CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 268Child Abuse and TraumaChild Welfare and AdoptionChild and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional Development

Differential correlates of multi-type maltreatment among urban youth

Arata, Catalina M., Langhinrichsen-Rohling, Jennifer, Bowers, David, O’Brien, Natalie·2007·Child Abuse & Neglect
DOI 10.1016/j.chiabu.2006.09.006
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Objective The aim of this study was to examine the differential effects of multi-types of maltreatment in an adolescent sample. Different combinations of maltreatment (emotional, sexual, physical, neglect) were examined in relation to both negative affect and externalizing symptoms in male and female youth.Method One thousand four hundred fifty-two middle and high school youth were recruited from urban schools and a mandated early warning truancy program. Youth completed an anonymous survey that included measures of child maltreatment, depression, suicide proneness, hopelessness, delinquency, hostility, substance use, and promiscuity. Respondents were categorized into groups of different combinations of maltreatment by their reports of sexual abuse, physical abuse, neglect (emotional and physical), and emotional abuse.Results Nearly two-thirds of boys and girls reported some form of maltreatment, and multi-type maltreatment was common (e.g., 13% reported experiencing both physical and sexual abuse and neglect). Individuals with maltreatment histories were more depressed (F=52.78, p<.0001), suicide prone (F=24.29, p<.001), and hopeless (F=32.07, p<.0001) than non-abused individuals. Maltreated adolescents were also more hostile (F=35.03, p<.0001), and they engaged in more delinquent behavior (F=26.76, p<.0001), promiscuity (F=8.54, p<.0001), and drug and alcohol use (F=9.61, p<.0001). Individuals experiencing multi-type maltreatment were the most symptomatic, particularly youth with histories of physical abuse, sexual abuse, and neglect. In general, gender differences in effects were not observed.Conclusions The results highlight the importance of studying combined types of maltreatment, as well as understanding the particularly deleterious effects of neglect and emotional abuse. The results are generally consistent with an additive model of maltreatment effects.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.chiabu.2006.09.006

Cites

43 of 43 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Institutional neglect (e.g., in Romanian orphanages) may be strongly associated with mental health problems because it is an extreme, severe, and pervasive form of trauma and/or occurs in the first few years of life, disrupting brain architecture and neurobiological systems that can affect psychopathology.

    “in Romanian orphanages) may also be strongly associated with mental health problems because (i) it reflects a particularly extreme, severe, and pervasive form of trauma, and/or (ii) it occurred the first few years of life (e.g., between birth to 3 years), disrupting development of brain architecture and neurobiological systems that can affect psychopathology (74).”

    From Childhood Maltreatment and Mental Health Problems: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Quasi-Experimental Studies (2023) · cites this paper as [74]

  • Grouping some variables into broader clusters can reduce the number of parameters to be estimated in Eq. (2).

    “Second, researchers can group some of the variables into broader clusters (e.g., mental health, socioeconomic, etc) [32,63], especially for variables whose correlation approaches unity [64]. This maneuver can reduce the number of parameters to be estimated in Eq. (2).”

    From Syndemics and Health Disparities: A Methodological Note (2016) · cites this paper as [64]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 44 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Arata, C. M., Langhinrichsen-Rohling, J., Bowers, D., & O’Brien, N.
Affiliations
University of South Alabama (US)
Corresponding author
Arata, Catalina M.
Venue
Child Abuse & Neglect
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2007-04
Volume
31
Issue
4
Pages
393-415
ISSN
0145-2134 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.chiabu.2006.09.006
OpenAlex
W2083057073
Cited by
268
References
44
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 15 · 2021: 12 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 15 · 2018: 23 · 2017: 16 · 2016: 22 · 2015: 18 · 2014: 19 · 2013: 15 · 2012: 19
FWCI
18.48
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
www.elsevier.com/tdm/userlicense/1.0/ (tdm)
Locations
  • Child Abuse & Neglect (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Child Abuse and Trauma
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Child Welfare and Adoption
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Child and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional Development
Keywords
child abuse, emotional abuse, sexual abuse, physical abuse, neglect, adolescent depression, hopelessness, externalizing problems, delinquency, substance use, promiscuity, gender differences, urban youth, truancy
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Alabama, Child Abuse, Cross-Sectional Studies, Data Collection, Female, Humans, Male, Urban Population

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review