![[ Visit Client Website ]](images/banner.gif)
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.
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.