Advertising Disclaimer
Published online April 1, 2008
PEDIATRICS Vol. 121 No. 4 April 2008, pp. e945-e953 (doi:10.1542/peds.2007-2485)
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow E-mail this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My File Cabinet
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via CrossRef
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Lindberg, D. M.
Right arrow Articles by Shapiro, R. A.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Lindberg, D. M.
Right arrow Articles by Shapiro, R. A.
Related Collections
Right arrow Office Practice
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Facebook   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

ARTICLE

Variability in Expert Assessments of Child Physical Abuse Likelihood

Daniel Martin Lindberg, MDa, Christopher John Lindsell, PhDb, Robert Allan Shapiro, MDc

a Department of Emergency Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts
b Department of Emergency Medicine, University Hospital–Cincinnati
c Department of Pediatrics, Mayerson Center for Safe and Healthy Children, Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, Ohio

OBJECTIVES. In the absence of a gold standard, clinicians and researchers often categorize their opinions of the likelihood of inflicted injury using several ordinal scales. The objective of this protocol was to determine the reliability of expert ratings using several of these scales.

METHODS. Participants were pediatricians with substantial academic and clinical activity in the evaluation of children with concerns for physical abuse. The facts from several cases that were referred to 1 hospital's child abuse team were abstracted and recorded as in a multidisciplinary team conference. Participants viewed the recording and rated each case using several scales of child abuse likelihood.

RESULTS. Participants (n = 22) showed broad variability for most cases on all scales. Variability was lowest for cases with the highest aggregate concern for abuse. One scale that included examples of cases fitting each category and standard reporting language to summarize results showed a modest (18%–23%) decrease in variability among participants. The interpretation of the categories used by the scales was more consistent. Cases were rarely rated as "definite abuse" when likelihood was estimated at ≤95%. Only 7 of 156 cases rated ≤15% likelihood were rated as "no reasonable concern for abuse." Only 9 of 858 cases rated ≥35% likelihood were rated as "reasonable concern for abuse."

CONCLUSIONS. Assessments of child abuse likelihood often show broad variability between experts. Although a rating scale with patient examples and standard reporting language may decrease variability, clinicians and researchers should be cautious when interpreting abuse likelihood assessments from a single expert. These data support the peer-review or multidisciplinary team approach to child abuse assessments.

Key Words: child abuse • interobserver variation • diagnosis

Accepted Sep 26, 2007.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Facebook Facebook   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?