ReviewChild abuse & neglect2024
Let it go, let it go: Stop measuring child maltreatment as a binary yes/no.
Review in Child abuse & neglect, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Individual and Interactive Effects of Adverse Childhood Experiences and Household Income on Adolescent Depression and Anxiety Symptoms.Research in nursing & health · 2026Article
- Assessing Dimensions of Children's Exposure to Family Violence with the Family Socialization Interview - Revised 2.0.Child maltreatment · 2026Article
- Individual Contributions of Adverse Childhood Experiences to Adolescent Substance Use.Substance use & misuse · 2026Article
- Subcortical brain structures among maltreated youth with high and low externalizing problems.European child & adolescent psychiatry · 2026Article
- Improving the Assessment of Childhood Adversity: Factors Influencing Questionnaire and Interview Method Concordance.Journal of child & adolescent trauma · 2026Article
- Common patterns of maltreatment exposure: A replication study using confirmatory latent class analysis.Child abuse & neglect · 2025Article
- A commentary on Kim et al.'s (2025) mapping the multifaceted approaches and impacts of adverse childhood experiences: an umbrella review of meta-analyses for Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry's Annual Research Review.Journal of child psychology and psychiatry, and allied disciplines · 2025Article
- The psychometric properties of childhood physical and sexual abuse measures in two Canadian samples of youth and emerging adults.PloS one · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Numerous methods are used in the measurement of child maltreatment (CM) exposure. As a science, it is necessary that the field of CM research evaluate its measurement approaches periodically to ensure that the common approaches are the best approaches. A prominent method for measuring CM in research as a predictor variable is to conceptualize CM as a two-level, yes/no binary variable (e.g., 0 = No CM exposure, 1 = CM exposure). While there is no consensus on what method is the best approach for measuring CM, empirical evidence suggests that the binary measurement approach to CM has significant limitations. The current paper sought to progress the field of CM and trauma research forward by reviewing several lines of research demonstrating why the use of a binary yes/no CM measurement approach is problematic. As evidence for why a binary measurement of CM should be halted, this paper reviews research on: why the characteristics or details of CM exposure matter, risk of CM "contamination," and CM's relation with environmental or systemic factors. The ethical and clinical implications of a CM binary measurement approach are also discussed. Several recommendations for the field are provided on how researchers can improve the measurement of CM and ensure accurate and replicable studies are being published.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.