Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Evaluation of “At Risk” parents using the child abuse potential inventory

Evaluation of “At Risk” parents using the child abuse potential inventory Investigated the ability of the Child Abuse Potential (CAP)–Inventory to distinguish “At Risk” individuals. During a 2‐year period the CAP–Inventory was given to 67 “At Risk” parents who were participating in an “At Risk Parent‐Child Program.” Ss were judged as “At Risk” When they met one or more of the “At Risk” criteria that had been developed by the Program. Sixty‐four of the Ss completed the CAP–Inventory. Results indicated that the “At Risk” sample scored significantly higher on the Inventory than a norm group. More specifically, 45% of the “At Risk” sample had Inventory scores above the 95th percentile of the norm group. Strengths and weaknesses involved in the labeling of Ss as “At Risk” using the “ At Risk” criteria and the CAP–Inventory are discussed. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Journal of Clinical Psychology Wiley

Evaluation of “At Risk” parents using the child abuse potential inventory

Loading next page...
 
/lp/wiley/evaluation-of-at-risk-parents-using-the-child-abuse-potential-bonGLW0H7G

References (2)

Publisher
Wiley
Copyright
Copyright © 1980 Wiley Periodicals, Inc., A Wiley Company
ISSN
0021-9762
eISSN
1097-4679
DOI
10.1002/1097-4679(198010)36:4<945::AID-JCLP2270360420>3.0.CO;2-K
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Investigated the ability of the Child Abuse Potential (CAP)–Inventory to distinguish “At Risk” individuals. During a 2‐year period the CAP–Inventory was given to 67 “At Risk” parents who were participating in an “At Risk Parent‐Child Program.” Ss were judged as “At Risk” When they met one or more of the “At Risk” criteria that had been developed by the Program. Sixty‐four of the Ss completed the CAP–Inventory. Results indicated that the “At Risk” sample scored significantly higher on the Inventory than a norm group. More specifically, 45% of the “At Risk” sample had Inventory scores above the 95th percentile of the norm group. Strengths and weaknesses involved in the labeling of Ss as “At Risk” using the “ At Risk” criteria and the CAP–Inventory are discussed.

Journal

Journal of Clinical PsychologyWiley

Published: Oct 1, 1980

There are no references for this article.