ISPCAN Child Abuse Screening Tool - Child version (Zolotor et al., 2009)

• Populations: Children and adolescents
• Age ranges: 10-17, 11-18, 12-18
• Languages: English, Romanian, isiXhosa, Tagalog (Filipino) Arabic, Hindi, Icelandic, Marathi, Spanish, Chinese
• Countries: China; Colombia; Iceland; India; Philippines; Romania; Russia; South Africa

Items

Subscales (Zolotor et al., 2009)

• Home
  • Sexual Victimization, 6 Items
  • Violence Exposure, 7 Items
  • Physical Victimization, 9 Items
  • Psychological Victimization, 7 Items
  • Neglect, 6 Items
• School / Work
  • Sexual Victimization, 10 Items
  • Phyisical Victimization, 17 Items
  • Psychological Victimization, 14 Items

Short Form Subscales (Feng et al., 2020)

• Sexual Abuse, 6 Items
• Violence Exposure, 3 Items
• Psychological Abuse, 4 Items
• Physical Abuse, 4 Items
• Neglect, 5 Items

Short form Items

Sexual Abuse

• Talked to you in a sexual way 
• Shown pornography 
• Looked at private parts 
• Touched private parts 
• Made a sex video of you 
• Forced sex behaviors 

Violence Exposure

• Adults shouted in frightening way 
• Witnessed adults in home hit, kick, slap
• Witnessed adults in home using weapons

Ps ychological Abuse

• Insulted 
• Wished you were dead 
• Threatened to abandon 
• Threatened to hurt or kill you 

Neglect

• Unmet medical need 
• Felt not cared for 
• Felt unimportant 
• Inadequate support/help 

Physical Abuse

• Pushed, grabbed, kicked 
• Tried to choke, smother, or drown 
• Burned or scalded 
• Pulled hair, pinched, twisted ear 
• Held heavy load as punishment 

Items presented are taken from a validitiy reporting table and presented for context only, these may not accurately represent precise item wording for measure application. (Feng et al., 2020)

Responses

Responses used a 4 point rating scale: never, not in the past year but this has happened, sometimes, and many times

(Feng et al., 2020)

Scoring

Short Form scoring

“Adolescents were asked to respond to each victimization item based on their past year experiences on a 4-point rating scale. The options were: never, not in the past year but this has happened, sometimes, and many times (they were scored from one to four, respectively). Total scores could range from 36 to 144, where a higher score indicated either more frequent and/or more various maltreatment experiences.” (Feng et al., 2020)

Citations

• 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. (2009). ISPCAN child abuse screening tool children’s version (ICAST-C): Instrument development and multi-national pilot testing. Child Abuse & Neglect, 33(11), 833-841. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2009.09.004
• Neelakantan, L., Fry, D., Florian, L., Silion, D., Filip, M., Thabeng, M., Te, K., Sunglao, J. A., Lu, M., Ward, C. L., Baban, A., Jocson, R. M., Alampay, L., & Meinck, F. (2022). “What does that mean?”: The content validity of the ISPCAN child abuse screening tool - child version (ICAST-C) in romania, south africa, and the philippines. Child Abuse & Neglect, 134, 105869-105869. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2022.105869
• Meinck, F., Neelakantan, L., Steele, B., Jochim, J., Davies, L. M., Boyes, M., Barlow, J., & Dunne, M. (2023). Measuring violence against children: A COSMIN systematic review of the psychometric properties of child and adolescent self-report measures. Trauma, Violence & Abuse, 24(3), 1832-1847. https://doi.org/10.1177/15248380221082152

Chinese Translations:

• Chang, H.-Y., Lin, C.-L., Chang, Y.-T., Tsai, M.-C., & Feng, J.-Y. (2013). Psychometric testing of the chinese version of ISPCAN child abuse screening tools children’s home version (ICAST-CH-C). Children and Youth Services Review, 35(12), 2135–2139. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2013.10.020

• Short Form
  • Feng, J., Chen, C., Chang, Y., Chang, H., & Shih, C. (2020). A psychometric analysis of a short form of the chinese version of the ISPCAN child abuse screening tools – Children’s home version (SC-ICAST-CH) using multidimensional item response theory. Child Abuse & Neglect, 109, 104693-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2020.104693

Team comments

Measures were translated into the relevant local language for administration by experts in the area with knowledge of the relevant local language (no back-translation described). All responses were then collected and responses were translated into English for a cumulative sample that was used in validation. Researchers discussed translation among themselves and resolved disagreements with consensus.  These local langauges are therefore included in the validated language list, with the exception of the Chinese short form, which was developed separately using more traditional translation methods.

 

In terms of Internal Consistency, Home Violence Exposure did not reach our threshold for adequacy.