Differences in causal attributions of caseworkers and elderly clients in the USA: impact on case resolution and cessation of abuse

Abstract

Purpose – The purpose of this paper was to test whether differences in attributions between caseworkers and their elderly clients regarding the cause of reported elder abuse occurring in a domestic setting impact the ability of caseworkers to effectively intervene in elder abuse cases. Design/methodology/approach – Interviews were conducted with 63 pairs of caseworkers and either the elderly client with a substantiated report of elder abuse or their surrogate. Findings – Initially, 61.9 percent of the pairs of interviewees held discordant attributions regarding the cause of the elderly person's abuse. However, at the close of the investigation, only 41.3 percent of the pairs of interviewees held discordant causal attributions, with 13 elderly persons having changed their attributions to be in alignment with the caseworker. Discordant causal attributions at the close of the investigation was related to an inability to find a resolution and achieving cessation of abuse. Research limitations/implications – It will be beneficial to determine methods APS caseworkers can employ to narrow the causal attribution gap. Practical implications – Reconciling discordant causal attributions while maintaining victim autonomy can enhance the likelihood of effective interventions and lead to greater victim safety. However, this takes more time than most APS caseworkers in the USA are allowed by statute to allocate to one case and may necessitate statutory changes that accompany changes in practice. Originality/value – This is the first study to assess differences between caseworkers and their elderly clients regarding their causal attributions of reported abuse occurring and whether those differences are related to the likelihood of reaching a resolution and the cessation of abuse.

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 — 7 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.