CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 311Child Abuse and TraumaChild Abuse and Related TraumaIntimate Partner and Family Violence

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 26 of the 28 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

ISPCAN Child Abuse Screening Tool Children's Version (ICAST-C): Instrument development and multi-national pilot testing

Zolotor, Adam J., Runyan, Desmond K., Dunne, Michael P., Jain, Dipty, Péturs, Helga R., Ramirez, Clemencia, Volkova, Elena, Deb, Sibnath, Lidchi, Victoria, Muhammad, Tufail, Isaeva, Oksana·2009·Child Abuse & Neglect
DOI 10.1016/j.chiabu.2009.09.004
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Objective To develop a child victimization survey among a diverse group of child protection experts and examine the performance of the instrument through a set of international pilot studies.Methods The initial draft of the instrument was developed after input from scientists and practitioners representing 40 countries. Volunteers from the larger group of scientists participating in the Delphi review of the ICAST P and R reviewed the ICAST C by email in 2 rounds resulting in a final instrument. The ICAST C was then translated and back translated into six languages and field tested in four countries using a convenience sample of 571 children 12-17 years of age selected from schools and classrooms to which the investigators had easy access.Results The final ICAST C Home has 38 items and the ICAST C Institution has 44 items. These items serve as screeners and positive endorsements are followed by queries for frequency and perpetrator. Half of respondents were boys (49%). Endorsement for various forms of victimization ranged from 0 to 51%. Many children report violence exposure (51%), physical victimization (55%), psychological victimization (66%), sexual victimization (18%), and neglect in their homes (37%) in the last year. High rates of physical victimization (57%), psychological victimization (59%), and sexual victimization (22%) were also reported in schools in the last year. Internal consistency was moderate to high (alpha between .685 and .855) and missing data low (less than 1.5% for all but one item).Conclusions In pilot testing, the ICAST C identifies high rates of child victimization in all domains. Rates of missing data are low, and internal consistency is moderate to high. Pilot testing demonstrated the feasibility of using child self-report as one strategy to assess child victimization.Practice implications The ICAST C is a multi-national, multi-lingual, consensus-based survey instrument. It is available in six languages for international research to estimate child victimization. Assessing the prevalence of child victimization is critical in understanding the scope of the problem, setting national and local priorities, and garnering support for program and policy development aimed at child protection.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.chiabu.2009.09.004

Cites

26 of 26 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Verification

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?

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 28 references

2 of the 28 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 101–200 of 311

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Zolotor, A. J., Runyan, D. K., Dunne, M. P., Jain, D., Péturs, H. R., Ramirez, C., Volkova, E., Deb, S., Lidchi, V., Muhammad, T., & Isaeva, O.
Affiliations
  • University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (US)
  • Queensland University of Technology (AU)
  • Government Medical College (IN)
  • Nizhny Novgorod State Pedagogical University (RU)
  • University of Calcutta (IN)
Corresponding author
Zolotor, Adam J.
ORCID
Venue
Child Abuse & Neglect
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2009-11
Volume
33
Issue
11
Pages
833-841
ISSN
0145-2134 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.chiabu.2009.09.004
OpenAlex
W2103123973
Cited by
311
References
28
Citations by year
2026: 23 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 28 · 2023: 27 · 2022: 26 · 2021: 19 · 2020: 29 · 2019: 19 · 2018: 29 · 2017: 29 · 2016: 21 · 2015: 16 · 2014: 7 · 2013: 15 · 2012: 7
FWCI
5.30
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
www.elsevier.com/tdm/userlicense/1.0/ (tdm)
Locations
  • Child Abuse & Neglect (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • QUT ePrints (Queensland University of Technology) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Child Abuse and Trauma
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health › Child Abuse and Related Trauma
  • Social Sciences › Health › Intimate Partner and Family Violence
Keywords
child abuse screening, child victimization, child self-report, instrument development, Delphi consensus, violence exposure, physical victimization, psychological victimization, sexual victimization, child neglect, school violence, multilingual survey, child protection
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Child, Child Abuse, Child Abuse, Sexual, Cross-Cultural Comparison, Female, Humans, International Cooperation, Male, Mass Screening, Pilot Projects, Population Surveillance, Psychometrics, Surveys and Questionnaires, Retrospective Studies, Reproducibility of Results, Crime Victims

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