ReviewChildren (Basel, Switzerland)2025
Assessing the Predictive Validity of Risk Assessment Tools in Child Health and Well-Being: A Meta-Analysis.
Review in Children (Basel, Switzerland), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Exploring intergenerational risk factors and mediators for child abuse potential in high-risk parents of young children.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2026Article
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
BACKGROUND/
objectivesViolence and harm to children's health and well-being remain pressing global concerns, with over one billion children affected annually. Risk assessment tools are widely used to support early identification and intervention, yet their predictive accuracy remains contested. This study aims to systematically evaluate the predictive validity of internationally used child risk assessment tools and examine whether the tools' characteristics influence their effectiveness.
methodsA comprehensive meta-analysis was conducted using 28 studies encompassing 27 tools and a total sample of 136,700 participants. A three-level meta-analytic model was employed to calculate pooled effect sizes (AUC), assess heterogeneity, and test moderation effects of tool type, length, publication year, assessor type, and target population. The publication bias was tested using Egger's regression and funnel plots.
resultsOverall, the tools demonstrated moderate predictive validity (AUC = 0.686). Among the tool types, the structured clinical judgment (SCJ) tools outperformed the actuarial (AUC = 0.662) and consensus-based tools (AUC = 0.580), suggesting greater accuracy in complex decision-making contexts. Other tool-related factors did not significantly moderate the predictive validity.
conclusionsSCJ tools offer a promising balance between structure and professional judgment. However, all tools have inherent limitations and require careful contextual application. The findings highlight the need for dynamic tools integrating risk and needs assessments and call for practitioner training to improve tool implementation. This study provides evidence-based guidance to inform the development, adaptation, and use of child risk assessment tools in global child protection systems.
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.