CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 43Elder Abuse and NeglectDementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchChild Abuse and Trauma

The sensitivity and specificity of the Modified Conflict Tactics Scale for detecting clinically significant elder abuse

Open access
Cooper, Claudia, Maxmin, Kate, Selwood, Amber, Blanchard, Martin, Livingston, Gill·2009·International Psychogeriatrics
DOI 10.1017/s1041610209009387
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

BACKGROUND: A third of family carers of people with dementia describe acting abusively in research studies, but far fewer cases of abuse are currently detected in clinical situations. This discrepancy may be explained by inadequate detection by health professionals, or disagreement regarding what constitutes elder abuse. This study was undertaken to determine the sensitivity and specificity of the revised Modified Conflict Tactics Scale (MCTS) for detecting clinically significant abuse. METHODS: We interviewed 220 family carers of people consecutively referred to psychiatric services with dementia in Essex and London (U.K.), using the MCTS to measure abuse. We defined abuse cases using (1) the MCTS conventional scoring system; (2) the Pillemer criteria; and (3) clinical judgment of an expert panel. RESULTS: Our panel judged that 15 (6.8%) of carers reported potentially clinical concerning abusive behavior; but 47 (21%) were cases according to the Pillemer criteria and 74 (34%) using the MCTS conventional scoring system. We developed a weighted MCTS scoring system, with high sensitivity and specificity for detecting clinically concerning abuse. CONCLUSIONS: The MCTS could be used routinely in clinical practice with carers of people with dementia to detect clinically concerning cases of abuse, many of which are currently being missed.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1017/s1041610209009387

Cites

12 of 12 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, 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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Cooper, C., Maxmin, K., Selwood, A., Blanchard, M., & Livingston, G.
Affiliations
University College London (GB)
Corresponding author
Cooper, Claudia
ORCID
Venue
International Psychogeriatrics
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2009-08
Volume
21
Issue
4
Pages
774-778
ISSN
1041-6102 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1017/s1041610209009387
OpenAlex
W2120156629
Cited by
43
References
12
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 3 · 2012: 3
FWCI
6.27
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • International Psychogeriatrics (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Demography › Elder Abuse and Neglect
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Dementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Child Abuse and Trauma
Keywords
elder abuse, dementia, family caregivers, abuse detection, sensitivity and specificity, weighted scoring system, caregiver abuse, psychiatric referral
MeSH terms
Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Alzheimer Disease, Cross-Sectional Studies, Elder Abuse, England, Female, Humans, Male, Mass Screening, Mental Status Schedule, Middle Aged, Surveys and Questionnaires, Caregivers, Cost of Illness, Family Conflict

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