Utility of the Adult-Adolescent Inventory (AAPI-2 ) for the Child Abuse Prevention: A Comparative Study with the PACAP and the Child Care Worker's Evaluation

Monday, July 11, 2011

Junko Miyazawa, MSN, CNM, PHN
Department of Nursing, Faculty of Health Care, Teikyo Heisei University, Ichihara, CHIBA, Japan
Reiko Ueda, PhD, RN
Graduate School, Okinawa Prefectural College of Nursing, Naha, Japan

Learning Objective 1: The learner will be able to know the weakness and strength of assessment tools for the child abuse prevention.

Learning Objective 2: The learner will be able to know correlations between assessment tools for child abuse prevention and care workers' evaluation.

Purpose: The purpose of this study is to investigate the utility of the Adult-Adolescent Parenting Inventory (AAPI-2) by Bavorek and Keene by comparing it with the Child worker's evaluation and the Pre-Assessment tool for the Child Abuse Prevention (PACAP), which had been developed by us and was reported at pacific institute of Nursing (PIN) 2009 Conference in Honolulu.

Methods:   A total of 96 caregivers foe children aged 0-5 who attended at a nursery school and the care workers in charge of the children in an island city. Okinawa, Japan, participated in this study. The AAPI-2, 40 item structured questionnaire with 5 sub-scales and the PACAP, 18-item semi-structured questionnaire with 4 areas, were administered to the caregivers, together with the care workers' evaluation of the child rearing attitude. 

Results: 1) Within the caregivers, 86%were mothers and 14% were fathers; 82.3% of children belonged to nuclear families; and the birth order was first born in 38% , second born in 35% and third born or more in 27%. 2) Total score of the AAPI-2 ranged 120-188, (147±13.6). The risk score of the PACAP ranged 0-10, (3.1±2.4). Fourteen subjects (14.6%) were evaluated as at risk by care workers. 3) Spearman's correlation coefficient between the AAPI-2 and care workers' evaluation was 0.38 (p<0.01) and that between the PACAP and care workers' evaluation was 0.22 (p<0.05). Agreement of risk cases among three assessments was only 21% (3 out of 14). 

Conclusion: The weakness and strength of each assessment were identified. The AAPI-2 seems to be useful in the second stage of the child maltreatment prevention, after its first stage using the PACAP.