A Critical Review of the Psychometric Evidence Base of the Child Abuse Potential Inventory

Screening for potential child abuse is an essential component of work in many child and family services. The Child Abuse Potential inventory (CAP; Milner 1986) is one measure developed to help in this task. The primary aim of this review is to critically evaluate studies reporting psychometric information of the CAP. A previous paper by Milner (Clinical Psychology Review 14(6): 547–583 1994) reviewed studies evaluating the psychometric properties of the measure up to 1994. Since then over 100 articles have been published that consider the measurement properties of this tool. This review considers 27 papers published since Milner’s (Clinical Psychology Review 14(6): 547–583 1994) review that clarify previous findings in relation to specific psychometric properties of the CAP. In particular, this review focuses on studies that provide information on the cross-cultural validity of the CAP, on the internal consistency of the CAP measure as a whole and its subscales, or on sensitivity and specificity classification rates. Studies providing information on the differential validity of the CAP (using at least two differentiated sample groups) or the efficacy of the CAP to identify change are also considered. Published evidence suggests that the CAP can help assess for a range of difficulties associated with increased risk for physical child abuse. The CAP scales have shown good internal consistency estimates across sample groups and cultures, with similar underlying themes for CAP factors reported for the different cultures studied. The differential validity of the CAP has also been shown, although sensitivity and specificity classification rates have varied. The CAP appears able to indicate some degree of pre—to post-intervention change, although further investigation is required to clarify what changes in CAP scores actually reflect. Further investigation of this measure in other countries is also required.     

Mapping deliberation: calculation,articulation and intervention in the politics of organ transplantation

Abstract

This paper reflects on the aims and outcomes of an innovative methodology of participatory technology appraisal, called Deliberative Mapping, which seeks to contribute to theoretical debates and practical experimentation around what it might mean to bring the technosciences into democracy. Deliberative Mapping is a hybrid methodology, involving both calculative and deliberative processes, which seeks to map the entanglements of biotechnological imbroglios, and translate these connections into the contexts of decision-making. Through application to the case study of organ transplantation, these procedures of calculation and articulation are critically examined, exploring their aim to reduce asymmetries between scientific, political, economic and other framings of the issue and their operation in contexts already complexly structured through existing power relations, which indicate the challenge of co-fabricating these experimental forms of intervention into political facts.     

Effects of prior knowledge and expert statement on belief in recovered memories: an international perspective

We tested the hypothesis that beliefs in the purported attributes of recovered memories of child sexual abuse (CSA) are associated with knowledge of the "recovered/false memory debate", and that such beliefs will be related to assessments of the credibility of statements made by participants in a vignette about CSA. Participants from five countries (the United States, Canada, New Zealand, the United Kingdom and Israel) responded to a questionnaire regarding beliefs about recovered memory as well as self-reported exposure to and knowledge of the debate. In addition, they assessed the credibility of statements made by a daughter (reporting recovery of memories of sexual abuse by her father), her father (denying the allegation and accusing the daughter's therapist of implanting in her false "memories" of abuse), and two experts (each supporting one of the two protagonists). We found that prior knowledge of the debate across countries was linked to beliefs in specific attributes of recovered memories and to a subset of the credibility assessments of statements made by the protagonists and their experts. For individuals, however, credibility assessments were unrelated to knowledge of the debate, but they were related to beliefs about memory recovery. Finally, credibility of the protagonists' statements was differentially associated with those made by the daughter's and the father's experts. The results suggest that whereas familiarity with the debate does not affect the credibility of the statements made by the complainant and the accused, expert testimony does, as has been found in prior research. The psycholegal implications of this conclusion are discussed.