Definitional issues in child maltreatment

Abstract

To begin a book such as this with a chapter on defining child maltreatment is at once an indication that the definition of the very subject of the book is problematic and that these problems can be resolved. If such resolution were not possible then how could the research reported in subsequent chapters have been accomplished? In this chapter we look at the evidence that a construct of child maltreatment exists, the problematic nature of its definition, and the potential resolutions of those problems. Child development scholars engaged in work on child maltreatment confront a situation wherein the subject of their inquiry has been defined by others for a variety of reasons in a number of different arenas. All of the contributors to this book have faced one or more of the following issues in formulating and executing their work and in interpreting the results: How widely or narrowly should definitions of child maltreatment be drawn? What are the subcategories that should be included in the construct? Some of the most common are physical abuse, neglect, sexual abuse, and emotional abuse. Other less frequently used but legitimate subtypes include moral/legal issues and educational neglect. Definitions of maltreatment will vary depending upon the reasons for which they are needed and the uses to which they will be put; when these conflict, how can choices be made among the resultant (conflicting) definitions? Does the issue of parental (or perpetrator) intention play a major role in definitions, and should it? Are there universal viewpoints or definitions that transcend history and culture or is child maltreatment only defined relative to time and place? […]

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 107 citations exist upstream.