Quantifying the Degree of Interparental Conflict - the Spectrum Between Conflict and Forms of Maltreatment and Abuse
- 114 Downloads
Interparental conflict is detrimental to the development of children. Only few methods for quantifying the degree of interparental conflict exist and this produces controversies about what is detrimental to child well-being and what is not. This is particularly critical in cases where there is a form of child abuse or maltreatment that cannot be diagnosed because of the lack of standards or criteria. The present study describes a method for quantifying the degree of interparental conflict on the basis of a generalizable measure which is scalable, robust, and reproducible. The method is developed on the data basis of a survey study, in which 1146 parents reported 46,720 items on the topic of hostile-aggressive parenting. The algorithm can estimate the degree of child abuse and child maltreatment which is particularly relevant for assessments of non-sexual forms of child maltreatment or abuse. The present methodology differs from classical psychometric approaches and available instruments in that its application yields the practically interpretable measure of a ‘loss of child well-being’ and that this measure can be dynamically adapted to child welfare standards changing in a society over the years. The approach identifies criteria which family courts or child welfare agencies should use for assessing interparental conflicts in a standardized and reproducible manner.
KeywordsChild well-being Hostile-aggressive parenting Interparental conflict Emotional abuse Psychometrics Instrument
We thank the following persons for contributing to the rating study 2014 (Duerr et al. 2015): Dr. W. Andritzky, Prof. Dr. G. Deegener, Dr. C. Dum, Dr. A. Camps, W. Fischer, F. Godinho, Dr. Li Li, J. Rudolph, Prof. Dr. P. F. Schlottke, Prof. Dr. R. Treptow, Prof. Dr. R. Wulf.
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Conflict of Interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
- Ackerman, M. J., & Schoendorf, K. (1992). ASPECT: Ackerman-Schoendorf Scales for Parent Evaluation of Custody. Los Angeles: Western Psychological Services.Google Scholar
- Duerr, H.-P., Duerr-Aguilar, Y. A., Andritzky, W., Camps, A., Deegener, G., Dum, C., et al. (2015). Loss of child well-being: A concept for the metrics of neglect and abuse under separation and divorce. Child Indicators Research, 8(4), 867–885. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12187-014-9280-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Edwards, V. J., Holden, G. W., Felitti, V. J., & Anda, R. F. (2003). Relationship between multiple forms of childhood maltreatment and adult mental health in community respondents: Results from the adverse childhood experiences study. American Journal of Psychiatry, 160(8), 1453–1460. https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ajp.160.8.1453.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Emery, R. E., Otto, R. K., & O'Donohue, W. T. (2005). A Critical Assessment of Child Custody Evaluations: Limited Science and a Flawed System. Psychological science in the public interest : a journal of the American Psychological Society, 6(1), 1–29. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1529-1006.2005.00020.x.
- Family Conflict Resolution Services (2010). Risk assessment protocol to evaluate the risk of harm to children and youth caused by Hostile-Aggressive Parenting (HAP) (Release Date: December 3, 2010).Google Scholar
- KiMiss study 2012 Data Report (in German). http://www.kimiss.uni-tuebingen.de/de/2012studie.html.
- Kropp, P. R., & Gibas, A. (2010). The Spousal Assault Risk Assessment Guide (SARA) (Handbook of Violence Risk Assessment). London: Taylor & Francis Ltd.Google Scholar
- Seaberg, J. R. (1990). Child well-being - a feasible concept. Social Work, 35(3), 267–272.Google Scholar
- Sebre, S., Sprugevica, I., Novotni, A., Bonevski, D., Pakalniskiene, V., Popescu, D., Turchina, T., Friedrich, W., & Lewis, O. (2004). Cross-cultural comparisons of child-reported emotional and physical abuse: Rates, risk factors and psychosocial symptoms. Child Abuse & Neglect, 28(1), 113–127. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2003.06.004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar