Emotional Neglect by Father X Trauma by
Father.

Table 32 contains the results of regression analyses in which Emotional Neglect by
Mother, Trauma by Mother, and the Neglect X Trauma interaction were entered as predictors
of children’s depression. This analysis indicated that Emotional Neglect by Mother was the

most significant predictor of children’s depression, accounting for 9% of the total 10% of

111

variance explained; there was no significant effect for Trauma by Mother or for the Neglect
by Trauma interaction. In addition, Emotional Neglect by Mother was a significant predictor
of children’s Global Self-Worth; again, there was no effect for Trauma by Mother, or the
Neglect by Trauma interaction, as is illustrated in Table 33. None of these variables was
significantly related to children’s behavior problems or overall self-competence.

Table 34 contains the results of a regression analysis utilizing the Abuse Child
Experienced by Mother subscale of the Trauma Index as a predictor. When children’s reports
of Emotional Neglect by Mother, Abuse Child Experienced by Mother, and the Neglect X
Abuse interaction were entered as predictors, only the interaction between Neglect and Abuse
was a significant predictor of children’s decreased Global Self-Worth. To examine the nature
of this interaction, Emotional Neglect by Mother was divided into the top, middle, and bottom
third of the scores; then, for each of the three neglect levels, a separate simple-effect
regression equation was calculated for Trauma (predictor) and Self-Worth (criterion). Table
35 contains the results which show a significant relationship between Trauma and decreased
self-worth for the high neglect group, but not for the low or middle neglect groups. This
pattern is consistent with Hypothesis 2. None of the other Trauma subscales was significantly

related to any of the indices of functioning.

112

Table32
{are 0 u..0"t‘°1'or,ar-.. .‘ r r‘l'qorro3arr‘qm rr'r {'mrac
tMIOti new an u no m u. or. - urns :u r: r: an . ...u: r' a M 2-1.0

Cl'll , D .

 

 

Variables Mult. R R“ B Beta t Sign t.
Emotional Neglect .20 .25 1.95 .06

by Mother

Trauma by Mother . 18 .56 .86 ns
Neglect X Trauma -.11 -.49 -.76 ns

Total .32 .10

 

113

 

 

Table 33
tea. 0 u..0"t'°,1' .lilr. ' 0.1‘i'e01103'h‘q’t r03" {morn
twin: ewe-r. mm ran... urn: .ur‘uarau . am r'.. or.“
With
Variables Mult. R R“ B Beta t Sign t.
Emotional Neglect -. 58 -.31 -2.39 .02
by Mother
Trauma by Mother .63 .83 1.29 ns
Neglect X Trauma -.50 -.97 -1.53 ns

Total .35 .12

 

114

 

 

Table 34

last. 0 U.l.0"\‘°1€r~01 Lt... ‘ 0 r'L‘ror n.03‘vra."r ’03-" {‘HI‘.‘
.'.\.'..: \‘r‘ 3.910 U013} 6.0...‘ l‘ JOI-ll‘vllx'vr" U..l‘ 1H, l‘\'°"1 c.51.’
I . lCl'll , fill 151%!!! 1

Variables Mult. R R“ B Beta t Sign t.
Emotional Neglect 2.25 1.2 1.79 .20“

by Mother

Abuse Child 2.79 1.33 1.89 .12“
Experienced by

Mother

Neglect X Abuse -2.16 -2.22 -2.08 .04

Total .38 .15

 

“Because the beta was not in the predicted direction, this was a two-tailed test.

115

Table 3 5

 

 

Variables Mult. R R“ B Beta t“ Sign t.
Low Neglect“ .13 .02 .20 . 13 .39 ns
Medium Neglect .20 .04 -.46 -.20 -.16 ns
High Neglect .40 .16 -1.21 -.40 4.46 .01

 

“T values were computed by dividing the mean square for each individual effect by the pooled error variance, in

order to increase the power of the analyses.
“Low, medium and high neglect refer to the bottom third, middle third and top third of the distribution of scores
for Emotional Neglect by Mother

116

Tables 36 and 37 contain the results of simultaneous regression analyses of the
relationship between Physical Neglect by Mother, Trauma by Mother, and the Neglect X
Trauma interaction and childrens’ depression and self-worth. These analyses indicated that
Physical Neglect by Mother was the most significant predictor of children’s depression,
accounting for 17% of the total 19% of variance explained; there was no significant effect
for Trauma by Mother or for the Neglect by Trauma interaction. When these variables were
entered together, none was a significant predictors of children’s Global Self-Worth.
However, when these predictors were entered in a stepwise regression analysis, Physical
Neglect by Mother was a significant negative predictor of children’s Global Self-Worth,
accounting for 7% of the variance, but neither Trauma by Mother nor the Neglect X Trauma
interaction was a significant predictor. None of the individual subscales of the Trauma Index
or the interaction of these indices with neglect was significantly related to any of the indices
of firnctioning.

Overall these analyses indicated that while there were significant main efl‘ects for the
Emotional and Physical Neglect indices as predicted, the prediction that the Interaction of
Neglect by overall Trauma would be significantly related to children’s adjustment was not
supported. However, as predicted, the interaction between children’s reports of Abuse Child
Experienced by Mother and decreased self-worth was moderated by the level of neglect

children reported.

117

 

 

Table 36
here U.1|0"\32913:~‘10151» o rim” 10:311.“! ram {mu 0
'U ‘5 \.°-'1.1' U903 {...-3 U... r... 'K'“."le "r 0.191....
Cl '11 , E .
Variables Mult. R R“ B Beta t Sign t.
Physical Neglect .26 .33 2. 55 .01
by Mother
Trauma by Mother .29 .90 1.42 ns
Neglect X Trauma -.19 -.84 -1.3 ns
Total .44 .20

 

118

 

 

Table 37
.k 0 '0” u ' {'4 Ora... o r‘i'..orro=‘-rh”r 00m
{Hr-r! 'u \°‘~10 U00” .uqu uor‘ e.101‘\'“‘-r'l a ...":
I . Clll , Ell 151E!!! 1
Variables Mult. R R“ B Beta t Signt
Physical Neglect .27 .07 -.50 -.27 -2.2 .03
by Mother
Trauma by Mother Beta In: -1.17 ns
-.15
Neglect X Trauma Beta In: -1 .08 ns
-.13
Total .27 .07

 

119

When children’s report of Emotional Neglect by Assailant, Trauma by Assailant, and
the Neglect X Trauma interaction were entered as predictors, results indicated that none of
these variables was a significant predictor of children’s depression, behavior problems or
perceived self-competence. This set of findings is interesting because Emotional Neglect by
Assailant was a significant predictor of children’s depression in combination with Physical
Neglect by Mothers, as previously described.

Table 38 contains the results of a multiple regression analysis in which childrens’
reports of Emotional Neglect by Assailant, Abuse Child Experienced by Assailant, and the
Neglect X Abuse interaction were entered as predictors. This analysis revealed that Abuse
by Assailant was significantly related to children’s behavior problems (mother report). While
the interaction between neglect and abuse was marginally significantly related to children’s
behavior problems, the beta was not in the predicted direction so the nature of this interaction
was not examined firrther. None of the other Trauma subscales was significantly related to
any of the indices of firnctioning.

When Emotional Neglect by Father, Trauma by Father and the Neglect X Trauma
interaction were entered as predictors, none of these variables was significantly related to

children’s depression, behavior problems, or overall self-competence.

120

 

 

Table 38

'1'- 0 u.0‘l‘°a‘ .1544. ‘ o 1‘1‘49110:'-lh'°ll..'vlt
{armies mu: \‘°‘-nro a, 1.11 an. ' r0 .o‘r'r ‘ro s. r 4.].
Variables Mult. R R“ B Beta t Sign t.
Emotional Neglect .20 .46 1.36 us

by Assailant
Abuse by Assailant .67 1.07 2.81 .007
Neglect X Abuse -.18 -122 -2.17 .06“
Total .40 .16

 

“Because the beta was not in the predicted direction, this was a two-tailed test.

121

While it was not possible to utilize mother reports for tests of the interaction between
Neglect and Trauma indices (because mothers did not reoprt about neglect by assailants or
fathers), analyses were conducted to examine the relationship between mother’s reports of
her own neglect and trauma child experienced by assailants and fathers, and children’s
firnctioning. Table 39 contains the results of multiple regression analyses in which mothers’
reports of Emotional Neglect by Mother, Physical Neglect by Mother, Trauma by Assailant,
and Trauma by Father were entered as predictors. Results indicated that mother’s report of
Trauma by Assailant was significantly related to children’s behavior problems. Mother’s
report of her own Physical Neglect of the child was marginally significantly related to child
behavior problems. Notably, the relationship between Trauma by Assailant and behavior
problems appeared to be specific to externalizing rather than internalizing problems; when
analyses were conducted on these subscales of the CBCL, these variables only predicted to
externalizing behavior problems, and not to internalizing behavior problems. Table 40
contains the results of these analyses. None of these variables was significant predictors of
children’s depression, self-competence or global self-worth.

Notably, when mother’s report of Combined Neglect by mother was entered in the
regression equation with mother’s reports of Truama by Assailant and Father, Combined
Neglect was significantly related to children’s depression, while the other two variables were
not significanly related to children’s depression. In total, these variables accounted for 51%
of the variance in explaining children’s depression. Table 41 contains the results of these

analyses.

122

Table 39

'-~4 ",r-.. , _ ,o.l’ a, ._ ’e, ,
,L'brl . LL..I!' \‘1‘15 ......1 .‘fi ., .h L 0.3.1”... 9'1“ !.H_.! k ..I . I

"0.01-510 ’r .. L“ ' o rt ...er I s- «......r, 9.1._1_I‘ a-” L0 ‘1

Wins“

 

Variables Mult. R R“ B Beta t Sign t.

 

Emotional Neglect -.67 -O. 5 8 -1 .51 ns
by Mother

Physical Neglect .99 .89 2.09 .06
by Mother

Trauma by .23 .57 2.21 .05
Assailant

Trauma -.04 -.07 -.3 1 ns
by Father

Total .58 .34

 

“Children’s Behavior Problems were computed by the valid mean of the l9-item Revised Child Behavior Checklist

123

Table 40

'-
O
-
'v
g
.
-
.»
-
O
'

.0140 3611.611 110 r‘ ’

'.
,,,\ 0.] O

 

Variables Mult. R R“ B Beta

Sign t

 

1.3 1° .
59M:

Emotional Neglect by -.67 -.58
Mother

Physical Neglect by .99 .89
Mother

Trauma by Assailant .23 .57

Trauma -.04 -.07
by Father

Total .58 .34

-1.51

2.09

2.21
-.31

ns

.06

.05

[IS

 

Intentahzma

Bahama;

Emotional Neglect by -.16 -. 13
Mother

Physical Neglect by .65 .54
Mother

Trauma by Assailant .09 .21

Trauma -.02 -.03
by Father

Total .40 . 16

-.31

1.12

.73
-.12

118

I18

I18

ns

 

“Extemalizing and Internalizing behavior problems are subscales of the Child Behavior Checklist

124

 

 

Table 41

1'1. 0, u .- " 1:93.: or at... ' I {nor 005311.;1‘1U0 r' ’ ’t'ur 0 ,9:

mum "on. ..u 'r \'°‘-r o to .er 1.11.1' 1'
WM

Variables Mult. R R“ B Beta t Sign t.
Combined Neglect .41 .54 2.77 .02

by Mother

Trauma by -.11 -.29 -l .49 ns
Assailant

Trauma -.74 -.34 -1.79 ns

by Father

Total .72 .51

 

125

SupplementalAnalxses

mm- to mm as" r am 0 u ...u . r..- -.,, 1.1. 'r ' ‘ o 1‘! are ...r c z. n . Even
though demographic variables were not the focus of the current study, it seemed appropriate
to do supplemental analyses to examine the relationship between demographic variables and
reports of neglect and trauma. Analysis of variance revealed significant differences between
boys and girls only on Injuries by Mother, E (1, 43) = 15.82, 9 < .001, with girls reporting
more injuries than boys (means 1.22, 1.03 respectively).

There were significant differences between mothers in different racial/ethnic groups
on children’s reports of Abuse (by Assailant) Child Witnessed, E (3, 56) = 4.23, 9 < .01, with
means for Afiican Americans, Caucasians, Hispanics, and Asians 2.47, 3.15, 4.40, and 2.80.
respectively. Tukey Honestly Significant Difference post-hoc comparisons indicated that
Hispanic mothers reported that their children had witnessed significantly more abuse than did
African American mothers. In addition there were significant difi’erences in Abuse by the
Assailant that the Child Experienced, E (3, 57) = 2.82, 9 < .05, with means for Afiican
Americans, Caucasians, Hispanics, and Asians 1.37, 1.74, 2.19, and 1.06. respectively. Tukey
HSD comparisons indicated that Caucasian mothers reported their children had experienced
significantly more abuse by the assailant than did Afiican American mothers.

Correlational analyses using demographic variables and Neglect and Trauma indices
as continuous variables did not yield significant relationships between reported Neglect or
Trauma and age of child. However, there was a significant negative correlation between
mother’s age and child’s reports of injuries by mother, ; = -.33, 9 < .05 (n = 45).

Correlational analyses indicated that the only relationship approaching significance

126

between income and the indices of neglect and abuse was between income and Emotional
Neglect by Assailant, r = -.22, p = .08 (n = 62). In addition, analyses of variance with
mother’s education as the independent variable did not yield any significant differences in
neglect or abuse indices based upon mother’s education.

Given evidence in the literature for a strong relationship between lack of social
support and neglect, correlational analyses between mother’s reported social support and the
neglect and abuse indices were done. Consistent with past work, these analyses indicated that
mothers reported more physical neglect of their children as social support decreased, ; = -.27,

9 < .05 (n = 63).

 

significant relationships were found between some of the indices of neglect and abuse and
some demographic variables, analyses were performed to determine the extent to which
demographic variables were related to the dependent variables. Analyses of variance revealed
a significant effect of sex of child on Extemalizing Behavior (mother’s report on Child
Behavior Checklist), with males showing more externalzing behavior (mean = 1.99) than
females (1.76), E (1,61) = 4.26, 9 < .05. There were no other significant effects for sex of
child on any of the outcome variables.

There was a significant effect for race/ethnicity of child on children’s Perceived Self-
Competence (Hatter) with Asian Americans reporting the highest competence scores (mean
= 3.47) and Caucasians reporting the lowest (mean = 2.72), and Afiican Americans and
Hispanic children reporting intermediate levels (means, 3.01 and 3.31 respectively), E(3,57)

= 2.82, 9 < .05. However, T ukey HSD post-hoc comparisons yielded no significant group

127

differences at the .05 level of significance. There were no other effects for ethnicity on any
dependent variables.

There were no significant relationships between child’s age or mother’s age on any
of the outcome variables. However, there was a negative relationship approaching
significance between age of child and children’s reports of depression, ;_= -.27, 9 = .05 (n =
64). Finally, there was no significant effect for income or mother’s education on any of the

dependent variables.

Chapter 4
DISCUSSION

up,” 0 ' ...-t .r.c o -,rrr‘..r.: .onT :orr°.. -.o_liin o h

Results

The current study provides an important contribution to the literature on the
adjustment of children of battered women by developing an apparently useful measure of
neglect, as well by examining some unresolved empirical and conceptual issues relevant to
neglect. These issues include: the incidence of neglect by different caregivers in a home
where a woman has been battered; differences in mothers and children’s reports of neglect;
and, the impact of emotional and physical neglect on children’s adjustment. The reasonable
construct validity and test-retest reliability of the Neglect scales developed for the current
study indicate that it is possible to measure children’s perceptions of parental neglect over
time, and that these perceptions are consistent with other conceptually similar measures (i.e. ,
social support). This work is an important addition to the literature on neglect because of the
previous lack of both clear conceptual definitions of this construct and valid instruments for
measuring it. Given the co-occurrence of different types of maltreatment and the need for
studies to begin to examine the impact of both abuse and neglect in the home, it is important
that the emotional and physical neglect scales were shown to be usefirl with children and
mothers who have experienced other forms of trauma.

JV" 1'0 0""! ' 'il 2."! r 1,1011‘ ‘1' ' 1....‘15-".h0 55! 0
39919999. Given that the women in the current sample have experienced severe physical and

psychological abuse by their assailants, the low levels of maternal neglect reported by children

128

129

and mothers (in contrast to neglect by other caregivers) speaks to the resiliency of the
mothers in the current sample. The reported low levels of maternal neglect challenge some
of the assumptions other researchers have made about the parenting of battered women.
These reports are contrary to some studies that have found high rates of maltreatment by
mothers in families where other forms of domestic violence have occurred (Ross, 1996).
These results point to the need for researchers to look beyond mothers to examine how poor
“fathering” or male caregiving may contribute to the adjustment difficulties of children who
are exposed to family violence. In addition, these results suggest a possible sample bias that
should be considered when interpreting the findings; that is, by virtue of the fact that the
women in the current study escaped their assailant’s abuse (at least temporarily) by seeking
help at a woman’s shelter, they may be difi’erent from other women who do not leave
battering relationships.

In contrast to reports about maternal neglect, children in the current study reported
significantly higher rates of emotional neglect by mother’s assailants (i.e., 32% moderate and
27% high emotional neglect) than by mothers (i.e., 10% moderate, and 0% high emotional
neglect). This pattern suggests that children are willing to endorse the neglect items even
about family members of whom they are often afraid (i.e., their mother’s assailant) and that
relatively low rates of reported neglect by mothers are likely not to be due to a response set
on the scales. It is important to note that when analyses examined neglect as a function of
the relationship of the assailant to the child, the most neglectful assailants were those who had
no biological relationship to the child or were not married to the child’s mother; biological

fathers were the least neglectful, and ex-boyfriends/ boyfriends, not father figures were the

130

most neglectful, according to children’s reports. This pattern is consistent with studies that
find higher rates of maltreatment by caregivers who are not related to children (F inkelhor,
1993). This trend points to the need for studies to examine subgroups of assailants and how
their relationship with the child affects children’s adjustment.

In addition, according to children’s reports, non-assailant fathers were more neglectful
than mothers, although they were less neglectfirl than mothers’ assailants (i.e., 22% of
children reported moderate emotional neglect by their fathers, and 0% reported high neglect).
Finding higher reported maltreatment by fathers or male caregivers is consistent with other
studies that find a much higher percentage of fathers and father substitutes engage in abusive
behavior and poor parenting (O’Keefe, 1994; WauchOpe & Straus, 1995).

Court: t' c. -t’ 'HI 4: no I‘ - ta ..u h‘tt‘t ' ‘Hr o 1‘“ air. The
current study moved beyond a reliance on maternal perceptions of parenting by obtaining
children’s reports of neglect by their caregivers. This is a critical addition to the literature
because no studies have asked children in violent homes about how available or neglectfirl
their caregivers are. By obtaining children’s perceptions, this study was able to compare how
these might differ from mothers’ perceptions. Despite the fact that mean scores for children’s
and mothers reports of neglect were comparable, correlations between children and mothers’
reports of emotional neglect by mothers and physical neglect by mothers were low and
nonsignificant. This discrepancy is important to examine because steps were taken to insure
that differences in the content or format of the Neglect scales would not contribute to
differential reporting. It may be that while some studies have found fairly good agreement

about threatening topics, including physical and sexual abuse (N ey & Moore, 1986), because

131

neglect is less salient and more chronic than abuse, it may be more dificult to achieve high
agreement in the reports of its occurrence. The lack of agreement that was found is
consistent with other studies that also failed to find significant agreement about emotional
neglect (Ney & Moore, 1986), as well as with the literature that indicates parent-child
agreement tends to be lower on less “objective” topics. However, it is important to keep in
mind that despite low mother-child agreement in the current study, discrepancies across
mother-child pairs cancelled each other out, as evidenced by equivalent means on the neglect
scales. This pattern suggests randomness more than a systematic lack of agreement about
levels of neglect.

The current study

 

expanded on previous research that focused solely on how mother’s behavior is related to
children’s adjustment problems (e.g., Kolbo et al., 1996; O’Keefe, 1994) by demonstrating
that not only are mother’s assailants significantly more neglectful than mothers, but their
emotional neglect has a negative impact on children’s adjustment. Specifically, the current
study found that the combination of emotional neglect by assailants and physical neglect by
mothers was significantly related to children’s reported depression (accounting for 70% of
the explained variance). In addition, the impact of emotional neglect by assailants occurred
only in conjunction with mother’s neglect of the child: when the impact of neglect by assailant
was examined separately, it was not significantly related to any of the indices of children’s
functioning. This pattern indicates that a cumulative model of neglect by caregivers in the
home may provide a useful fi'amework for understanding children’s adjustment. Having

alternate caregivers to assume childcare responsibilities may help bufi‘er children against

132

problems by providing other sources of affection and warmth, as has been found in other
studies of parenting (Pettit & Bates, 1989; Rohner & Rohner, 1980).

While it was expected that children’s reports of both emotional and physical neglect
by mothers would be significant predictors of children’s (negative) psychological functioning,
only children’s reports of physical neglect by mothers (and not emotional neglect by mothers)
were significantly related to children’s internalizing symptomatology. Ney et al. (1994) found
a similar relationship between physical neglect and children’s internalizing dificulties,
including decreased feelings of enjoyment and purpose in life, in a sample of 167 children
aged 7 to 18. It is suggested that physical neglect may be detrimental to children both
because it has a direct negative psychological impact, but also because factors that tend to
correlate with physical neglect, including family isolation and poverty, contribute to poor
adjustment. Children may interpret their mother’s inability to attend to their physical needs
on a day-to-day basis as psychological abandonment, and may not be able to differentiate
between a mother who does not have the money to provide for them, or is traumatized by
abuse by her partner, and a mother who is unwilling to put the energy into parenting and
responding to their needs. In addition, factors that correlate with physical neglect, including
poverty and family isolation (Nelson et al., 1993; Polansky et al., 1985), may also contribute
to children’s depression and adjustment difliculties. Because most of the women in the
current sample were of very low socio-economic status and the range of incomes was
restricted, it was not possible to determine whether there truly was a relationship between
poverty and neglect (i.e., recall that the correlation between income and physical neglect was

non-significant). However, given the consistent findings in previous literature of a strong

133

relationship between poverty and neglect (Nelson et al., 1993), it is likely that the poverty the
women in the current study experience negatively afi‘ects their parenting. In addition, there
is reason to believe that physical neglect is related to other stressors in the women’s lives in
the current sample, because there was a signifiant negative correlation between mothers’
report of physical neglect of her child and her perceived social support.

While children’s reports of physical neglect by mothers were more predictive of
children’s depression and decreased self-worth than were reports of emotional neglect,
mothers’ reports of emotional neglect were significantly related to children’s depression and
decreased feelings of self-worth. In part, this difi‘erence in results may have been related to
the more restricted range of reports of physical neglect by mothers whose scale means ranged
from 1 to 1.92 (SD = .25), than by children whose scale means ranged from 1 to 2.42 (SD
= .36). It is possible that mothers are more hesitant to report about being physically
neglectlirl than about their emotionally neglectful behaviors because of heightened awareness
about potential Child Protective Services involvement in cases of physical neglect.

Although the physical and emotional neglect by mother scales were intercorrelated,
these scales were differentially predictive of children’s adjustment; children’s reports of
mother’s physical neglect, but not emotional neglect, and assailant’s emotional neglect were
predictive of children’s increased depression and decreased feelings of self-worth; in
constrast, mothers’ reports of emotional neglect, but not physical neglect were related to
depression and self-worth. This pattern of findings is notable because the literature rarely
differentiates clearly between physical and emotional neglect. These results point to the need

to focus on the potential differential impact of these two forms of passive maltreatment. In

134

addition, it was also unexpected that emotional neglect by fathers would be unrelated to the
indices of children’s adjustment. However, this finding may be due to the small number of
non-assailant fathers (n = 18) in the current study.

\‘91 .u am: 0-3 'r: ' o ’!l r f i - -..- 'no .. o - ,‘rrq --.tt
sym9t9maj9192y. The pattern of findings that the emotional neglect scales were predictive
of highly internalizing behaviors including depressive symptomatology and feelings of self-
worth (e. g., self-worth items such as “Some kids are unhappy with themselves,” and “some
kids don’t like the way they are leading their life”), but were not related to externalizing
behaviors as assessed by mother’s reports on the Child Behavior Checklist, is consistent with
other studies that have found neglected children show more internalizing behaviors than do
physically abused children (Egeland et al., 1983; Conaway & Hansen, 1989; Kinard, 1979).
The relationship between neglect and depression and decreased feelings of self-worth is
consistent with the literature on learned helplessness, which finds the co-occurrence of
depressive behaviors and a lack of feeling of self-efficacy in individuals who are unable to
affect their environment (Abramson et al., 1980). The negative impact of neglect on feelings
of self-worth and efiicacy may be particularly deleterious to children of battered women who
already may experience adults in their lives as ineflicacious and out of control (Elbow, 1982).

In contrast to the relationship between neglect and internalizing problems, it is notable
that children’s and mother’s reports of trauma by assailant were related to children’s behavior
problems, specifically to externalizing behavior problems. This finding is consistent with
studies that have found a relationship between physical abuse and children’s aggression and

externalizing behaviors (Hemenway et al., 1994). Children who are exposed to family

135

violence and are physically abused themselves may learn fiom violent role models to act out
aggressively, whereas children who are neglected may be more prone to withdraw from the
environment.

MW. While there were significant main effects for
neglect on children’s adjustment, the hypothesis that neglect would moderate the relationship
between children’s experience of overall trauma and adjustment received only slight support
in the current data. While there were two significant interactions between neglect and the
relationship between abuse and outcomes, only one of these reflected the predicted pattern.
Specifically, the level of emotional neglect by mothers moderated the relationship between
children’s experience of abuse by mothers and children’s feelings of self-worth. As predicted
(Hypothesis 2), the more emotional neglect by mothers, the stronger the relationship between
abuse experienced and diminished feelings of self-worth in children. In addition, there was
also a moderating effect for emotional neglect by assailants on the relationship between
children’s experience of abuse by assailants and children’s behavior problems. However,
contrary to prediction, it was moderate and low levels of neglect, and not high neglect that
yielded a significant relationship. It is notable that in both these cases, emotional and not
physical neglect acted as moderators of children’s adjustment to abuse.

The results regarding the moderating effect of emotional neglect by mothers are
consistent with much of the literature that finds a buffering efi‘ect of positive caregiver-child
relationships on children’s adjustment to stress (Werner & Smith, 1982), and conversely, the
detrimental impact of a lack of a positive caregiver-child relationship. The failure to find a

moderating effect of neglect on the relationship between overall trauma and children’s

136

adjustment may have been related to methodological difficulties with combining the indices
of trauma into an overall scale.

W The relationship
between physical and emotional neglect and children’s maladjustment found in this study
speaks to the utility of a continuous construct of neglect. Even though children and mothers
reported relatively low levels of maternal neglect, differences in mothers’ emotional and
physical neglect nevertheless significantly predicted children’s psychological adjustment. This
is consistent with the work of previous researchers (e.g., Burgess & Conger, 1978; Gauthier
et al., 1996; Wolfe, 1987) who have argued for conceptualizing maltreatment along a
continuum rather than as a dichotomous phenomenon.

In addition, the attempt to differentiate between emotional and physical neglect in the
current study provided mixed results; while physical and emotional neglect were differentially
related to children’s adjustment (depending on which caregiver was neglectful), these
constructs were nevertheless highly intercorrelated (as evidenced by factor analyses). This
suggests that the extreme stress the mothers in this study have experienced affects their
emotional and physical availability to their children.

1310 4.: m .n~ . 1' or 0’er ‘1!" 61.5 110'! in n ... .or'.
3999519991991. The relationship found between neglect and children’s internalizing
psychological problems is consistent with attachment theory as discussed previously (e.g.,
Ainsworth et al., 1978; Bowlby, 1969; Stern, 1985); this relationship reflects the patterns of
depressed and withdrawn behavior that have been argued to result from threatened or “real”

loss of caregiving (Delozier, 1982). It was notable a the lack of consistent maternal physical

137

availability contributed to children’s negative affect. This pattern suggests that children may
interpret physical neglect by their mother’s as a form of psychological abandonment. It is
possible that children who have witnessed their mother’s being battered and who have been
abused themselves are highly sensitized to the physical aspects of caregiving relationships;
that is, they may be highly aware not only of being physically hurt, but of whether or not they
are physically cared for.

KW. This study examined the relationship between
neglect and children’s adjustment in a sample of children whom many researchers would refer
to as “high rislc’ because of their exposure to violence in the home. While it was not possible
to detemrine from the Children’s Depression Inventory whether children in the current study
experience “clinical” levels of depression, females did score higher than a normative sample
on overall depression scores. These results, in conjunction with the strong relationship found
between neglect and children’s maladjustment, suggest that determining whether subjects are
clinically depressed may not be as critical as finding that neglect contributes to negative affect.
This coincides with a view of neglect and maltreatment as continuous; that is, there is no
certain point at which neglect causes depression. This study, therefore, provides a solid basis
for firture research to begin to examine the link between neglect and children’s psychological
problems in both clinical and non—clinical populations.

1 l l l l . l C . l .

In any study in which participants are asked to report about painful experiences, there

is likely to be some denial of negative experiences, particularly in the current study where

participants may fear retribution by the assailant for describing abusive, antisocial behavior.

138

It is likely that mothers in the current study were positively biased in describing their family
life and may have been hesitant to describe some abusive parenting practices, as has been
found for parents in other studies (Hemenway et al., 1994; Jessop, 1981). This speculation
is supported by the fact that mothers reported less emotional neglect than did children.
However, even though mothers were not asked to report about their own abuse of their
children, they were willing to admit that their children had been exposed to abuse by other
caregivers, which can be highly threatening items to endorse. In addition, children were often
willing to report about physical and verbal abuse that they had experienced. This willingness
suggests that it is unlikely that children would underreport on the less-threatening Neglect
measure. This relative lack of bias in children’s reports appeared to be the case, as evidenced
by the fact that variability of respondents’ scores was generally equivalent across the Neglect
and Trauma indices. In addition, given that many of the mothers in the current study view
the MSU Family F ollow-Up Study as a supportive intervention for themselves and their
children, it is likely that this feeling of trust may have mitigated against substantial distortions
in mothers’ reports.

It might be suggested that findings of significant relationships between neglect and
depression are due to a general negative reporting bias (i.e., individuals who are depressed
also report high neglect), and, as such, one cannot be sure whether depression caused higher
reports of neglect or vice versa. However, the fact that significant relationships were found
between predictor variables and outcome variables across respondents (i.e., between
mothers’ reports of neglect and children’s reports of their own adjustment, and between

children’s reports of trauma and mothers’ reports of children’s behavior problems) indicates

139

that the relationships found were not simply due to a negative reporting bias on the part of
a single participant.
Directinnsforfiuhrrefiesearch

Taken together, the results and methodological limitations of the current study suggest
some directions for future research. First, it would be usefirl to obtain larger samples of
children and mothers to allow for more fine-grained analyses of how the assailant’s
relationship to child (i.e., father, stepfather) is related both to quality of caregiving and
children’s adjustment. Second, using comparison groups would allow researchers to examine
the moderating efi‘ects of neglect on children who witness family violence, by including non-
abused control groups. However, this last possibility raises the methodological question of
how to achieve “contro ” when researching complex variables, such as neglect, that are not
easily identifiable or salient. It would also be usefirl for firture studies to include middle and
upperclass SES families in order to examine the impact of emotional and physical neglect and
to what degree physical neglect is related to socioeconomic status.

While not the focus of the current study, the potential for differences in boys' and girls'
adjustment to neglect, physical abuse, and witnessing violence needs to be considered in
future studies. Given that girls in the current study reported relatively high rates of
depression compared with normative samples, whereas boys did not, suggests that it would
be usefirl to examine how gender is related to adjustment in homes where children are
exposed to family violence. Given evidence to suggest that paternal absence may be more
harmful to boys than girls (Werner & Smith, 1982), it would be important to investigate the

relative impact of neglect on boys and girls depending on whether male or female caregivers

140

are neglectful.

Finally, given the evidence that children are adversely affected by witnessing violence
at different ages (i.e., preschool boys and schoolage girls have been found to be the most
adversely affected by witnessing violence; cf Davis & Carlson, 1987), it will be important for
future studies to examine how neglect affects children at different ages and different
developmental periods.

WNW

While numerous studies in the area of domestic violence have documented the
detrimental effects of children witnessing and experiencing violence (Davis & Carlson, 1987;
Hughes et al.,1989; Jaffe et al., 1990; Kalmuss, 1984), few studies have examined how
parental neglect or availability may be related to the adjustment of children of battered women
(O’Keefe, 1994). The current study addressed major gaps in the literature on the adjustment
of children of battered women by assessing the incidence of neglect, by obtaining both
mother’s and children’s reports of neglect, abuse and children’s adjustment, and by examining
the role of paternal and male caregiver neglect in a literature dominated by studies of mothers’
parenting. In addition, the current study moved beyond the focus on how abuse negatively
affects children by examining how neglect by mothers’ assailants contributes to children’s
adjustment problems. Given the evidence from both the attachment and maltreatment
literatures that neglectfirl relationships negatively afi'ect children’s psychological adjustment
(Augoustinos, 1987; Egeland & Erickson, 1987) and that positive relationships with adults
help children to be resilient in the face of stress (Garmezy, 1993; Werner, 1989), it was

hypothesized that emotional and physical neglect would predict children’s depression,

141

decreased self-competence and increased behavior problems. In addition, it was
hypothesized that neglect would moderate the relationship between children’s exposure to
violence and their adjustment. Results indicated support for the first hypothesis in that
children’s reports of emotional neglect by assailants and physical neglect by mothers were
predictive of higher depression and diminished feelings of self-worth in children, as were
mother’s reports of their own emotional neglect of their children. Results provided only slight
support for the second hypothesis; in only one instance did high levels of neglect act as a
releaser for adjustment problems; emotional neglect by mothers was found to moderate the
relationship between abuse and children’s feelings of self-worth in the predicted direction.
The results of the current study indicate that it is useful to examine the impact of
neglect with women and children identified as having experienced trauma in the home. This
study emphasizes how critical it is to obtain both parent and child reports of children’s
experiences and adjustment and to obtain reports about all important caregivers in the home.
Future work in the area of family violence would benefit from examining the impact of

parental omissions in caregiving (i.e., neglect) in a variety of family and relationship contexts.

References

Aber, J.L., Allen, J.P., & Cicchetti, D. (1989). The effects of maltreatment on
development during early childhood: Recent studies and their theoretical clinical and policy
implications. In D. Cicchetti and V. Carlson (Eds). W991. (pp. 579-619).
Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Abramson, L. Y., Garber, J., & Seligrnan, M.E.P. (1980). Learned helplessness in
humans: An attributional analysis. In Garber, J. & Seligrnan, M.P. (Eds). Human

W New York: Academic Press.

Achenbach, T.M., McConaughy, S.H., & Howell, CT. (1987). Child/Adolescent
behavioral and emotional problems: Implications of cross-informant correlations for

situational specificity. We), 213-232.

Achenbach, TM. (1991). WWW
Kr9fi19, Burlington, VT: University of Vermont Department of Psychiatry.

Adler, R. (1986). Physical maltreatment of children. AW
W29. 404-412

Msworth,M. (1972). e . . . .
(Ed.)., Attachment and Dependency. Washington, D C Winston.

 

Ainsworth, M.D.S, Blehar, MC. Waters, E., & Wall, S. (1978) 12mm
‘ .. . t or New Jersey. Lawrence Erlbaum

 

Associates.

Allen, R.E., & Oliver, J .M. (1982). The effects of child maltreatment on language
develOPment. ChfldAhuseandNealectfi. 299-305-

Amato, P. R., & Ochiltree, G. (1987) Interviewing children about their families: A
note on data quality. WWW 669-675

Ammerrnan, RT. (1990). Etiological models of child maltreatment. 89mm
MatfifiaatiQmJAO), 230-254.

Ammerrnan, R. T. (1991) The role of the child m physical abuse: A reappraisal.
Xiclenceandlictimfia), 87-101

Aragona, J A & Eyberg, SM. (1981). Neglected children: Mothers' report of child

142

143

behavior problems and observed verbal behavior. Child_D_exel99mgnL_§2, 596-602.

Augoustinos, M. (1987). Developmental effects of child abuse: Recent findings. Child
W 15-27.

Azar, S. T., & Wolfe, D. A. (1989). Child abuse and neglect. In E. Mash and R
Barkley, (Eds ). W New York. The Guilford Press.

Bandura, A. (1982). Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. Amgfim
W 122-147-

Baron, R. M, & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction
in social-psychological research. Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. ldumal

Qfilierscnahtundmrallmhclmaflw) 1173- 1132

Beck, A..,T Ward, C. H., Mendelson, M., Mock, J., & Erbaugh, J. (1967). An
inventory for measuring depression. WM 561-.571

Belsky, J. (1984). The determinants of parenting: A process model. Child
W95. 83-96.

Belsky, J. (1993) Etiology of child maltreatment. A developmental- ecological
analysis EarshclcgisaLBirlletinJJAO) 413-434

Berk, R. A, Fenstermaker, Berk, S, Loseke, D. R, & Rauma, D. (1983). Mutual
combat and other family violence myths. In D. Finkelhor, R. J. Gelles, G. T. Hotaling, & M A.

Straus(Eds..) WWW (pp 197-212)
Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.

Berry, W., & Feldman, S. (1985). W Newbury Park:
Sage Publications.

Bogat, GA, Chin, K, Sabbath, W., & Schwartz, C. (1985). Wu]
WW9, (Technical Report #3). East Lansing: Michigan State University.

Bousha, D.M., & Twentyman, CT. (1984). Mother-child interactional style in abuse,
neglect, and control groups: Natural observations in the home. mumal_9f_Ahn9;mal

W0), 106-114.
Bowlby, J. (1969). Was, New York: Basic Books.

Bowlby, J. (1980). W London: Hogarth Press.

 

Bowlby,J. (1988). - '
W London: Routledge.

Brassard, M R. ,Germain, R, & Hart, S. N. (Eds) (1987). The challenge to better
understand and combat the psychological maltreatment of children and youth. Emh9l9gi9al

Maltreatmentflhrldrenanflauth New York: Pergamon Press

Brassard, MR, Hart, S.N., & Hardy, DB. (1993). The Psychological Maltreatment

Rating Scales. ChildAhusemdfleslmJl. 715-729.

Bretherton, I Fritz, J ., Zahn-Waxler, C., & Ridgeway, D. (1986). Learning to talk

about emotions: A fimctionalist perspective. _Childflexglmmgngjl, 529-548.

Briere J & Runtz M (1988). Multivariate correlates of childhood psychological

and physical maltreatment among university women. WW2, 331-341.

Briere J & Runtz, M. (1990). Differential adult symptomatology associated with

three types of child abuse histories. WW3, 357-364.

Browne, A (1993) Violence against women by male partners. Prevalence, outcomes

and policy implications. MW (10), 1077-1087.

Burgess, RL. & Conger, RD. (1978). Family interaction in abusive, neglectfirl and

normal families. Chfldflexglmmgnhjg, 1163-1173.

Carlson, V., Cicchetti, D., Barnett, D. & Braunwald, KG. (1989). Finding order in
disorganization: Lessons fiom research on maltreated infants' attachments to their caregivers.
In D. Cicchetti and v. Carlson (Eds). ChildMaltreannenr. (pp. 494-528). Cambridge,

England: Cambridge University Press.
Carmines, E. G, & Zeller, R A. (1979). Reliability and validity assessment. In M. S.

Leads-Beck, (Ed) mmmmmmsodmmt Newbury Park, CA:

Sage Publications.
Cascardi, M. ,Langhmrichsen, J, & Vivial, D. (1992). Marital aggression: Impact,

injury, and health correlates for husbands and wives. AmhimflntemalMedicineJfl,

1 178-1 184.
Cerezo, M.A., & Frias, D. (1994) Emotional and cognitive adjustment in abused

children. W190 1), 923-932-

Christopoulos, C., Cohn, D.A., Shaw, D.S., Joyce, S., Sullivan-Hanson, J., Kraft,
S.P., & Emery, RE. (1987). Children of abused women: Adjustment at time of shelter

145

residence. MW, 61 1'619-

Cicchetti, D., & Rizley, R. (1981) Developmental perspectives on the etiology,
intergenerational transmission and sequelae of child maltreatment. W

W31 -56

Cicchetti, D. (1989). How research on child maltreatment has informed the study of
child development: Perspectives fiom developmental psychopathology. In D. Cicchetti and

V. Carlson (Eds). ChfldMflmtmem. (Pp. 377-431). Cambridge, England: Cambridge

University Press.

Claussen, AH & Crittenden, PM. (1991). Physical and psychological maltreatment:

Relations among types of maltreatment. WW 5-18.

Cleary, P D. ,& Kessler, R. C. (1982). The estimation and interpretation of modifier
effects lmunalnffleahhanificslalflehamnza 159-169

Conaway, L. P, & Hansen, D. J. (1989). Social behavior of physically abused and

neglected chidlren: A critical review. WW2, 627-652.

Corse, S. J., Schmid, K. ,& Trickett, P. K. (1990) Social network characteristics of
mothers in abusing and nonabusing families and their relationships to parenting beliefs.

lcumalhffinmmunintfisxchclmm 44-59.
Crittenden, PM. (1985). Maltreated infants: vulnerability and resilience. 1991119191“
WW1), 85-96.

Crittenden, PM. & Ainsworth, M.D.S. (1989). Child maltreatment and attachment
theory. In D. Cicchetti and V. Carlson (Eds). WNW (PP- 432-463)-

Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Culp RE Culp, AM Soulis J. & Letts, D. (1989). Self-esteem and depression in

abusive, neglecting, and nonmaltreating mothers. InfanLMmmlfledltthmaLJQ (4), 243-

251.

Curmrrings, E.M., Zalm-Waxler, C ., & Radke-Yarrow, M. (1981). Young children's
responses to expressions of anger and affection by others in the family. Wm

52, 1274-1282.
Davis L V & Carlson, BE. (1987). Observation of spouse abuse; What happens

to the children? 'loimaormmmmnasadmmw), 278-291.

Dean, A.L., Malik, MM, Richards, W., & Stringer, SA. (1986). Effects of parental

146

maltreatment on children's conceptions of interpersonal relationships. D:y_el99mgmal
W16), 617-626.

Deblinger, E., McLeer, S.V., Atkins, M.S., Ralphe, D., & Foa, E. (1989). Post-
traumatic stress in sexually abuse, physically abused and nonabused children. ChfldAhuge

W 403 .403.
Delozier, P. P. (1982). Attachment theory and child abuse. In M. Parkes & J.

Stevenson-Kinds (EdS) IheflaceanttachmenL'urHumanBehardor. (pp 95-117) New

York: Basic Books.

Depner, C. E., Leino, E. V., & Chun, A. (1992) Interparental conflict and child

adjustment; A decade review and meta-analysis. WW

(3), 323 341

Dobash, R.P., Dobash, R.E., Wilson, M., & Daly, M. (1992). The myth of sexual
symmetry in marital violence. MW (1), 71-91.

Downey, G., & Walker, E. (1989). Social cognition and adjustment in children at risk
for psychopathology. MW (5), 835-845.

Egeland, B. ,& Erickson, M. F. (1987). Psychologically unavailable caregiving. In

MWRBrassard R Germain,&SN WWW

New York: Pergarnin Press.

Egeland, B., Sroufe, LA, & Erickson, M. (1983). The developmental consequences
of different patterns of maltreatment. ChildAhusdandNegleng, 459-469.

Elbow, M. (1982). Children of violent marriages: The forgotten victims. Mal
Earmarks; 465-471.

Emery, RE- (1989). Family violence. We), 321-328.

Erikson, EH. (1950). Childhmm New York: W.W. Norton and
Company.

Erickson, MF., Egeland, B., & Pianta, R. (1989). The effects of maltreatment on
the development of young children. In D. Cicchetti and V. Carlson (Eds), Child
Wm. (pp. 647-684). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

F inkelhor, D. (1983). Epidemiological factors in the clinical identification of child

sexual abuse. ChildAbuseandfleglectJl. 67-70.

147

Frodi, A. M. (1981). Contribution of infant characteristics to child abuse. Amgrjm
luumalthentalfleficimii 4, 341-349.

Frodi, A, & Smetana, J. (1984). Abused, neglected, and nonrnaltreated preschoolers
ability to discriminate emotions in others: The effects of IQ. W

459-465.

Gaines, R, Sandgrund, A., Green, A.H., & Power, E. (1978). Etiological factors in
child maltreatment: A multivariate study of abusing, neglecting and normal mothers. .[9umal

W6), 531-540-

Garbarino, J. & Ebata, A. (1983). The significance of ethnic and cultural difl’erences
in child maltreatment loumalniMamaaeandrheEamihamL 77 3 7 83

Garbarino, J ., & Crouter, A. (1978). Defining the community context for parent-child
relations: The correlates of child maltreatment. ChfldDgxgl99mgnL39, 604-616.

Garmezy, N. (1987). Stress, competence and development: Continuities in the study
of schizophrenic adults, children vulnerable to psychopathology, and the search for stress-

resistant children. Americartlorlrnamfflrthonsychiamafl(2), 159-174.

Garmezy, N., Masten, A.S., & Tellegarr, A. (1984). The study of stress and
competence in children: A building block for developmental psychopathology. Child

W974”.

Garmezy, N. (1993). Children in poverty: Resilience despite risk. 12mm
127-136.

Gauthier L (1994) WWW
WWW Master’s thesis Michigan State

University, East Lansing, Michigan.

Gauthier, L, Stollak, G., Messé, L. & Aronoff, J. (1996). Recall of childhood
neglect and physical abuse as differential predictors of current psychological fimctioning.

ChildAhuseandlSeglMO), 551-561.

Giovannoni, J .M., & Billingsley, A. (1970). Child neglect among the poor: A study
of parental adequacy in families of three ethnic groups. W (4), 196-204.

Gondolf, E. W., Fisher, E. ,& McFerron, J. R. (1988). Racial and ethnic difl‘erences
among shelter residents. A comparison of Anglo, Black and Hispanic battered. humaLof

EamilLYIQlencelU) 39- 51

148

Goodman, L. A, Koss, M. P. F 1tzgerald L. F. F,elipe Russo, N. ,& Puryear Keita, G.

(1993). Male violence against women. MW (10), 1054-1058

Goodman, L. A, Koss, M. P, & Russo, NF. (1993). Violence against women:

Physical and mental health effects. AWE—WM 79- 89.

Grizenko, N. G. & Fisher, C. (1992). Review of studies of risk and protective factors

for psychopathology m children. WWW 7711-.721

Halter, S. (1983). Developmental perspectives on the self-system. In Paul Mussen

(Ed) Handlmkflhndlmhplm (PP 296- 372) New Y0rl<1Wiley& Sens
Harter, S. (1985). ManudfouhLSeltEEersepfiQanfilefoLChildten. Denver,

Colorado, University of Denver.

Hazzard, A., & Christensen, A. Want. Department of

Psychology, University of California, Los Angeles, CA.
Hazzard, A., & Christensen, A., & Margolin, G. (1983). Children’s perceptions of

parental behavior InumalnflAbnonnathlldeholmJlfl) 49-60

Hemenway, D., Solnick, S., & Carter, J. (1994). Child-rearing violence. Child

W13(12).1011-1020-
Herman, J.L. (1992). W New York: Basic Books.

Herman, J. L. (1992). Complex PTSD: A sundrome in survivors of prolonged and

repeated trauma loumalcflraurnathttessiO) 377- 391

Herrenkohl, R..,C Herrenkohl, E.C., & Egolf, BR (1983). Circumstances

surrounding the occurrence of child maltreatment. WWW
25991191922910) 424-431
Hershorn, M & Rosenbaum, A. (1985). Children of marital violence. A closer look

at the unintended victims Amencartloumalhmnhonsxchlatmfia) 260- 266

Herzberger, S. D. ,P,otts D. A., & Dillon, M. (1981). Abusive and nonabusive parental

treatment from the child's perspective W( 1),

8 1-90.
Hilton, N .Z. (1992). Battered women's concerns about their children witnessing wife

assault. lmrrnalhfllnterperscndjliolencefl 1). 77-86.

149

Hodges, K., Gordon, Y. & Lennon, MP. (1990). Parent-child agreement on
symptoms assessed via a clinical research interview for children: The Child Assessment

Selledule (CAD). Luumdflhfldflxchulmanflmhimafla), 427-436.

Hoffrnan-Plotkin, D., & Twentyman, C. (1984). A multimodal assessment of
behavioral and cognitive deficits in abused and neglected preschoolers. Childfiexclmmgm,
2;, 794-802.

Holden, G.W., & Ritchie, KL. (1991). Linking extreme marital discord, child rearing
and child behavior problems: Evidence from battered women. Childflexflmmm 311-
327.

Houck, G. M. ,& King, M C. (1989). Child maltreatment: Family characteristics and
developmental consequences. IsmsmMgntalfleathmmJQ, 193-208.

Hughes, H M, & Barad, S. J. (1983). Psychological functioning of children m a

battered women’s shelter. A preliminary investigation. Ammidmmumalgfflnhmmhim
52, 525- 531.

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

experiencing physical abuse: A “double whammy. ” W0), 197-
209

Jaffe, P.G., Wolfe, D.A, & Wilson, SK. (1990). Wen,
Newbury Park,California: Sage Publications.

Jessop, D. J. (1981). Family relationships as viewed by parents and adolescents: A
Specification lcumalhfiMamaaeantheEamflyAlQ) 95-107

Jones, E.D., & McCurdy, K. (1992). The links between types of maltreatment and
demographic characteristics of chidlren. WW9, 201-215.

Jouriles, E N. ,Murphy, C. M, & O'Leary, K. D. (1989). Interspousal aggression,

Marital discord, and child problems. lcumalhfflanalltinaandflinisalfimholmfla),
453-455

Kalmuss, D. (1984) The intergenerational transmission of marital aggression.
ImmalnflMamageantheEamrlyAfi. 11- 19

Kashani, J. H., Orvaschel, H. ,Burk, J. P, & Reid, J C. (1985). Informant variance:

The issue of parent-child disagreement lauirraLoLthLAmericanAsademLcLChild
WM) 337-441

150

Kinard, EM. (1982). Child abuse and depression: Cause or consequence? Child
flelfamfil. 403-413.

Kinard, EM. (1994). Methodological issues and practical problems in conducting
research on maltreated children. Child_Ab_u§9_and_N9gl99L_l§(8), 645-656.

Kobak, RR. & Sceery, A (1988). Attachment in late adolescence; Working models,
affect regulation, and representations of self and others. ChildDex9l99m9uLj2, 135-146.

Kolbo, J. R, Blakely, E. H, & Engleman, D. (1996). Children who witness violence.
A review of the literature. WW9), 281-293.

Kovacs, M. (1983). The children's depression inventory. A self-rated depression scale
for school-aged youngsters. Unpublished manuscript. University of Pittsburgh.

Kovacs, M. (1992). W951. New York: Multi-Health

Systems Inc.

Krugman, R.D., Lenherr, M, Lynn, B., Fryer, GE. (1986). The relationship between
unemployment and physical abuse of children. Ch’dd_Ah_us_e_and_N9g1991,_1_Q, 415-418.

Lahey, B. B. ,,Conger R D. ,Atkeson, B. M, & Treiber, F. A. (1984). Parenting
behavior and emotional status of physically abusive mothers. l9umaL9£CQnsulting_a.nd

W (6), 1062-1071.

Lee, C.L. & Bates, J.E. (1985). Mother-child interaction at age two years and
perceived difficult temperament. ChildDgxel99mgnL26, 1314-1325.

Lewitt, EM. (1994). Reported child abuse and neglect. W (2),
233-242.

Loevinger, J. (1976). W San Francisco: Jossey Bash, Publishers.

Lutzker, J .R (1990). Behavioral treatment of child neglect. W199.
14(3), 301-315.

Lyons-Ruth, K., 2011, D., Connell, D., & Grunebaum (1989). Family deviance and
family disruption in childhood: Associations with maternal behavior and infant maltreatment

during the first two years of life. MW 219-236.

Main, M., & George, C. (1985). Responses of abused and disadvantaged toddlers to

distress in agemstesr A study in the day-care setting. WWWO). 407-
412.

151

Martin, J. (1983) Maternal and paternal abuse of children. W

W (pp 293- 304). Beverly Hills, California: Sage
Publications.

Mash, E. J. & Wolfe, D. A. (199]). Methodological rssues in research on physical
child abuse Wren) 8-29

McCord, J. (1990). Long-term perspectives on parental absence. In L. N. Robins &
M Rutter (Eds). . : . . Cambridge,
England: Cambridge University Press.

 

McCurdy, K., & Daro, D. (1994). Child maltreatment: A national survey of reports
and fatalities. Iomnamflntemcrsonalliolencefl (1), 7 5-94.

Moretti,M..,M Fine, S. ,.,Haley,G &Marriage, K. (1985). Childhood and adolescent

depression: Child-report versus parent-report information. lgnmalgflheAmefimAgadgmy
W0) 293- 302

Mueller, E, & Silverman, N. (1989). Peer relations in maltreated children. In D.
Cicchetti and V. Carlson (Eds). ChilngmgatmenL Cambridge, England: Cambridge
University Press.

Nelson, K.E., Saunders, E.J., & Landsman, MJ. (1993). Chronic child neglect in
perspective. SEW 661-671.

Ney, P.G., Fung, T., & “frckett, AR (1994). The worst combinations of child abuse
and neglect. Ww), 705-714-

Ney, P.G., Moore, C., McPhee, J ., & Trought, P. (1986). Child abuse: A study of the
child's perspective. Wm 511-518.

Nontsis, M1 (1993). WWW (Release 6.0)-
Chicago, Illinois: SPSS Inc.

O’Keefe, M. (1994). Adjustment of children from maritally violent homes. Eamilies
mSQciemlhelaumalnLQQmemmmflummSemgesJi (7) 403-415

Okun, L. (1936). MmAhuseMRenlasinLMnhs Albany, NY: State

University of New York Press.
Pagelow, MD. (1984). W New York: Praeger Publishers.

Pakizegi, B. (1985). Maladaptive parent-infant relationships. W

152

MW 199-246.

Patterson, G..,R DeBarysche, B. D, & Ramsey, E. (1989). A developmental
perspective on antisocial behavior. AMER—3W3), 329- 335.

Paulhus, D. L (1991) Measurement and control of response bias. In J. P. Robinson,

P R Shaver & L S anhtsman (Eds ) Memmflfiersonalimandiociallmhological
Attitudes (Vol 1). California: Academic Press.

Pearce, J.W., & Pezzot-Pearce, TD. (1994). Attachment theory and its implications
for psychotherapy with maltreated children. Wfi) 425—438.

Pelton, L H. (1981). Child abuse and neglect: The myth of classlessness. In L. H.

Pelton.

 

Melton, & F D. Barry, (Eds). - . . .
WWW (PP 131-181). New York: The Guildford Press.

Penfold, P. (1982). Children of battered women. WWW
HealtthU-z), 108-114.

Penis, C., Arrindell,W.A, Penis, H. ,Eisemann,M., derEnde, JV, &VonKnorring,

L. (1986). Perceived depriving parental rearing and depression. WW
l__8d 170-175

 

Perry, M. A. ,Doran, L. D, & Wells, E. A. (1983). Developmental and behavioral

characteristics of the physically abused child. Loumflgfflhmgaifihddjmholmza),
320-324.

Pettit, G.S., & Bates, J .E. (1989). Family interaction patterns and children's' behavior
problems from infancy to 4 years. MW (3), 413. 420.

Polansky, N.A, Gaudin, J.M., Ammons, P.W., & Davis, KB. (1985). The
psychological ecology of the neglectful mother. W 265-275.

Rivera, B., & Widom, CS. (1990). Childhood victimization and violent ofi‘ending.
WU), 19-35.

Roberts, W., & Strayer, J. (1987). Parents' responses to the emotional distress of

their children: relations with children's competence. W0), 415-
422.

153

Robbie Rossman, B. B. ,& Rosenberg, M (1992) Family stress and fimctioning in
children: The moderating effects of children' s beliefs about their control over parental conflict.

Wall“) 699-715

Rohner, RP. (1986). ' ' ' .
W. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.

Rohner, RP., & Rohner, EC. (1980). Antecedents and consequences of parental
rejection: A theory of emotional abuse. WW 189-198.

Rose, 81, & Meezan, W. (1996). Variations in perceptions of child neglect. Child
W150), 139-160.

Rosenbaum, A. & O'Leary, D. (1981). Children: The unintended victims of marital
violence. Americanlnnmammnhopsxchiatmflfl) 692- 698

Rosenberg, MS. (1987). Children of battered women: The effects of witnessing
violence on their social problem-solving abilities. WM), 85-89.

Ross, SM. (1996). Risk of physical abuse to children of spouse abusing parents.
WNW), 589-598.

Rutter, M- (1972). W Middlesex, England; Penguin
Books.

 

Samerofi; AJ., & Seifer, R. (1990). Early contributors to developmental risk. In J.
Rolf, A. S. Masten, I). Cicchetti, K. H. Nuechterlein, & S. Weintrab (Eds). RisLand

WWW (pp. 52-66) Cambridge,
England, Cambridge University Press

Sandler, I. N., Miller, B, Short, J., & Wolchik, S. A. (1989). Social support as a
protective factor for children 1n stress. In D Belle (Ed). ChfldemalfleMmkund
W New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Saylor, CF, Finch, AJ., Spirito, A., & Bennett, B. (1984). The Children’s
Depression Inventory. A systematic evaluation of psychometric properties. W

W (6), 955-962

Schumm, W. R, & Bagarozzi, D. A. (1989) The Conflict Tactics Scales. Amm'dan
Wham 165- 163

Sirnons, RL., Whitbeck, L.B., Conger, RD., & Chy-In, W. (1991). Intergenerational
transmission of harsh parenting. W210), 159p-171.

154

Smith, PK, & Cowie, H. (1988). Understandmgfihfldrmflcxelopmem. New Yok:
Basil Blackwell, Inc.

Sroufe, LA. (1979). The coherence of individual development: Early care,
attachment, and subsequent developmental issues. W00), 834-841.

Sroufe, LA, & Waters, E. (1977). Attachment as an organizational construct. Child
W 1184-1199.

Stern, D.N. (1985). Ihglntemsdnalflodddfthmm New York: Basic Books.

Stemberg, K.J., Lamb, M.E., Greenbaum, C., Cicchetti, D., Dawud, S., Cortes,
RM.M., Krispin, 0., & Lorey, F. (1993). Efi’ects of domestic violence on children's behavior

problems and depression. W22 (1), 44-52.

Straus, M A. (1979). Measuring intrafamily conflict and violence: The Conflict
Tactics Scale MW 75 83

Straus, M A ,& Gelles, R. J. (1986). Societal change and change in family violence

from 1975 to 1985 as revealed by two national surveys. WW
_8, 465-479.

Suit E. K. ,& Abel, E. M. (1990). The impact of spousal violence on the children of
the abused mumalnflndeaendenLSncialflmkAH) 27- 34

Sullivan, C.M., Basta, 1, Tan, C., & Davidson, W.S. (1992). After the crisis: A needs
assessment of women leaving a domestic violence shelter. MG), 267-
275.

Taylor, S. (1983). Adjustment to threatening events. W01),
1161-1173.

Tower, CC. (1993). Intervention: Reporting and investigation. UndetstandingChild
Wm. Massachussetts; Allyn & Bacon.

Trieber, F. A., & Mabe, P. A. (1987). Child and parent perceptions of children’s

psychopathology tn Psychiatric outpatient children mmmcmmmmm
1;,(1) 115-124.

Tronick, El. (1989). Emotions and emotional communication in infants. American
W0), 112-119-

US. Department of Health and Human Services, National Center on Child Abuse and

155

Neglect, “Child Maltreatment 1993: Reports From the States to the National Center on Child
Abuse and Neglect” ( Washington, DO: U. S. Government Printing Office, 1995).

van Aken, M. A G. & Riksen-Walraven, J. M. (1992). Parental support and the

development of competence in children. WW
15(1), 101-123.

Vietz, P., Falsey, S., Sandler, H., O’Connor, S., & Altemier, WA. (1980).

Transactional approach to prediction of child maltreatment. WW
1(4), 248-261.

Wahlsten, VS. (1994). Development and survival: A study of children at risk living
in adverse psychological milieu. ChildAbuseandfleglmtJG), 715-723.

Wald, MS. (1982). State intervention on behalf of endangered children: A proposed
legal teSponse. Wm 3-45.

Walker, LE. (1979). The Battered Woman. New York: Harper & Row Publishers.

Wauchope, B. A, & Straus, M. (1995). Physical punishment and physical abuse of
American children: Incidence rates by age, gender, and occupational status. In M. A. Straus
and RJ. Gelles (Eds. ). z =

Wes. (pp. 133- 166) New Bruswick, New Jersey: Transaction
Publishers.

 

Weintraub, M., & Wolf, BM (1983). Efl‘ects of stress and social supports on
mother-child interactions in single and two-parent families. Qtildllexeldpmew 1297-
131 1.

Weiss, B. ,I),odge K. A., Bates, J. E. ,& Petit, G. S. (1992). Some consequences of
early harsh discipline: Child aggression and a maladaptive social information processing style.

W 1321- 1335

Weissman Wind, T. & Silvem, L. (1994). Parenting and family stress as mediators
of the long-term effects of child abuse. W48(5),439453.

Werner, E. E. (1989). High-risk children 1n young adulthood: A longitudinal study
from birth to 32 years Amemmloumalnfflrthonmhratmiz 72- 81.

Werner, E.E., & Smith, RS. (1982). MW; New York:
McGraw-Hill Book Co.

Whipple, E.E., & Richey, CA. (1995). Crossing the line from physical discipline to

156

child abuse: How much is too much? Manuscript submitted for publication.

Whipple, E.E., & Webster-Stratton, C. (1991). The role of parental stress in
physically abusive families. ChildAbttsefldfleglm 279-291.

Widom, C S. (1989a). Does violence beget violence? A critical examination of the

literature WM (1) 3-28

Mdom, C. S. (1989b). Child abuse, neglect, and adult behavior: Research design and

findings on criminality, violence, and child abuse. WWW
59(3), 355-367.

Wodarski, J.S., Kurtz, P.D., Gaudin, J.M., & Howing, PT. (1990). Maltreatment in
the school-age child: Major academic, socioernotional, and adaptive outcomes. Sdcialflmk,

151.5), 506-513.

Wolfe, DA (1937) WWW
Embonathologx. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

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

momma) 657-665

Wolfe, D. A., Zak, L. ,Wilson, S. ,& Jaffe, P. (1986) Child witnesses to violence
between parents: Critical issues in behavioral and social adjustment WW

WU) 95-104

Wyman, P. A, Cowen, E. L. ,Work, W. C., & Parker, G. R (1991). Developmental and
family milieu conelates of resilience 1n urban children who have experiences major life stress.

Ameficanloumalnfflommmnmfimholouiw), 405-426.

Zuravin, S. J. ( 1 991). Research definitions of child physical abuse and neglect: Current

Problems In RH Stan & D A Wolfe (Eds ) EflectsnffihildAbuseandlfleglm New
York: Guilford Press.

APPENDIX A

Appendix A

Recruitment Procedures and Experimental Intervention for Larger Study

Recruitment Procedures: It was explained to the mothers and children that we have
a limited number of family paraprofessional advocates who can work with them at no charge
for a period of 16 weeks, six to eight hours a week. The staff member explained that we do
not have as many volunteers as there are women and children who use the shelter services,
and so they may or may not receive the extra service. It was explained that one volunteer
would be assigned to every two children in the family, and that each volunteer would 1) help
each child understand and cope with the violence they have witnessed or experienced, 2)
work on school-related activities if the child is school-aged, and 3) not only provide the child
with social support, but help the child develop or enhance such a relationship with another
adult in their lives. We finther explained that the vohmteer will assist the mother in accessing
needed resources such as housing, legal assistance, child care or social support. All work was
done at the farnily’s convenience and in the family's community.

Condition AssignmentUpon completion of the pre-intervention interview with the
mother, the interviewer opened a sealed envelope that indicated if the family would work with
a paraprofessional advocate(s) for 16 weeks. Condition assignment Was random . Families
in the control group were be contacted in 16 weeks for their next interview. Families in the
experimental group received services from the MSU F arnily Follow-up Study within two

weeks.

157

158

Experimental InterventionzThe services of 40 trained paraprofessionals were utilized.
All paraprofessionals were recruited through Michigan State University and received two
semesters of course credit for their participation.

The paraprofessionals received 40 hours of training over a 21 week period. They
learned about relationships among psychological variables, community resources, social
support, and community responsiveness as they relate to the future adjustment of children
who have witnessed and/or experienced domestic violence in their homes. An extremely
important part of training consisted of linking paraprofessionals with existing community
networks so that change would continue for the family after the project ended. Particular
emphasis was placed on identifying resources that will enhance the parent-child relationship
and provide social supports to both the mother and child. Paraprofessionals were also trained
in how to teach children alternative ways to deal with conflict, and practical ways for children
to protect themselves from violent situations. The latter focus was augmented by the support

and education group the children attend on a weekly basis.

APPENDIX B

Appendix B

Variables Measured in Intervention Study

All variables were measured at three time periods: pre, post (16 weeks), and follow-up
(32 weeks). Briefly, instruments in the larger MSU Family Follow-up Study measure:
1) Mother's and children's exposure to abuse and violence
2) Aspects of the children's external environment that may either buffer or increase stress and
thus may affect children's adjustment, such as social support, number of times moved, parental
separations, child custodial changes, school changes, and socioeconomic status
3) Psychological adjustment variables of the mothers that have been hypothesized in previous
research to mediate or moderate the effects of violence on children's adjustment: depression,
life satisfaction, self-esteem, and social support
4) Variables that involve mother's parenting effectiveness that have been implicated in the
research to mediate the effect of violence on children' adjustment: disciplinary tactics, parent-
child relationship, supervision behaviors.
5) Those psychological and behavioral adjustment variables hypothesized by previous
research to be affected by children's exposure to violence in the home: internalizing and
externalizing behaviors (depression, aggression), self-esteem, and knowledge or attitude and
use of violence.
6) Outcome variables, specifically the extent of psychological and physical violence in

mothers' and children's lives over time; children's internalizing and externalizing behaviors,

159

160

self-esteem, social support and ability to achieve academically, knowledge attitudes, and
coping skills regarding domestic violence.
7) Processes of the intervention, such as effectiveness of the advocacy efforts and components

of the educational program.

APPENDIX C

Appendix C

Demographic Information on Children and Mothers

1) CHILD’S SEX l = Female 2 = Male

2) CHILD’S AGE

 

3) What is your child’s race or ethnic background?
Black/Afiican American = l
White/Caucasian = 2
Hispanic/Chicano/Latina =
Asian-Pacific =
Native American =

Other ( ) =
4) What is your child’s birthdate? / /

 

5) School grade:

 

 

1) What is your race or ethnic background?
Black/Afiican American = 1
White/Caucasian = 2
Hispanic/Chicano/Latina =
Asian-Pacific =
Native American =

Other ( ) =

2) What is your date of birth? / /

 

3) How many children do you have?
4) What type of legal custody do you currently have of your children?

Full = 1
Temporary = 2
Joint = 3
None = 4

161

 

162

5) How many of your children are currently living with you?

6) Are you receiving any governmental assistance such as ADC, SSI, Section 8 or food

stamps?
Yes = 1
No = 2

7 )In the last 4 months, have you been employed?
Yes = 1
N0 = 2

8) Are you employed right now? What type of work do/did you do? (If employed in last 4
months)

9) Do/did you work part-time, full-time, or sporadicallly?

10) Does/did your job include any fringe benefits such as medical insurance, retirement,
sick time, etc?

11) Are you currently a student?
Yes = 1
N0 = 2

12) What’s your educational level now?

Less than high school =1
High school graduate =2
Trade school graduate =3
Some college =4
College graduate =5
Professional degree =6

13) What is your monthly family income right now? (Include ADC, rent vendored, food
stamps, Sectino 8, child support and income of assailant if applicable).

14) How many people does this income support?

 

APPENDIX D

Appendix D

Pilot Procedures and Development of the Neglect Questionnaires

The development and refinement of the Neglect questionnaires underwent three
phases. First, the child questionnaires were administered to three children between the ages
of 7 and 11 to assess the clarity of the questions. This was also done to assess whether or not
the "thermometers" on the questionnaire were able to help the children better understand the
concepts of "A Little" and " A Lot." They appeared to be very helpful and the children often
pointed to the thermometers when responding to questions. Following this pilot data
collection, some items were changed which appeared to be dimcult for the children to
understand.

The mother's questionnaires were piloted with 15 mothers, 5 of whom were residents
at CADA to assess the appropriateness of the questions. Many of the mothers gave helpful
written and verbal feedback and changes were made to questions when deemed appropriate.

After final changes were made to both mother and child's questionnaires, these were
utilized for the first wave of data collection for the cunent project which began on March, 4,
1995. Seventeen mothers and 25 children completed the questionnaires. Feedback was
provided by mother and child interviewers about the appropriateness of the questions
throughout the data collection phase. Mothers appeared to understand the questions well.
However, there were two questions on the children's neglect scales that appeared problematic;

children appeared confused by these questions even when they were repeated; Question #7)

163

 

164

"My mom seems to talk with me and spend time with me only when she really has to" was
changed to "I think my mom wishes she didn't have to spend time with me," and Question
#22) "I don 't know when my mom will respond to me: that is, sometimes she answers my
questions and talks to me and sometimes she doesn't," was changed to "I can always count

on my mom to answer my questions and talk to me. "

APPENDIX E

Appendix E

Questionnaire on Mother

We are interested in finding out how often you feel your mom does certain things and what it‘s like to
have her for a mom. Iwould like you to decide whether the following statements about your mom are “NOT AT
ALL TRUE,” “NOT VERY TRUE,” “SOMEWHAT TRUE.“ or “VERY TRUE." Remember. like anything else
you tell me, I will not talk about what you say with anyone. Also, there are no right or wrong answers; every mornb

 

 

 

 

 

is different, so answer as honestly as you can. ————1-
1 2
Not at all Not Very
True True
(Never) (A Little)

1) My mom finds time to play with me ................. l .......... 2 ........ 3 .......... 4
2) Mymomgetsmadatme ..................... ‘ ..... 1.. 2 ........ 3 .......... 4
3) My mom likes being a mom ....................... l .......... 2 ........ 3 .......... 4
4) My mom leaves me (and my brothers and sisters)

alone when she goes out ........................... 1 .......... 2 ........ 3 .......... 4
5) My mom makes sure that I get to school everyday, even

ifshehadto take me to school herself ................ l .......... 2 ........ 3 .......... 4
6) My mom makes sure that I have breakfast on schoolday

and weekends ................................... l .......... 2 ........ 3 .......... 4
7) I think my mom wishes she did not have to spend time

with me ........................................ l .......... 2 ........ 3 .......... 4
8) I know where my mom is and how to reach her ........ 1 .......... 2 ........ 3 .......... 4
9) My mom asks me about my day at school ............. 1 .......... 2 ........ 3 .......... 4
10) Mymomtellsmethatltakeuptoomuchofhertime ...1 .......... 2 ........ 3 ......... 4
1 1) My mom makes sure that a responsible adult watches me 1 .......... 2 ........ 3 .......... 4
12) My mom tells me that I am to blame for many of

her problems .................................... l .......... 2 ........ 3 .......... 4
13) Mymommakessurethatleathealthymealseveryday..1 .......... 2 ........ 3 .......... 4
14) My mom ignores me; that is, she doesn’t pay attention

to me .......................................... 1 .......... 2 ........ 3 .......... 4
15) My mom asks me to tell her about my problems ....... 1 .......... 2 ........ 3 .......... 4
16) My mom makes sure that I get enough sleep every

night so I’m not tired the next day ................... l .......... 2 ........ 3 .......... 4
17) 1 eat a lot of junk food (candy, chips) because my mom

doesn’thave time tocookormakesureleat good food .. 1 .......... 2 ........ 3 .......... 4

165

166

(NOTE: RESPONSES AND ”T HERUOME T ERS ” IDENTICAL T O THOSE ON PREVIOUS PAGE)

18) I eat a lot of junk food because my mom doesn’t have

the money to buy food to cook meals ................ l .......... 2 ........ 3 ........... 4
19) My mom tells me that I cost too much money to support . l .......... 2 ......... 3 ........... 4
20) Mymom makessurelget whatlneed ............... 1 .......... 2 ......... 3 ........... 4
21) My mom asks me to tell her what I think and listens

to what I say .................................... l .......... 2 ......... 3 ........... 4
22) I can always count on my mom to answer my questions

and talk to me ................................... 1 .......... 2 ......... 3 ........... 4
23) I feel safe around my mom ........................ 1 .......... 2 ......... 3 ........... 4
24) My mom tells me that I talk up too much of her energy . . l .......... 2 ......... 3 ........... 4
25) My mom makes sure I have clean clothes to wear

everyday ....................................... 1 .......... 2 ......... 3 ........... 4
26) My mom seems bored (like she’s not listening) when

I talk to her ..................................... l .......... 2 ......... 3 ........... 4
27) My mom makes sure that our home is a safe place

for me (and my brothers and sisters) ................. 1 .......... 2 ......... 3 ........... 4

28) My mom is there for me ........................... l .......... 2 ......... 3 ........... 4

29) My mom bugs me ............................... 1 .......... 2 ......... 3 ........... 4

30) My mom tells me that she loves me ................. l .......... 2 ......... 3 ........... 4

31) Mymomasksmehowlamfeeling .................. l .......... 2 ......... 3 ........... 4

32) My mom makes sure she knows where I am ........... 1 .......... 2 ......... 3 ........... 4

33) My mom seems to have fun when she is with me ....... 1 .......... 2 ......... 3 ........... 4

APPENDIX F

Appendix F

Questionnaire on Assailant and F ather*

(*The appropriate name is filled in in the blankinthis does not read ”assailant " to the child)

We are interested in finding out how often you feel does certain things and what it’s like to have him
around or what it was like to be with him when he was around. I would like you to decide whether the following
statements about_ are “NOT AT ALL TRUE.“ ‘NOT VERY TRUE ” “ SOMEWHAT TRUE, ” or “VERY
TRUE. ” Remember, like anything else you tell me I will not talk about what you say with anyone. Also, there
are no right or wrong answers so answer as honestly as you can. (If child does not currently see___ say “Think

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

back to when you spent time with___ ”and ask questions as they are).
If] I a
l , 4%
l 2 3
Not at all Not Very Somewhat
True True True True
(Never) (A Little) (Sometimes) (A lot)

1) _likestakingcareofme ........................ l .......... 2 .. ...... 3 .......... 4
2) _finds time to play with me .................... l .......... 2 ........ 3 .......... 4
3) Ithink _wisheshedidnothavetospendtimewithme 1 .......... 2 ........ 3 .......... 4
4) __tellsmeltakeuptoomnchofhistime ............ 1 .......... 2 ........ 3 .......... 4
5) _ hugs me .................................... 1 .......... 2 ........ 3 .......... 4
6) _tellsmelamtoblameformanyofhisproblems....1 .......... 2.. ...... 3 .......... 4
7) _ ignores me; that is, he doesn’t pay attention to me . . . 1 .......... 2 ........ 3 .......... 4
8) __ asks me to tell him about my problems ........... l .......... 2 ........ 3 .......... 4
9) _tellsmelcosttoomuchmoneytosupport and

take care of .................................... l .......... 2 ........ 3 .......... 4
10)__seemstohavefunwhenheiswithme ............ 1 .......... 2 ........ 3 ......... 4
ll) _asksmetotellhimwhatlthinkandlistenstowhat

I say .......................................... l .......... 2 ........ 3 .......... 4
12) Ifeel safe around_ ............................. l .......... 2 ........ 3 .......... 4
l3)_tellsmeltakeuptoomuchofhisenergy .......... 1 .......... 2 ........ 3 .......... 4
l4) __ seems bored (like he’s not listening) when I talk

to him ......................................... 1 ........ . . 2 ........ 3 .......... 4
15) _ is there for me ............................... 1 .......... 2 ........ 3 .......... 4
l6) _ tells me that he loves me ....................... 1 .......... 2 ........ 3 .......... 4
17) _asksme howlamfeeling ...................... l .......... 2 ........ 3 .......... 4
18) I can always count on __ to answer my questions and

talk to me . .......................... l ....... 2 ...... 3 ....... 4

 

APPENDIX G

Appendix G

Parenting Questionnaire

Using the following scale, please think about your child(ren) who are between the ages of 7 and I] and tell us
whether you feel the following statements are “NOT AT ALL TRUE,” “NOT VERY TRUE,” “SOMEWHAT
TRUE,” or “VERY TRUE” with regard to your children. Please circle the appropriate response, “ l ", “2", “3",
or “4" for each question. Remember that all of your responses will be completely confidential. We are just trying
to understand better what goes on with mothers and their children when they are going through a stressful time.

1 2 3 4
Not at all Not Very Somewhat Very
True True True True
(Never) (A Little) (Sometimes) (A lot)
1) I find time to play with my child(ren) ................ l .......... 2 ........ 3 .......... 4
2) I get angry at my child(ren) ........................ l .......... 2 ........ 3 .......... 4
3) Overall, I enjoy being a parent to my child(ren) ........ 1 .......... 2 ........ 3 .......... 4
4) I leave my child(ren) alone when I go out ............. l .......... 2 ........ 3 .......... 4
5) 1 make sure that my child(ren) get to school everyday, even
if it means I have to take them myself ................ l .......... 2 ........ 3 .......... 4
6) I am able to manage day-to-day care of my child(ren) . . . l .......... 2 ........ 3 .......... 4
7) My child(ren) prevent me from leading the kind of life
I want to lead ................................... l .......... 2 ........ 3 .......... 4
8) I make sure that my child(ren) have breakfast on
schooldays and on weekends ....................... l .......... 2 ........ 3 .......... 4
9) ItseemsItalkandspendtimewithmychild(ren)only
when it is necessary .............................. l .......... 2 ........ 3 .......... 4
10) Children are overemotional ........................ 1 .......... 2 ........ 3 .......... 4
11) I ask my child(ren) about their day at school ........... 1 .......... 2 ........ 3 .......... 4
12) I feel that my child(ren) take up too much of my time . . . l .......... 2 ........ 3 .......... 4
13) My child(ren) receive constant supervision ............ l .......... 2 ........ 3 .......... 4
14) My child(ren) are to blame for many of my problems . . . l .......... 2 ........ 3 .......... 4
15) I make sure my child(ren) eat healthy meals every day . . 1 .......... 2 ........ 3 .......... 4
16) I ignore my child(ren) ............................ l .......... 2 ........ 3 .......... 4
l7) 1 encourage my child(ren) to talk with me about their
problems ....................................... l .......... 2 ........ 3 .......... 4
18) [fl were to do it over again, I would not have children . . . l .......... 2 ........ 3 .......... 4
19) I resent my child(ren) ............................. l .......... 2 ........ 3 .......... 4
20) I make sure my child(ren) get enough sleep every night
sothey’renottiredthe nextday ..................... 1 .......... 2 ........ 3 .......... 4

168

169

(NOTE: RESPONSES [DENT 1 CAL TO THOSE ON PREVIOUS PAGE)

21) I am unresponsive to my children ................... l .......... 2 ........ 3 .......... 4
22) My children eat too much junk food because I do not

have time to cook or monitor what they eat ............ l .......... 2 ........ 3 .......... 4
23) My children eat too much junk food because I do not

have the money to buy food to cook meals ............ l .......... 2 ........ 3 .......... 4
24) I feel that my children cost too much money to support . l .......... 2 ........ 3 ......... 4
25) Mychildren canrelyonmytomeettheirneeds ........ l .......... 2 ........ 3 .......... 4
26) I respect my children’s opinions and encourage them

to express them .................................. l .......... 2 ........ 3 .......... 4
27) I am inconsistent in how I respond to my children;

that is, sometimes I respond and sometimes I don’t ..... l .......... 2 ........ 3 .......... 4
28) My children feel safe around me .................... 1 .......... 2 ........ 3 .......... 4
29) Ifeelthatmy children takeuptoomuchofmyenergy . .. l .......... 2 ........ 3 .......... 4
30) My children have clean clothes to wear everyday ....... l .......... 2 ........ 3 .......... 4
31)Iamboredanddisinterestedwhenmychildrentalktome l .......... 2 ........ 3 .......... 4
32) Children are unable to form opinions ................ 1 .......... 2 ........ 3 .......... 4
33) Ifeel that where we live is an unhealthy or dangerous

environment for my children ....................... l .......... 2 ........ 3 .......... 4
34) I am accessible and available to my children .......... 1 .......... 2 ........ 3 .......... 4
35) Iknowwheremychildrenareandhowtoreachthem 1 .......... 2 ........ 3 .......... 4
36) Children’s feelings don’t get hurt as easily as adults ..... l .......... 2 ........ 3 .......... 4
37) I tell my children that I love them ................... I .......... 2 ........ 3 .......... 4
38) I hug my children ................................ 1 .......... 2 ........ 3 .......... 4
39) I can tell how my children are feeling ................ l .......... 2 ........ 3 .......... 4

40)Ienjoythetimelspendwithmychildren ............. I .......... 2 ........ 3 .......... 4

APPENDIX H

Appendix H

Scale Assignment of Neglect Items

Child Report of Emotional Neglect by
Mother, Assailant and Father

Mother Report of Emotional Neglect

 

*_ finds time to play with me.

I think __ wishes didn’t have to spend time
w/me

*_ asks me about my day at school
_ ignores me, doesn’t pay attention to me

*_ asks me to tell __ about my problems

*_ asks me to tell her what I think and listens
to what I say

*I can always count on _ to answer 7’s and
talk with me

*I feel safe around _

__ seems bored when I talk to her

*_ is there for me

*_ hugs me
*_ tells me she loves me
*_ asks me how I am feeling

*_ seems to have fun when s/he is with me

*I find time to play with my children

It seems I talk with and spend time with my
children only when it is necessary

*I ask my children about their day at school
I ignore my children

*I encourage my children to talk with me
about their problems

*I respect my children’s opinions and
encourage them to express them

I am inconsistent in how I respond to my
children

*My children feel safe around me

I am bored and disinterested when my
children talk to me

*I am accessible and available to my
children

*I hug my children
*I tell my children that I love them
*I can tell how my children are feeling

*I enjoy the time I spend with my children

 

* = Item reverse scored

170

171

Child Report of Physical Neglect by Mother

Mother Report of Physical Neglect

 

Mom leaves me alone when she goes out

*Mom makes sure I get to school everyday, even
if she has to take me herself

*Mom makes sure I have breakfast on
schooldays and weekends

*1 know where my mom is and how to reach her

*My mom makes sure a responsible adult
watches me

*My mom makes sure I eat healthy meals every
day

*Mom makes sure I get enough sleep every night
so I’m not tired the next day

I eat a lot of junk food because mom doesn’t
have time to cook or make sure I eat good food

I eat a lot of junk food because mom doesn’t
have money to buy food to cook meals

*Mom makes sure I get what I need

*Mom makes sure I have clean clothes to wear
everyday

*Mom makes sure our home is a safe place for

me

*Mom makes sure she knows where I am

I leave my children alone when I go out

I make sure my children get to school
everyday, even if I have to take them
myself

*I make sure my children have breakfast
on schooldays and weekends

Not asked

*My children receive constant
supervision

*I make sure my children eat healthy
meals every day

*I make sure my children get enough
sleep every night so they’re not tired the
next day

My children eat too much junk food
because I do not have time to cook or
monitor what they eat

My children eat too mch junk food
because I do not have money to buy
food to cook meals

*My children can rely on me to meet
their needs

*My children have clean clothes to wear
everyday
I feel that where we live is an unhealthy

or dangerous environment for my
children

*I know where my children are and how
to reach them

 

* = Item reverse scored

APPENDIX I

Appendix I

Child and Mother Reports of Child Witnessing Violence

Mignon:

Children are shown prompt cards with the following response categories:

*Xfllgflmgd; 1 = Never, 2 = A little, 3 = Sometimes, 4 = A lot
(This card has visual “thermometers ”)

*Einkflard; l = Never, 2 = Once a month or less, 3 = 2 or 3 times a month,
4 = Once or twice a week, 5 = 3 or 4 times a week, 6 = More than 4 times
a week

1) How much would you say you’ve heard your mom and (A) arguing? (Yellow card)

2) How often have you heard your mom and (A)_ yelling or screaming at each other, or
one screaming or yelling at the other? (Yellow card)

3) There are many things people do to annoy or hurt each other such as making fun of
someone or calling them names and saying things to make them feel bad. How often has
(A)_ said or done any of these types of things to your mom? (Yellow card)

4) About how often have you seen or heard (A)_ threaten to hurt your mom? (Pink card)

5) About how often have you seen or hear (A)_ hurt your mom physically? By that I mean
anything from grabbing or slapping her to punching or kicking her. (Pink card)

MmheLrepnrt:

1) There are some things that men might do to armoy or hurt their partners such as ridiculing,
criticizing, controlling or humiliating them. I want you to recall how many times (child)
__ has ever seen or heard (A) __ do any of these things to you. (Yellow card)

2) Now I would like to ask you questions about whether (C)_ might have seen or heard
any of the abuse you’ve experienced. How many times has (C) _ ever seen or heard (A)
_ threaten you? (Pink card)

3) How many times has (C)_ ever seen or heard (A) _ physically harm you or attempt
to harm you? (Pink card)

4) When the abuse or violence was directed at you, how many times has (A)_ every tried
to harm or physically harmed (C) ? (Pink card)

172

APPENDIX J

Appendix J

Conflict Tactics Scale: Child Report

’ rfr

No matter how well behaved you are, there are times when you don’t do things when you mom and
want you to, or times when you may get in a fight with you mom or _. You may also get mad at each other
because one of you is in a bad mood or tired, or for some other reason. Your mom and __ might do many
things to try to get you to behave or punish you. I am going to read you a list of some things that some people
do when they don’t like what kids are doing or sometimes just when they are mad. Using the yellow card, I
want you to tell me how often __ does any of these things.

Never = I
A little = 2
Sometimes = 3
A lot = 4

How often has _

1) Talked to you about how you were misbehaving (not included in verbal abuse scale)
2) Argued with you, but did not yell at you (not included in verbal abuse scale)
3) Yelled at you

4) Criticized, ridiculed or make fun of you

5) Insulted you, or called you bad names or said things to make you feel bad

6) Threatened to abandon or leave you

7) Threatened to hit you

8) Thrown something at you

9) Pushed, grabbed or shoved you

10) Hit you with a hand, like a spanking or slap

l 1) Hit you with something hard other than his hand

12) Kicked you

13) Hit you with his fist, such as punching

14) Beat you

15) Threatened you with a gun or knife

16) Used a gun or knife against you

Were you ever hurt in any of the following ways because of what _ did to you?
Did you ever get: (Yes or No?)

a) Soreness without bruises

b) Cuts, scrapes, bruises, red marks or welts

c) Burns, including rug burns

(1) Loose or broken teeth

e) Broken bones

f) Knife or gunshot wound

g) Permanent scars

173

APPENDIX K

 

Appendix K

Conflict Tactics Scale: Mother Report

UOt‘ ‘HI 0 ..,- t" O‘l‘t "0 -. .-_.-..1 2.3141"!
I would like to ask you whether _ has ever done any of the following things to
(child)___ (Yes or no)

1) Break(child’s) glasses or tear his/her clothing

2) Push, grab, shove or slap (C)

3) Punch, kick, choke or burn (C)

4) Thrown something at (C)_ try to hit (C)_ with an object, or hit (C)_ with an
object

5) Threaten (C)_ with a gun or knife or use a gun or knife against (C)_

(IF CHILD WAS HARMED AT ALL)
Did (C)_ ever sustain any of the following injuries because of ’5 use of physical
punishment or abuse? (Yes or no)

a) Soreness without bruises
b) Cuts, scrapes, bruises, red marks or welts
c) Burns, including rug burns

(1) Loose or broken teeth

e) Broken bones or fractures

f) Internal injuries

3) Strains or sprains

h) Dislocated joints

i) Knife or gunshot wounds

j) Permanent scarring

k) Any other physical injuries? (Specify)

 

174

APPENDIX L

Appendix L

Children’s Depression Inventory

Instructions: Kids sometimes have different feelings and ideas. This questionnaire lists feelings and ideas in
groups. From each group, I would like you to pick one sentence that describes you best for the PAST TWO
WEEKS. Remember, there are no right or wrong answers. Just pick the sentence that best describes the way

on have been recently.

 

Item I
Ellamsadonceinawhile
D I am sad many times

D I am sad all the time

Item 8

D All had things are my fault

D Many bad things are my fault

U Bad things are not usually my fault

 

Item 2

D Nothing will ever work out for me

D I am not sure if things will work out for me
D things will work out for me o.k.

Item 9

D I do not think about killing myself

D I think about killing myself but I
would not do it

D I want to kill myself

 

 

 

Item 3 Item 10

D I do most things o.k. D I feel like crying everyday

D I do many things wrong D I feel like crying many days

D I do everything wrong D I feel like crying once in a while
Item 4 Item I I

D I have firn in many things El Things bother me all the time

D I have fun in some things D Things bother me many times

E1 Nothing is firn at all El Things bother me once in a while
Item 5 Item 12

D I am bad all the time D I like being with people

D I am bad many times
D I am bad once in a while

B I do not like being with people many
times
D I do not want to be with people at all

 

Item 6

E! I think about bad things happening to me once
in a while

B I worry that bad things will happen to me

D I am sure that terrible things will happen to me

Item 13

D I cannot make up my mind about
things

U It’s hard to make up mind about things
D I make up my mind about things easily

 

 

Item 7

D I hate myself

D I do not like myself
D I like myself

 

Item 14

D I look o.k.

D There are some bad things about my
looks

D I look ugly

 

175

 

176

 

Item 15

D I have to push myself all the time to do my
schoolwork

D I have to push myself many times to do my
schoolwork

El Doing schoolwork is not a big problem

Item 22

D I have plenty of fiiends

D I have some friends but I wish I had
more

D I do not have any fiiends

 

Item 16
D I have trouble sleeping every night
D I have trouble sleeping may nights

Item 23
U My schoolwork is alright
D My schoolwork is not as good as

 

D I sleep pretty well before
D I do very badly in subjects I used to be
good in
Item 17 Item 24

D I am tired once in a while.
D I am tired many days
D I am tired all the time

D I can never be as good as other kids

D I can be as good as other kids ifI want
to

D I am just as good as other kids

 

Item 18

CI Most days I do not feel like eating
El Many days I do not feel like eating
D I eat pretty well

Item 25

D Nobody really loves me

D I am not sure if anybody loves me
D I am sure that somebody loves me

 

Item 19

D I do not worry about aches and pains

D I worry about aches and pains many times
D I worry about aches and pains all the time

Item 26

D I usually do what I am told

D I do not do what I am told most times
D I never do what I am told

 

Item 20

D I do not feel alone

D I feel alone many times
U I feel alone all the time

Item 27

D I get along with people

U I get into fights many times
D I get into fights all the time

 

 

Item 21

D I never have fun at school

D I have firn at school only once in a while
B I have fun at school many times

 

 

 

..W'

APPENDIX M

Appendix M

Harter Scale of Perceived Self-Competence for Children

INSTRUCTIONS: This is a questionnaire entitled “WHAT I AM LIKE.” We are interested in finding out what you
are like. Remember, there are no right or wrong answers. Since kids are very difierent from one another, every
kid will be putting down something different. First, I want you to decide whether you are more like the kids on the
lefi side or whether you are more like fire kids on the right side. Now, the second thing I want you to think about
, now that you have decided which kind of kids are most like you, is to decide whether that is only SORT OF
TRUE for you, or REALLY TRUE for you. (For each sentence only one box is checked).

Really Sort of Sort of Really
True True True True
for me for me for me for me
Some kids feel they are very BUT Other kids worry
D D good at their schoolwork about whether they D D
1- cando schoolwork
assigned to them
[3 D Some kids find it hard to BUT Other kids find it’s
make friends pretty easy to make
2' friends
Some kids do very well at all BUT Other kids don’t feel
3 D D kinds of sports they are very good D E]
' when it comes to
sports
Some kids are happy with BUT Other kids are not
4 D D the way they look happy with the way D D
‘ they look
Some kids often do not like BUT Other kids usually
5 D D the way they behave like the way they D D
' behave
Some kids are often unhappy BUT Other kids are pretty
6 E] [j with themselvs pleased with E] E]
‘ themselves
Some kids feel they are just BUT Other kids aren’t so
7D D assmartasotherkidstheir sureandwonderif D D
' age they are as smart
Some kids have a lot of BUT Other kids don’t have
,D III ...... mm... D Cl

177

Really Sort of
True True
for me for me

913

E]

Cl E] Cl E] El E]

I] E] El Cl C]

178

Some kids wish they could
be a lot better at sports

Some kids are happy with
their height and weight

Some kids usually do the
right thing

Some kids don’t like the way
they are leading their life

Some kids are pretty slow in
finishing their schoolwork

Some kids would like to
have a lot more fiiends

Some kids think they could
do well at just about any new
sports they haven’t tried
before

Some kids wish their body
was different

Some kids usually act the
way they know they are
supposed to

Some kids are happy with
themselves as a person

Some kids often forget what
they learn

Some kids are always doing
things with a lot of kids

BUT

BUT

BUT

BUT

BUT

BUT

BUT

BUT

BUT

BUT

BUT

BUT

Other kids feel they
are good enough at
sports

Other kids wish their
height or weight were
different

Other kids often don’t
do the right thing

Other kids do like the
way they are leading
their life

Other kids can do
their schoolwork
quickly

Other kids have as
many friends as they
want

Other kids are afraid
they might not do well
at sports they haven’t
ever tried

Other kids like their
body the way it is

Otherkidsoftendo
notactthewaythey
aresupposedto

Other kids are often

not happy with
themselves

Other kids can
remember things
easily

Other kids usually do
things by themselves

Sort of Really
True True
for me for me

E]

El Cl D E] El El

El El El CI Cl
E] El E] E] El

El

[I [I El Cl Cl El

Really Sort of
True True
for me for me

2kg

[I D E] El El E] CI in “in T: T:

N
.o‘

u b.) N N
-- .o >0 90

b.)
.N

[I [I [I D El Cl E] E] El Cl [J E]

179

Some kids feel they are
better than others their age at
sports

Some kids wish their
physical appearance (how
they look) was different

Some kids usually get in
trouble because of things
they do

Some kids like the kind of of
person they are

Some kids do very well at
their classwork

Some kids wish that more
people their age liked them

In games and sports some
kids usually watch instead of

oplay

Some kids wish something
about their face or hair
looked different

Some kids do things they
know fliey shouldn’t do

Some kids are very happy
being the way they are

Some kids have trouble
figuring out the answers in
school

Some kids are popular with
others their age

BUT

BUT

BUT

BUT

BUT

BUT

BUT

BUT

BUT

BUT

BUT

BUT

Other kids don’t feel
they can play as well

Other kids like their
physical appearance
the way it is

Other kids usually
don’t do things that
get them in trouble

Other kids often wish
they were someone
else

Other kids don’t do
very well at their
classwork

Other kids feel that
most people their age
do like them

Other kids usually
play rather then just
watch

Other kids like their
face and hair the way
they are

Other kids hardly ever
do things they know
they shouldn’t do

Other kids wish they
were different

one: kids almost
always can figme out
the answers

Other kids are not
very popular

Sort of Really
True True
for me for me

CID

El El El Cl [3 El Cl D [I El E]
E] El E] El E] [I E] E] E] El El

Really Sort of
True True
for me for me

33.13

E]

[I
D
[I

180

Some kids don’t do well at
new outdoor games

Some kids think they are
good looking

Some kids behave
themselves very well

Some kids are not very
happy with the way they do a
lot of things

BUT

BUT

BUT

BUT

Other kids are good at
new games right away

Other kids think that
they are not very good
looking

Other kids often find
it hard to behave
themselves

Other kids think the
way they do things is
fine

Sort of Really
True True
for me for me

E]

El
El
D

[I

El
El
El

APPENDIX N

Appendix N

Child Behavior Checklist (Revised)

INSTRUCTIONS: Below is a list of items that describe children and youth. For each item that describes your child
noworwithin the past4 months, please circle the 2 ifthe items is very true or often true ofyour child. Circle
the 1 if the item is somewhat true of your child. Ifthe item is m of yom' child, circle the Q. Please answer
all items as well as you can, even if some do not seem to apply to your child.

Not Sometimes or Very True
True Somewhat True or Often True
1. Argues a lot ............................ O ................. l ................ 2
2. Can’t concentrate, can’t pay attention for long . 0 ................. l ................ 2
3. Can’t sit still, restless or hyperactive ......... 0 ................. 1 ................ 2
4. Clings to adults or too dependent ............ O ................. l ................ 2
5. Complains of loneliness ................... 0 ................. 1 ................ 2
6. Day-dreamsorgetslostinhis/herthoughts.... 0 ................. l ................ 2
7. Disobedient at home ...................... O ................. 1 ................ 2
8. Fears he/she might think or do something bad . O ................. l ................ 2
9. Feels or complains that no one loves him/her . . 0 ................. 1 ................ 2
10. Feels worthless or inferior ................. 0 ................. l ................ 2
I 1. Gets in many fights ...................... 0 ................. l ................ 2
12. Would rather be alone than with others ....... 0 ................. I ................ 2
13. Poor school work ........................ 0 ................. l ................ 2
l4. Poorly coordinated or clumsy .............. 0 ................. I ................ 2
15. Stubborn, sullen or irritable ................ 0 ................. I ................ 2
l6. Temper tantrums orhot temper ............. 0 ................. l ................ 2
17. Underactive, slow moving, or lacks energy . . . . O ................. l ................ 2
18 Unhappy, sad, or depressed ................ 0 ................. I ................ 2
l9. Worries ................................ 0 ................. l ................ 2
20.1nthelast4months,hasyourchildbeenonany
prescription medication (for example Ritalin)
for behavior problems? ................. Yes ................ No

181

.1. I‘ll“ ‘
FM

 

APPENDIX O

Appendix 0

Children’s Social Support Questionnaire

INSTRUCTIONS TO INT ERVIEWERS: The purpose of this questionnaire is to get as many people in the child 's
life that provide him/her with support. Make sure tha tyou give the child enough time to think about who these
people might be. Prompt or probe for responses without being too pushy. Put the first name of each person,
and their relationship to the child on each line. Do not wed fire ten spaces. For example: child says she
hangs out with sally. Ask who Sally is— afi‘iend, cousin, sister... If child can ’t think of anyone, put no one. Probe
for approximate age.

I’dliketostartoutbyaskingyouabout people inyour life thatyou maydocertainthings with, orpeople thatmay
do certain things for you. I want you to list as many people as you can for each question. I will ask you for their
name, and their relationship to you (i.e., mom, dad, friend, teacher).

1. Who do you hang outwith, for example, at their house, your house, around the
neighborhood, or at school, etc?

(a)
(b)

(C) (the actual questionnaire has ten lines for responses)

 

2. Who do you think are firn people to talk with, for instance, about things you like to do
or TV. shows, etc?

3. Who listens to you when you need to talk about something person, for example, about
problems between you and your parents, problems with fiiends, things like that?

4. Who do you feel really cares about you?

5. Who can you really count on to always be there for you?

182

.3

 

ijlllliill

l.u|ri't\l‘lll\ll‘

HICHIGRN STRTE UNIV. LIBRARIES
l l l Will ll Ill ll “Ill Ill l l l Ill Ill Ill Ill ll 1 ll
31293014278877