View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Teachers' Attitudes toward Reporting Child Sexual Abuse: Problems with Existing Research Leading to New Scale Development

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Teachers' Attitudes toward Reporting Child Sexual Abuse: Problems with Existing Research Leading to New Scale Development
Language: English
Authors: Walsh, Kerryann, Rassafiani, Mehdi, Mathews, Ben, Farrell, Ann, Butler, Des
Source: Journal of Child Sexual Abuse. 2010 19(3):310-336.
Availability: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 325 Chestnut Street Suite 800, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Fax: 215-625-2940; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 27
Publication Date: 2010
Document Type: Information Analyses
Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Descriptors: Sexual Abuse, Child Abuse, Focus Groups, Content Validity, Construct Validity, Test Validity, Field Tests, Measures (Individuals), Teacher Responsibility, Teacher Attitudes, Models, Test Construction, Attitude Measures, Interviews, Psychometrics, Disclosure, Literature Reviews, Test Items, Foreign Countries
Geographic Terms: Australia
DOI: 10.1080/10538711003781392
ISSN: 1053-8712
Abstract: This paper details a systematic literature review identifying problems in extant research relating to teachers' attitudes toward reporting child sexual abuse and offers a model for new attitude scale development and testing. Scale development comprised a five-phase process grounded in contemporary attitude theories, including (a) developing the initial item pool, (b) conducting a panel review, (c) refining the scale via an expert focus group, (d) building content validity through cognitive interviews, and (e) assessing internal consistency via field testing. The resulting 21-item scale displayed construct validity in preliminary testing. The scale may prove useful as a research tool, given the theoretical supposition that attitudes may be changed with time, context, experience, and education. Further investigation with a larger sample is warranted. (Contains 3 tables and 1 figure.)
Abstractor: As Provided
Number of References: 103
Entry Date: 2010
Accession Number: EJ885025
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwFezbfg2K3t5Hv-quCBxYykAAAA4jCB3wYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHRMIHOAgEAMIHIBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDKKcY5V9J26spRjS4AIBEICBmmyTjcxtHAJaNvujFczFHK7PQvYBlQiXDMqANQLTzNYWct54fVeJLje_ej4cl7CfUMmGgTcSidkqoIbheCxnzAWRULpXwSAA99bBmVIEtb2nFASJGYn4sUhlm1yhrlFl9OsZX4pyq_ku6ZPvESRExpsF8q8FJpQ89T1Db9GKCSd9fb7EO2sehkiDdMvXBu8tD_qvw6QL7CVFm3o=
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0051095978;jxa01may.10;2019Apr01.14:14;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0051095978-1">Teachers' Attitudes toward Reporting Child Sexual Abuse: Problems with Existing Research Leading to New Scale Development. </title> <p>This paper details a systematic literature review identifying problems in extant research relating to teachers' attitudes toward reporting child sexual abuse and offers a model for new attitude scale development and testing. Scale development comprised a five-phase process grounded in contemporary attitude theories, including (a) developing the initial item pool, (b) conducting a panel review, (c) refining the scale via an expert focus group, (d) building content validity through cognitive interviews, and (e) assessing internal consistency via field testing. The resulting 21-item scale displayed construct validity in preliminary testing. The scale may prove useful as a research tool, given the theoretical supposition that attitudes may be changed with time, context, experience, and education. Further investigation with a larger sample is warranted.</p> <p>Keywords: mandatory reporting; attitudes; teachers; child sexual abuse</p> <p>Child sexual abuse (CSA) is experienced along a spectrum from exposure through unwanted touching to penetrative assault by approximately 12–20% of females and 5–10% of males in childhood (see for example [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref1">27</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref2">28</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref3">34</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref4">36</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref5">56</reflink>]). These data may be conservative because many individuals who have experienced CSA fail to disclose their victimization irrespective of methodological rigor in research (see for example [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref6">12</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref7">34</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib71" id="ref8">71</reflink>]). Factors associated with increased risk of CSA include gender—girls have up to three times greater risk ([<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref9">33</reflink>]), age—children under 12 years account for two thirds of cases ([<reflink idref="bib90" id="ref10">90</reflink>]), and disability—children having sensory and communication impairments are overrepresented ([<reflink idref="bib98" id="ref11">98</reflink>]).</p> <p>Teachers are the professionals spending most time with children outside of their families and are likely to notice physical and behavioral changes that may indicate CSA ([<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref12">16</reflink>]). Teachers also witness to the serious social-emotional problems associated with CSA, including low self-esteem, anxiety, depression, aggression, dissociation, and self-harming behaviors (see for example [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref13">47</reflink>]) as well as unusual and inappropriate sexual behaviors ([<reflink idref="bib87" id="ref14">87</reflink>]) and academic underachievement ([<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref15">45</reflink>]). Teachers' reporting of CSA to child protection or law enforcement services is, therefore, an important strategy for interrupting and intervening to limit its adverse short- and long-term consequences.</p> <p>In many jurisdictions around the world, mandatory reporting laws have been enacted that require members of key occupational groups having contact with children to notify their suspicions of child abuse and neglect to designated authorities ([<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref16">55</reflink>]). Across jurisdictions within any particular country, these laws may have significant differences. In Australia, for example, there are differences between states in the types of abuse that must be reported, with some states requiring the reporting of <emph>all</emph> forms of child maltreatment (physical abuse, emotional abuse, sexual abuse, and neglect), and others requiring reports only of particular types (e.g., sexual and physical abuse). There are also differences in the occupational groups required to report; some jurisdictions require all citizens to report, others require a broad range of occupations to report, and others require a narrower range of occupations to report ([<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref17">55</reflink>]). For Australian teachers, legislation in all six states and two territories requires teachers to report suspicions of CSA. However, in Queensland, this is limited to cases where the suspected perpetrator is a school employee. Western Australia's legislation commenced recently, on January 1, 2009.</p> <p>Teachers must interpret information and consider many factors when identifying and responding to CSA (see [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref18">23</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref19">48</reflink>], 2001b, 2004; [<reflink idref="bib66" id="ref20">66</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib95" id="ref21">95</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib101" id="ref22">101</reflink>]), and there is evidence to suggest that, after characteristics of the case, factors such as attitudes may be significant positive predictors of recognition and reporting ([<reflink idref="bib66" id="ref23">66</reflink>]). Hence, teachers' attitudes toward reporting CSA are worth studying because of their potential to affect report decision making and impact the quality and accuracy of notifications made to child protective services. Attitudes are formed in many ways and can change with time, context, experience, and education ([<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref24">4</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref25">2</reflink>]). As such, it is reasonable to suggest that attitudes may be malleable in training. Studying teachers' attitudes toward reporting, therefore, may provide crucial insights into their role in well-functioning child protection systems. Furthermore, understanding teachers' reporting of child sexual abuse is important because failure to report has serious consequences for child victims as there are established links between the early onset of CSA and abuse severity and duration ([<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref26">12</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib87" id="ref27">87</reflink>]). Failure to report due to poor attitudes or other reasons also carries serious consequences for schools' liability in negligence ([<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref28">18</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0051095978-2">BACKGROUND TO THE STUDIES</hd> <p>The overall project, of which the research reported in this paper is a part, investigated primary school teachers' reporting of CSA across three Australian jurisdictions having three different CSA reporting obligations for teachers. The study was approved by the Queensland University of Technology's University Human Research Ethics Committee (Reference Number 07 0000 0298) and the Catholic Education Office of Brisbane. Informed consent was obtained from all participants. In 2007, the search began for an existing research instrument in the form of a series of questionnaire items or a scale that could be used to measure teachers' attitudes toward reporting CSA. An attitude measure was sought that was broad but sufficiently discriminating ([<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref29">2</reflink>]) and sensitive enough to accurately measure the target construct ([<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref30">51</reflink>]) which was defined as <emph>teachers' attitudes toward reporting CSA.</emph></p> <p>Surprisingly, an appropriate measure did not exist. Further, despite widespread and long-standing use of the term <emph>attitudes</emph> in the child protection literature, some existing studies did not seem to measure attitudes at all but instead measured a range of other constructs such as knowledge, beliefs, perceptions, and views. What was claimed as attitude research did not seem to reflect attitude theories nor were the measures developed using proven procedures for developing valid and reliable measures (e.g., [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref31">2</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref32">24</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref33">51</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib96" id="ref34">96</reflink>]). These initial impressions required further investigation for verification and resolution before a new scale could be generated. The purpose of this paper, therefore, is twofold. First, it details the structured literature review process leading to the identification of specific problem issues in existing work. Second, it offers a step-by-step model for new scale development and preliminary testing. This dual purpose is presented as two studies: Study 1 outlines a structured, multistage critical literature review ([<reflink idref="bib94" id="ref35">94</reflink>]); Study 2 describes the multiphase scale development and testing process ([<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref36">24</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib96" id="ref37">96</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0051095978-3">STUDY 1</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0051095978-4">Procedure</hd> <p>A structured, six-stage search strategy was adopted to review the literature on teachers' attitudes toward reporting child sexual abuse. The search was limited to studies published in English. First, in August 2007, electronic databases were searched including EBSCOhost (CINAHL, ERIC, MEDline, PsychARTICLES, PsychINFO), Pubmed, Web of Knowledge, Web of Science, Science Direct, ProQuest (including dissertations), Sociological Abstracts, and Ovid. Second, the global search engine Google Scholar was searched. Third, relevant organizational databases were searched, including Australia Institute of Health and Welfare, Bell Canada Child Welfare Research, International Society for Prevention of Child Abuse and Neglect, and National Data Archive on Child Abuse and Neglect. Fourth, the most prominent electronic journals in the field were searched, including recent and in-press work: <emph>Child Abuse and Neglect, The Journal of Interpersonal Violence, Child Maltreatment, Child Abuse Review, Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, Children and Youth Services Review, Aggression and Violent Behaviour</emph>, and <emph>Journal of School Psychology</emph>. Fifth, reference lists of relevant articles were scanned and further studies identified manually. Finally, some authors were contacted for information about their studies and/or instruments. Combinations of the following keywords were used in the searches: attitud* report*, child*, sex*, abuse*, teacher*, school*, belief*, value*, percept*, and view*. This strategy uncovered 58 studies that were sorted according to three key considerations for substantive validity in new scale construction ([<reflink idref="bib96" id="ref38">96</reflink>]). First, study participants must have been teachers or school staff. Second, the target construct in the study must have been teachers' attitudes toward the task of reporting CSA specifically, or reporting child abuse in general. Notably, few studies focused on CSA as distinct from all forms of child abuse and neglect (CAN), making it necessary to retain more generic abuse and neglect terminology to capture closely related studies capable of informing scale development. Third, the study must have included a multi-item survey instrument with items relating to attitudes. Table 1 displays the 58 studies against these criteria.</p> <p>TABLE 1 Fifty-Eight Studies Identified in the Literature Review Sorted According to Three Methodological Considerations</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><td>Study authors and date</td><td>Participants (including teachers)</td><td>Target construct</td><td>Use of multi-item scale</td><td>Exclude</td><td>Include</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr1">Abrahams, Casey, & Daro (1992</xref>)</td><td>✓</td><td>✗</td><td>✓</td><td>✗</td><td /></tr><tr><td><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr5">Alvarez, Kenny, Donohue, & Carpin (2004</xref>)</td><td>✗</td><td>✗</td><td>✗</td><td>✗</td><td /></tr><tr><td><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr6">Anderson & Levine (1999</xref>)</td><td>✓</td><td>✗</td><td>✗</td><td>✗</td><td /></tr><tr><td><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr9">Batchelor, Dean, Gridley, & Batchelor (2006</xref>)</td><td>✓</td><td>✗</td><td>✓</td><td>✗</td><td /></tr><tr><td><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr10">Bauerlein (2001</xref>)</td><td>✓</td><td>✓</td><td>✓</td><td /><td>✓</td></tr><tr><td><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr11">Beck, Ogloff, & Corbishley (1994</xref>)</td><td>✓</td><td>✓</td><td>✓</td><td /><td>✓</td></tr><tr><td><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr13">Bishop, Lunn, & Johnson (2002</xref>)</td><td>✓</td><td>✗</td><td>✓</td><td>✗</td><td /></tr><tr><td><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr14">Boehm & Itzhaky (2004</xref>)</td><td>✗</td><td>✗</td><td>✗</td><td>✗</td><td /></tr><tr><td><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr15">Bonardi (1999</xref>)</td><td>✓</td><td>✗</td><td>✓</td><td>✗</td><td /></tr><tr><td><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr17">Briggs & Potter (2004</xref>)</td><td>✓</td><td>✗</td><td>✗</td><td>✗</td><td /></tr><tr><td><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr20">Compaan, Doueck, & Levine (1997</xref>)</td><td>✗</td><td>✗</td><td>✗</td><td>✗</td><td /></tr><tr><td><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr21">Conger (1994</xref>)</td><td>✓</td><td>✗</td><td>✗</td><td>✗</td><td /></tr><tr><td><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr23">Crenshaw, Crenshaw, & Lichtenberg (1995</xref>)</td><td>✓</td><td>✓</td><td>✓</td><td /><td>✓</td></tr><tr><td><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr25">Delaronde, King, Bendel, & Reece (2000</xref>)</td><td>✗</td><td>✗</td><td>✓</td><td>✗</td><td /></tr><tr><td><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr29">Egu & Weiss (2003</xref>)</td><td>✓</td><td>✗</td><td>✗</td><td>✗</td><td /></tr><tr><td><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr30">Einsel (1992</xref>)</td><td>✓</td><td>✓</td><td>✓</td><td /><td>✓</td></tr><tr><td><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr31">Engel (1998</xref>)</td><td>✓</td><td>✓</td><td>✓</td><td /><td>✓</td></tr><tr><td><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr32">Feng & Levine (2005</xref>)</td><td>✗</td><td>✓</td><td>✓</td><td>✗</td><td /></tr><tr><td><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr35">Firestone (1987</xref>)</td><td>✓</td><td>✓</td><td>✓</td><td /><td>✓</td></tr><tr><td><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr39">Hamilton (1998</xref>)</td><td>✓</td><td>✓</td><td>✓</td><td /><td>✓</td></tr><tr><td><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr40">Hawkins & McCallum (2001</xref>)</td><td>✓</td><td>✓</td><td>✓</td><td /><td>✓</td></tr><tr><td><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr42">Hazzard (1984</xref>)</td><td>✓</td><td>✗</td><td>✓</td><td>✗</td><td /></tr><tr><td><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr43">Hazzard & Rupp (1986</xref>)</td><td>✓</td><td>✗</td><td>✓</td><td>✗</td><td /></tr><tr><td><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr44">Hinson & Fossey (2000</xref>)</td><td>✓</td><td>✗</td><td>✓</td><td>✗</td><td /></tr><tr><td><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr48">Kenny (2001a</xref>)</td><td>✓</td><td>✗</td><td>✓</td><td>✗</td><td /></tr><tr><td><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr49">Kenny (2001b</xref>)</td><td>✓</td><td>✗</td><td>✓</td><td>✗</td><td /></tr><tr><td><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr50">Kenny (2004</xref>)</td><td>✓</td><td>✗</td><td>✓</td><td>✗</td><td /></tr><tr><td><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr52">Levin (1983</xref>)</td><td>✓</td><td>✓</td><td>✓</td><td /><td>✓</td></tr><tr><td><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr53">MacIntyre & Carr (1999</xref>)</td><td>✓</td><td>✗</td><td>✓</td><td>✗</td><td /></tr><tr><td><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr54">Mahoney (1995</xref>)</td><td>✗</td><td>✗</td><td>✗</td><td>✗</td><td /></tr><tr><td><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr57">McIntyre (1987</xref>)</td><td>✓</td><td>✗</td><td>✗</td><td>✗</td><td /></tr><tr><td><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr58">McIntyre (1990</xref>)</td><td>✓</td><td>✗</td><td>✗</td><td>✗</td><td /></tr><tr><td><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr59">Medrano (2001</xref>)</td><td>✓</td><td>✓</td><td>✓</td><td /><td>✓</td></tr><tr><td><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr60">Meyers (1986</xref>)</td><td>✓</td><td>✓</td><td>✓</td><td /><td>✓</td></tr><tr><td><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr61">Neyra (1997</xref>)</td><td>✗</td><td>✓</td><td>✓</td><td>✗</td><td /></tr><tr><td><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr62">Nightingale & Walker (1986</xref>)</td><td>✓</td><td>✗</td><td>✓</td><td>✗</td><td /></tr><tr><td><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr66">O'Toole, Webster, O'Toole, & Lucal (1999</xref>)</td><td>✓</td><td>✗</td><td>✓</td><td>✗</td><td /></tr><tr><td><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr64">Olson & Sykes (1982</xref>)</td><td>✗</td><td>✗</td><td>✗</td><td>✗</td><td /></tr><tr><td><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr65">Osseroff, Oseroff, Westling, & Gessner (1999</xref>)</td><td>✓</td><td>✗</td><td>✗</td><td>✗</td><td /></tr><tr><td><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr68">Pelcovitz (1977</xref>, 1980)</td><td>✓</td><td>✓</td><td>✓</td><td>✗</td><td>✓</td></tr><tr><td><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr69">Peters (2001</xref>)</td><td>✗</td><td>✗</td><td>✗</td><td>✗</td><td /></tr><tr><td><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr73">Reyome & Gaeddert (1998</xref>)</td><td>✓</td><td>✗</td><td>✗</td><td>✗</td><td /></tr><tr><td><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr74">Ridgway (2005</xref>)</td><td>✓</td><td>✓</td><td>✓</td><td /><td>✓</td></tr><tr><td><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr75">Rodriguez (2002</xref>)</td><td>✓</td><td>✓</td><td>✓</td><td /><td>✓</td></tr><tr><td><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr77">Rosien, Helms, & Wanat (1993</xref>)</td><td>✓</td><td>✗</td><td>✗</td><td>✗</td><td /></tr><tr><td><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr78">Sanghara & Wilson (2006</xref>)</td><td>✓</td><td>✗</td><td>✓</td><td>✗</td><td /></tr><tr><td><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr79">Shor (1997</xref>)</td><td>✓</td><td>✗</td><td>✗</td><td>✗</td><td /></tr><tr><td><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr80">Stubblefield (2002</xref>)</td><td>✓</td><td>✓</td><td>✓</td><td /><td>✓</td></tr><tr><td><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr81">Sylvester (1997</xref>)</td><td>✗</td><td>✗</td><td>✗</td><td>✗</td><td /></tr><tr><td><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr83">Tite (1991</xref>)</td><td>✓</td><td>✗</td><td>✓</td><td>✗</td><td /></tr><tr><td><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr84">Tite (1993</xref>)</td><td>✓</td><td>✗</td><td>✓</td><td>✗</td><td /></tr><tr><td><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr85">Tite (1994a</xref>)</td><td>✓</td><td>✗</td><td>✓</td><td>✗</td><td /></tr><tr><td><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr86">Tite (1994b</xref>)</td><td>✓</td><td>✗</td><td>✓</td><td>✗</td><td /></tr><tr><td><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr88">Turbett & O'Toole (1983</xref>)</td><td>✓</td><td>✗</td><td>✓</td><td>✗</td><td /></tr><tr><td><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr89">Turner (1994</xref>)</td><td>✓</td><td>✗</td><td>✓</td><td>✗</td><td /></tr><tr><td><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr91">Van Haeringen, Dadds, & Armstrong (1998</xref>)</td><td>✗</td><td>✓</td><td>✓</td><td>✗</td><td /></tr><tr><td><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr92">Volpe (1984</xref>)</td><td>✓</td><td>✗</td><td>✓</td><td>✗</td><td /></tr><tr><td><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr97">Webster, O'Toole, O'Toole, & Lucal (2005</xref>)</td><td>✓</td><td>✗</td><td>✓</td><td>✗</td><td /></tr><tr><td><italic>Note:</italic> Target construct identified as teachers' attitudes toward reporting child sexual abuse or child abuse in general.</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Fifteen studies meeting all three criteria were subject to closer scrutiny. These were reviewed independently by two members of the research team according to 10 further research design criteria: (a) publication type (peer reviewed journal article, thesis, report), (b) type(s) of CAN (CAN generally or CSA specifically), (c) participants, (d) administration, (e) attitude definition used, (f) attitude theory used, (g) previous studies from which the instrument was derived, (h) number of items in the attitude scale and type of response/rating used, (i) extent of pilot testing, and (j) psychometric properties. These 15 studies and review criteria are presented in Table 2</p> <p>TABLE 2 Summary of Most Relevant 15 Studies by Key Research Design Criteria</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><td>Study</td><td>Publication type</td><td>Type(s) of CAN</td><td>Participants</td><td>Administration method</td><td>Attitude definition</td><td>Attitude theory</td><td>Survey items derived from</td><td>Number of items and rating scale</td><td>Pilot testing</td><td>Psychometric properties of scale</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr10">Bauerlein (2001</xref>)</td><td>Thesis</td><td>All</td><td>University students</td><td>Self-administered</td><td>None</td><td>None</td><td>General lit review</td><td>10 items4-point scale</td><td>Not indicated</td><td>Not indicated</td></tr><tr><td><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr11">Beck, Ogloff, & Corbishley (1994</xref>)</td><td>Peer-reviewed journal article</td><td>All</td><td>Teachers K–12</td><td>Self-administered Mailed</td><td>None</td><td>None</td><td><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr102">Zellman & Antler (1990</xref>); <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr38">Giovannoni & Becerra (1979</xref>); <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr46">Kalichman, Craig, & Follingstad (1990</xref>); <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr72">Reisenauer (1987</xref>)</td><td>5 items7-point scale</td><td>Pilot for face validity with 2 psychologists & 1 university professor</td><td>Not indicated</td></tr><tr><td><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr23">Crenshaw, Crenshaw, & Lichtenberg (1995</xref>)</td><td>Peer-reviewed journal article</td><td>All</td><td>Educators</td><td>Self-administered Mailed</td><td>None</td><td>None</td><td>General lit review <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr22">Crenshaw & Crenshaw (1992</xref>)</td><td>1 item6-point scale</td><td>Not indicated</td><td>Not indicated</td></tr><tr><td><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr30">Einsel (1992</xref>)</td><td>Thesis</td><td>All</td><td>Teachers & counsellors</td><td>Self-administered Mailed</td><td>None</td><td>None</td><td><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr67">Pelcovitz (1977</xref>)</td><td>26 items5-point scale</td><td>Pilot for face and content validity with experts in teaching CAN</td><td>Internal consistency Cronbach's alpha 0.73</td></tr><tr><td><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr31">Engel (1998</xref>)</td><td>Thesis</td><td>All</td><td>School counsellors, nurses, & psychologists</td><td>Self-administered Mailed</td><td>None</td><td>None</td><td><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr63">O'Donnell (1995</xref>); <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr22">Crenshaw & Crenshaw (1992</xref>)</td><td>3 items4-point scale</td><td>Not indicated</td><td>Not indicated</td></tr><tr><td>Firestone (1987)</td><td>Thesis</td><td>All</td><td>Teachers K–12</td><td>Self-administered Researcher present</td><td>None</td><td>None</td><td><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr67">Pelcovitz (1977</xref>)</td><td>26 items5-point scale</td><td>Pilot for face and Content validity with experts in teaching CAN</td><td>Internal consistency Cronbach's alpha 0.73</td></tr><tr><td><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr39">Hamilton (1998</xref>)</td><td>Thesis</td><td>All</td><td>School psychologists and school principals</td><td>Self-administered, researcher present</td><td>None</td><td>None</td><td><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr82">Tharinger, Russian, & Robinson (1989</xref>); <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr93">Walker (1994</xref>)</td><td>12 items5-point scale</td><td>Pilot with 3 psychologists and 2 principals</td><td>Not indicated</td></tr><tr><td><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr40">Hawkins & McCallum (2001</xref>)</td><td>Peer-reviewed journal article</td><td>All</td><td>Mandated reporters, including teachers</td><td>Self-administered, mailed</td><td>None</td><td>None</td><td>General lit review</td><td>3 items3- and 5-point scales</td><td>Pilot with teachers</td><td>Treated as individual questions, not used as scale</td></tr><tr><td><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr52">Levin (1983</xref>)</td><td>Peer-reviewed journal article</td><td>All</td><td>Teachers</td><td>Not indicated</td><td>None</td><td>None</td><td>General lit review</td><td>8 items4-point scale</td><td>Not indicated</td><td>Not indicated</td></tr><tr><td><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr59">Medrano (2001</xref>)</td><td>Thesis</td><td>All</td><td>Teachers and CPS workers</td><td>Self-administered, researcher present</td><td>None</td><td>None</td><td><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr102">Zellman & Antler (1990</xref>); <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr63">O'Donnell (1995</xref>)</td><td>19 items4-point scale</td><td>Not indicated</td><td>Internal consistency r =.84</td></tr><tr><td><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr60">Meyers (1986</xref>)</td><td>Thesis</td><td>All</td><td>School psychologists</td><td>Self-administered, mailed</td><td>None</td><td>None</td><td><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr67">Pelcovitz (1977</xref>)</td><td>26 items5-point scale</td><td>Not indicated.</td><td>Whole scale alpha reliability estimate 0.61</td></tr><tr><td><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr67">Pelcovitz (1977</xref>, 1980)</td><td>Thesis and book</td><td>All</td><td>Teachers</td><td>Self-administered, researcher present</td><td>None</td><td>None</td><td><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr37">Gelles (1977</xref>); <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr99">Whitney (1977</xref>)</td><td>26 items5-point scale</td><td>Not indicated</td><td>Cronbach's alpha 0.73</td></tr><tr><td><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr74">Ridgway (2005</xref>)</td><td>Thesis</td><td>All</td><td>Elementary teachers</td><td>Self-administered, researcher present</td><td>None</td><td>None</td><td>General lit review</td><td>10 items6-point scale</td><td>Not indicated</td><td>Not indicated</td></tr><tr><td><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr75">Rodriguez (2002</xref>)</td><td>Peer-reviewed journal article</td><td>All</td><td>Educators, general practitioners, and mental health professionals</td><td>Self-administered, mailed</td><td>None</td><td>None</td><td>General lit review</td><td>8 items5-point scale</td><td>Not indicated</td><td>Not indicated</td></tr><tr><td><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr80">Stubblefield (2002</xref>)</td><td>Thesis</td><td>All</td><td>Elementary teachers</td><td>Self-administered, mailed</td><td>None</td><td>None</td><td><xref ref-type="bibr" rid="bibr67">Pelcovitz (1977</xref>)</td><td>26 items5-point scale</td><td>Pilot with experts in teaching CAN</td><td>Internal consistency Cronbach's alpha 0.73</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>.</p> <hd id="AN0051095978-5">Results</hd> <p>In terms of research design, all studies except one had been peer reviewed for an academic journal or thesis. No studies focused exclusively on teachers' attitudes toward reporting CSA as distinct from all forms of CAN. Participants included teachers and other school personnel such as school counselors or psychologists, with one study involving university education majors and four involving other professionals for comparative study. All studies were self-administered questionnaires, distributed directly by the researcher or by mail. None of the 15 studies offered a definition of attitudes or included reference to theory in relation to the study of attitudes. All studies were derived from general reviews of the literature or previous work in the area by [<reflink idref="bib67" id="ref39">67</reflink>], 1980), [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref40">38</reflink>]), [<reflink idref="bib102" id="ref41">102</reflink>]), [<reflink idref="bib103" id="ref42">103</reflink>]), or [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref43">22</reflink>]). [<reflink idref="bib67" id="ref44">67</reflink>], 1980) survey instrument, in particular, was used in its original form in four subsequent studies. Sampling was mixed, including six true random samples, two studies with random group assignment, and the remainder comprising nonprobability or convenience samples. Scale items ranged from single items (e.g., [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref45">23</reflink>]) to 26 items ([<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref46">30</reflink>]; Firestone, 1987; [<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref47">60</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib67" id="ref48">67</reflink>], 1980; [<reflink idref="bib80" id="ref49">80</reflink>]). Participant responses were required on 3–7 point Likert-type scales. Pilot testing was reported in only half of the studies, and the extent of pilot testing was minimal, typically involving expert consultation with 3–5 individuals. Psychometric properties for internal consistency were reported only for [<reflink idref="bib67" id="ref50">67</reflink>], 1980), those studies based on Pelcovitz' study ([<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref51">30</reflink>]; Firestone, 1987; [<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref52">60</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib80" id="ref53">80</reflink>]), and for [<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref54">59</reflink>]).</p> <p>The study by [<reflink idref="bib67" id="ref55">67</reflink>], 1980) provided the most likely model instrument; however, as a case in point, the measure was not an exact fit. The study used a detailed questionnaire, including a 26-item attitude measure to quantify teachers' attitudes toward the broad construct of CAN. Within the items were 12 items directly about CAN reporting, but the items were not specifically about CSA reporting. Furthermore, several items were relevant only to the United States context. Incidentally, [<reflink idref="bib67" id="ref56">67</reflink>], 1980) found strong support for reporting CAN broadly. In his sample of 135 Philadelphia elementary teachers, 96.3% of respondents agreed or strongly agreed to their responsibility to report.</p> <hd id="AN0051095978-6">STUDY 2</hd> <p>In response to the issues identified in Study 1, the Teachers' Reporting Attitude Scale for Child Sexual Abuse (TRAS-CSA) was developed in a systematic step-by-step process. The scale's purpose was to measure the target construct of teachers' attitudes toward reporting child sexual abuse. Scale development and preliminary testing comprised five phases, depicted in Figure 1, intended to enhance the rigor of the scale by developing construct validity in terms of content comprehensiveness, item representativeness, and relevance. The aim in reporting these minutiae was to redress the methodological shortcomings in previous work and to provide a step-by-step model for future scale development in this field.</p> <p>Graph: FIGURE 1 Five-Phase Process for Scale Development and Preliminary Testing.</p> <hd id="AN0051095978-7">Phase 1: Initial Item Pool</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0051095978-8">Procedure</hd> <p>The aim of this phase was to create an initial item pool. The most relevant 15 studies listed in Table 2 were used as a basis for this purpose. Complete survey instruments were obtained for each of the 15 studies. In this phase two key principles that were proposed by [<reflink idref="bib96" id="ref57">96</reflink>]) were followed. The first principle stated that the initial item pool should be more inclusive than the study's definition of the target construct and that the pool should contain items that will eventually be shown to be unrelated to the target construct. According to [<reflink idref="bib96" id="ref58">96</reflink>]), testing in later phases will be able to identify weak or irrelevant items that should not be included, but testing will not be able to generate items that ought to have been considered but were not.</p> <hd id="AN0051095978-9">Results</hd> <p>Seventy-four raw survey items were identified as directly relating to the core construct of teachers' attitudes. Interestingly, in the existing instruments, attitude items were sometimes single items (e.g., [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref59">23</reflink>]), but more frequently multiple items scattered throughout longer instruments (e.g., [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref60">40</reflink>]) rather than collected as a conventional scale (e.g., [<reflink idref="bib67" id="ref61">67</reflink>], 1980). All 74 items (known as the <emph>long list</emph>) were included in the initial item pool in an attempt to exhaust features of the target construct ([<reflink idref="bib96" id="ref62">96</reflink>]). These items were placed on an Excel spreadsheet for refining and adding to in the next phase. A pragmatic problem that should be raised at this point, as noted by [<reflink idref="bib96" id="ref63">96</reflink>]), is that that a scale based on previous research, in which several problems have been identified, is unlikely to be satisfactory. In fact, the scale is likely to faithfully replicate the preceding flaws. This is exactly why further empirical scrutiny was required in further steps in the scale development process.</p> <hd id="AN0051095978-10">Phase 2: Panel Review</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0051095978-11">Procedure</hd> <p>The aim of this phase was to ensure the item pool was inclusive and comprehensive ([<reflink idref="bib96" id="ref64">96</reflink>]). First, statements in the long list were coded, independently, by two members of the research team and two research assistants according to their theme (for example, one theme was <emph>reporting necessary</emph>) and then grouped together. A team meeting was held to arrive at consensus. Statement duplicates were deleted. Statements about other constructs (for example, <emph>training</emph>) were dropped from the list, as were statements about jurisdiction-specific procedural matters (for example, <emph>consequences of failure to report</emph>) or issues outside the scope of the laws in Australia (for example, <emph>details of specific interventions following reporting</emph>). Twenty-seven statements remained.</p> <p>Second, a further research team meeting was held to engage in an expert panel review and inductive process asking "what, if anything, is missing from this list?" Several context-relevant statements emerged from this exercise and were added to the item pool, resulting in a sufficiently representative and relevant list of 33 statements deemed suitable for pilot testing.</p> <p>Third, to ensure that the item pool was inclusive of the multiple dimensions of the target construct, three members of the research team coded the pilot list according to three attitude components: affect (feelings/affect or psychological reactions toward reporting CSA), cognition (cognitions including beliefs about and perceptual reactions to reporting CSA), and behavior (behavioral intentions or overt behaviors with respect to reporting CSA). This process also laid the groundwork for future structural testing of attitude subscales.</p> <hd id="AN0051095978-12">Results</hd> <p>There was a fair to good level of interrater agreement for coding of the subscales (Spearman's <emph>r</emph> = 0.57–0.62, <emph>p</emph> = 0.01). Disagreements in coding were discussed and the categorizations finalized with modifications to stem-phrase wording. For the 33-item pilot list, the breakdown of subscale items was: affect (11 statements), cognition (11 statements), and behavior (11 statements). Items were randomly ordered for pilot testing.</p> <hd id="AN0051095978-13">Phase 3: Structured Focus Group</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0051095978-14">Procedure</hd> <p>The purpose of this phase was to refine the scale in terms of relevance, structure, and content, to assess comprehensibility and reduce ambiguity ([<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref65">26</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref66">51</reflink>]). In this phase, a convenience sample of registered primary school teachers and school administrative staff employed at the university as tutors were accessed. Participants were purposively selected based on having at least 5 years experience in school education and holding experience and training in CAN (<emph>n</emph> = 7 from a potential pool of 12 individuals). All participants were female, aged between 35 and 44 years, with a mean of 40 years (<emph>SD</emph> = 2.83 years). They held bachelor-level qualifications (3 participants), postgraduate bachelor qualifications (3 participants), or were currently studying toward a higher degree (1 participant). Participants were provided with the study materials 2 weeks in advance and attended a structured focus group where they were asked to comment on the structural quality of the 33 statements and their content ([<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref67">8</reflink>]). The focus group was audiotaped, transcribed, and analyzed independently by three members of the research team.</p> <hd id="AN0051095978-15">Results</hd> <p>General feedback from participants included comments on the potentially onerous length of the scale and identification of some statements considered similar. Participants discussed, at some length, the need to reflect different cultural and/or personal views about reporting. Based on these findings, the item list was reduced to 32 items by removing 2 items deemed similar to others (items 13 and 17) and replacing one of these items with another statement.</p> <hd id="AN0051095978-16">Phase 4: Cognitive Interviews</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0051095978-17">Procedure</hd> <p>The purpose of this phase was to build content validity and to reduce the number of scale items. In this phase, individuals were purposively selected who had a strong background in education and child protection. Structured cognitive interviews (as outlined by [<reflink idref="bib100" id="ref68">100</reflink>]) were conducted with child protection education advisors and a key member of a principal professional association (<emph>n</emph> = 4). Participants were two males and two females with an average age of 52.7 years (<emph>SD</emph> = 8.6) and a mean of 15 years experience in their current roles (<emph>SD</emph> = 9.6). In addition to selection criteria for Phase 1, these participants also held deeper awareness of legislation and policy for teachers' reporting of CAN generally by virtue of their employment specialization. Participants were provided with the study materials ahead of time and asked to complete a rating exercise on the attitude scale scoring each item on a 4-point scale according to the magnitude of its relevance to the underlying construct, ranging from 1 (<emph>not relevant</emph>) to 4 (<emph>highly relevant</emph>).</p> <hd id="AN0051095978-18">Results</hd> <p>The Content Validity Index (CVI), an index expressing the proportion of agreement about relevance among respondents, was calculated for the entire scale following methods recommended by [<reflink idref="bib70" id="ref69">70</reflink>]). Items with scores greater than 0.25 were retained. Based on these findings, the nine attitude items scoring poorly were removed. This reduced the scale to 23 items. Minor changes to the wording of items 5, 8, and 15 were made on the basis of participants' recommendations.</p> <hd id="AN0051095978-19">Phase 5: Field Testing</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0051095978-20">Procedure</hd> <p>The purpose of this phase was to evaluate and improve content validity of the 23-item scale and 3 subscales with a sample of teachers. In addition, this phase was designed to assess comprehension and identify typographical and formatting errors. A convenience sample of school staff and visiting academics were recruited for this phase (<emph>n</emph> = 21). Participants were recruited via direct contact with the school principal who provided information about the study at a school staff meeting and thereafter on a staff room notice board. A research assistant attended the school 1 week after the staff meeting to distribute the self-administered survey, returning several days later to collect completed instruments and to conduct structured interviews with a subgroup of participants. Participants were 20 female and 1 male with an average age of 43.7 years (<emph>SD</emph> = 9.6). On average, participants had 15.95 years experience (<emph>SD</emph> = 11.0). Participating teachers had qualifications at the undergraduate diploma or bachelor level (11 participants), postgraduate bachelor's level (3 participants), and master's level (6 participants), with one set of missing data. The majority taught P-Year 4, that is, children aged 5 to 9 years (14 participants) with the remainder in the upper primary school and specialist teaching positions.</p> <hd id="AN0051095978-21">Results</hd> <p>Internal consistency reliability for the 23-item list for this phase of the study was moderate (α =.745). Items 17 and 18 (reporting child sexual abuse does more harm than good; it is important for teachers to be involve in reporting child sexual abuse to prevent long-term consequences for children) were found to correlate poorly with the target construct and were removed yielding a moderately high adjusted alpha coefficient of α = 0.81, also making the scale more reliable for use as a predictor variable. The poor scoring on these particular items may be partly explained by what [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref70">41</reflink>]) refer to as the "dynamic nature of content validity" (p. 238): as a field advances and social understandings of a target construct such as CSA develop, statements that may previously have been important dimensions to the target construct are seen to be less central or even irrelevant.</p> <p>To examine homogeneity of the scale, the average interitem correlation was calculated resulting in an average of.15, falling within the recommended acceptable range of.15–50 ([<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref71">19</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib96" id="ref72">96</reflink>]). Additionally, as missing data were detected for the first item, this item was inserted randomly, further down the list. The penultimate 21-item attitude scale is presented in Table 3.</p> <p>TABLE 3 Twenty-One Item Self-Report Teachers' Reporting Attitude Scale for Child Sexual Abuse In Relation to Reporting Child Sexual Abuse, to What Extent do you Agree or Disagree With the Following Statements?</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><td /><td>Strongly agree</td><td>Agree</td><td>Neutral</td><td>Disagree</td><td>Strongly disagree</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>a) I plan to report child sexual abuse when I suspect it.</td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>b) I would be apprehensive to report child sexual abuse for fear of family/community retaliation.</td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>c) I would be reluctant to report a case of child sexual abuse because of what parents will do to the child if he or she is reported.</td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>d) The procedures for reporting child sexual abuse are familiar to me.</td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>e) I would like to fulfill my professional responsibility by reporting suspected cases of child sexual abuse.</td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>f) Reporting child sexual abuse is necessary for the safety of children.</td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>g) I feel emotionally overwhelmed by the thought of reporting child sexual abuse.</td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>h) I would not report child sexual abuse if I knew the child would be removed from his or her home/family.</td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>i) Reporting child sexual abuse can enable services to be made available to children and families.</td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>j) I would consider not reporting child sexual abuse because of the possibility of being used.</td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>k) There is a lot of sensitivity associated with reporting child sexual abuse.</td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>l) Child sexual abuse reporting guidelines are necessary for teachers.</td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>m) It is important for teachers to be involved in reporting child sexual abuse to prevent long-term consequences for children.</td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>n) I believe that the current system for reporting child sexual abuse is effective in addressing the problem.</td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>o) Teachers who report child sexual abuse that is unsubstantiated can get into trouble.</td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>p) It is a waste of time to report child sexual abuse because no one will follow up on the report.</td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>q) I would still report child sexual abuse even if my school administration disagreed with me.</td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>r) I lack confidence in the authorities to respond effectively to reports of child sexual abuse.</td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>s) I will consult with an administrator before I report child sexual abuse.</td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>t) I would find it difficult to report child sexual abuse because it is hard to gather enough evidence.</td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>u) A child sexual abuse report can cause a parent to become more abusive toward the child.</td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td><italic>Note</italic>: Items a, d, e, f, I, l, m, n, q, and s are reverse coded.</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <hd id="AN0051095978-22">DISCUSSION</hd> <p>This paper reports on research into teachers' attitudes toward reporting CSA. It detailed a structured literature review process leading to the identification of specific problem issues in existing research and offered a step-by-step model for new scale development and preliminary testing. This research, although modest, represents a significant theoretical and empirical advance over previous work in this field.</p> <p>Several methodological and conceptual problems were identified in the existing literature. First, and most important, was the lack of clear, precise definitions of the target construct. It is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to create reliable and valid measures of attitudes without this; boundaries of the target construct must be tested and resolved in rigorous pretesting prior to data collection ([<reflink idref="bib96" id="ref73">96</reflink>]). Second, few studies could be found that focused on CSA as distinct from all forms of CAN. This is problematic from a theoretical as well as empirical point of view. Theoretically, CSA has particular issues of sensitivity and taboo that other forms of CAN do not have, making it subject to different evaluative predispositions by individuals. Empirically, because research about teacher attitudes toward reporting CSA is scarce, the foundations for a study of teachers' attitudes toward reporting CSA must be inferred from or determined by studies about closely related phenomena. This makes the first stages of new scale development process even more critical in identifying the full range of content relevant to the target construct ([<reflink idref="bib96" id="ref74">96</reflink>]).</p> <p>Third, the study of attitudes toward reporting CAN in general, and CSA in particular, has lacked application or incorporation of attitude theories. At a basic level, such theories emphasize that attitudes have intensity and are subject to change. Although attitudes alone are poor determinants of behavior, when studied alongside characteristics such as intentions and confidence, as well as contextual features such as legislative requirements and policy concerns, attitudes' effects may be better understood. Also, existing research has failed to acknowledge and account for the multidimensional nature of attitudes with reciprocal relationships between attitudes, and affect, cognition, and behavior. Although there is a need to understand the relationship of attitudes to reporting practice (reporting and failure to report), there is also a need to understand attitudes as constructs in themselves. For example, what teacher characteristics predict certain attitudinal dispositions toward reporting? What proximal and distal features of the context shape teachers' attitudes? As it stands, the research to date provides extremely limited assessment of teachers' attitudes toward reporting CSA when considered in the light of attitude theories.</p> <p>The fourth problem relates to empirical consequences of the third. Atheoretical approaches to studying teachers' attitudes have resulted in methodological flaws in measurement. Existing assessments of teachers' attitudes may, therefore, have been unreliable. For example, some studies measured attitudes using a single or small number of questions when attitude theories suggest that single questions fail to do justice to the complexity of attitudes ([<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref75">3</reflink>], p.177). Most have taken an exploratory (post hoc) rather than a confirmatory (a priori) approach resulting in a trend of cobbling together loosely related sets of items to form a scale without the pretesting required to establish construct validity. Attitude measures must be subjected to rigorous empirical scrutiny in pretesting to resolve such issues.</p> <p>To accurately assess individuals' attitudes and to have the best chance of finding significant associations between attitudes and other variables, researchers must reduce measurement error and maximize the validity of a new scale via meticulous development and testing ([<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref76">51</reflink>]). In the structured literature review it became clear that little attention had been paid to scale construction and validation and that most measures had not arisen from systematic development, pretesting, and/or piloting. The attitudes literature contains many guidelines for producing reliable and valid measures of attitudes using scales or series of items (see, for example, [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref77">51</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib96" id="ref78">96</reflink>]), however, it may perhaps be an artifact of child maltreatment research that it is often difficult to justify the time and resources required for developing and testing a comprehensive attitude scale. Unfortunately, this situation creates methodological limitations that must be addressed for the field to move forward.</p> <p>Progressing the study of teachers' (and arguably other professionals') attitudes toward reporting CSA is worthwhile because attitudes may be latent features of decision making and potential determinants of the quality and accuracy of reports made to child protection authorities. Clearly unwarranted child protection notifications divert precious resources for investigations away from necessary investigations and important intervention services. Even more important, a failure to report suspected CSA due to negative attitudinal factors may result in a child continuing to suffer abuse and the perpetrator being left free to abuse other children. In Australia, teachers are the source of approximately 10–20% of all child protection notifications to state and territory child protection and support agencies ([<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref79">7</reflink>]). Their accurate and effective reporting is vital to well-functioning child protection systems.</p> <p>Studying teachers' attitudes in particular contexts is also important because attitudes are complex and variable over time and across situations ([<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref80">4</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref81">2</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref82">51</reflink>]). Most studies of teachers' reporting of CSA have been conducted within the United States where CSA reporting laws are fairly uniform ([<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref83">55</reflink>]). [<reflink idref="bib75" id="ref84">75</reflink>]) New Zealand study is the only study so far conducted in a jurisdiction without mandatory reporting laws. There are no studies on teachers' attitudes that have drawn on participants in the United Kingdom, for example, where reporting is also voluntary. Hence, the field lacks evidence on the influence of legal contexts on teachers' attitudes and the influence of those attitudes on teachers' reporting practice.</p> <p>In summary, the TRAS-CSA is a 21-item self-administered scale in its preliminary stages of development. Response choices consist of a 5-point Likert-type format ranging from 1 (<emph>strongly agree</emph>) to 5 (<emph>strongly disagree</emph>). Assuming the tripartite theory of attitude structure, the scale was developed based on the notion that attitudes have affective, behavioral and cognitive dimensions ([<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref85">4</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref86">2</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib76" id="ref87">76</reflink>]). This measure has displayed preliminary evidence of construct validity, and further investigation to test instrument precision with a larger sample is now warranted.</p> <p>Further work is needed to validate the scale. In particular test-retest reliability. The scale must also be subject to structural analysis. Confirmatory Factor Analysis must be used to determine how well items are related to one another and if and how the items form clusters of items or factors that may belong to a group that make theoretical sense (for example, the tripartite beliefs, cognitions, and affect dimensions). As pointed out by [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref88">24</reflink>]), factor analysis will determine if the scale measures one factor (teachers' attitudes towards reporting child sexual abuse) or whether, despite rigor and best intentions, the scale measures several constructs.</p> <p>Limitations of this study should be noted. An important key psychometric index omitted from the process was a measure of the new scale's test-retest reliability. Without this measure of temporal stability, the utility of the scale cannot be thoroughly assessed. The test was not omitted by design but in consideration of the burden on the pilot school and in an attempt to reduce the study's conflict with important core curricular activities. This can be acknowledged as a shortcoming, and future work with this scale must incorporate measures of test-retest reliability. However, it should also be noted that conducting such a study in a school environment may prompt teachers to think about or reflect on the core construct, discuss it or research it, and perhaps even change their attitudes toward it. A further limitation was that the sample of experts who participated in the panel review, focus group, and cognitive interviews were predominantly female. In this respect, they may not be representative of the broader range of expertise in the field. Finally, it is important to reiterate that, although rigorous, this was a preliminary study, and the resulting attitude scale remains incomplete until further testing establishes internal and external validity and stability.</p> <p>Although preliminary, this small-scale, in-depth study has yielded important findings about the measurement of teachers' attitudes toward reporting CSA. In reviewing the literature, numerous shortcomings in previous studies were identified, leading to inadequate assessment of teachers' attitudes toward reporting CSA. This study began to redress these shortcomings by developing and testing a multi-item attitude scale that can be used to more adequately assess teachers' attitudes toward reporting CSA. The scale has since been used as part of a longer self-administered survey instrument in an Australian cross-jurisdictional comparative study of teachers' CSA reporting. After further testing, researchers may ultimately find the scale useful in training evaluation studies where a parsimonious measure of teachers' attitudes toward reporting CSA is required.</p> <hd id="AN0051095978-23">Acknowledgments</hd> <p>This research was supported under the Australian Research Council's Discovery Projects funding scheme (Project Number DP664847). Research assistance was provided to this project by Sam Kilby, Jane Cronan, and Lisa Chirio, from the Faculty of Law, QUT. The research team gratefully acknowledges the contribution of study participants and the pilot school staff.</p> <ref id="AN0051095978-24"> <title> REFERENCES </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Abrahams, N., Casey, K. and Daro, D.1992. Teachers' knowledge, attitudes, and beliefs about child abuse and its prevention. Child Abuse & Neglect, 16(2): 229–238.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref25" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Ajzen, I.2005. Attitudes, personality and behavior, 2nd, Maidenhead, , England: Open University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref75" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Ajzen, I. and Fishbein, M.2005. "The influence of attitudes on behaviour". In The handbook of attitudes, Edited by: Albarracin, D., Johson, B. T. and Zanna, M. P.173–221. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref24" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Albarracin, D., Zanna, M., Johnson, B. T. and Kumkale, G. T.2005. "Attitudes: Introduction and scope". In The handbook of attitudes, Edited by: Albarracin, D., Johson, B. T. and Zanna, M. P.3–19. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Alvarez, K. M., Kenny, M. C., Donohue, B. and Carpin, K. M.2004. Why are professionals failing to initiate mandated reports of child maltreatment, and are there any empirically based training programs to assist professionals in the reporting process?. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 9(5): 563–578.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Anderson, E. M. and Levine, M.1999. Concerns about allegations of child sexual abuse against teachers and the teaching environment. Child Abuse & Neglect, 23(8): 833–843.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref79" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. 2006. Child protection Australia 2007–2008, Canberra, , Australia: Australian Institute of Health and Welfare.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref67" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Barbour, R. S. and Kitzinger, J.1999. Developing focus group research: Politics, theory and practice, London, , England: Sage.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Batchelor, E. S., Dean, R. S., Gridley, B. and Batchelor, B.2006. Reports of child sexual abuse in the schools. Psychology in the Schools, 27(2): 131–137.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bauerlein, S.2001. Knowledge and attitudes related to child abuse reporting, Long Beach, CA: California State University. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation)</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Beck, K. A., Ogloff, J. R. P. and Corbishley, A.1994. Knowledge, compliance, and attitudes of teachers towards mandatory child abuse reporting in British Columbia. Canadian Journal of Education, 19(1): 15–29.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Berliner, L. and Elliott, D.2002. "Sexual abuse of children". In The APSAC handbook on child maltreatment, 2nd, Edited by: Myers, J., Berliner, L., Briere, J., Hendrix, C., Jenny, C. and Reid, T.55–78. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bishop, A., Lunn, P. and Johnson, K.2002. "I would just like to run away and hide, but I won't!" Exploring attitudes and perceptions on child protection issues with early years teacher trainees on the threshold of their careers. Westminster Studies in Education, 25(2): 187–199.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Boehm, A. and Itzhaky, H.2004. The social marketing approach: A way to increase reporting and treatment of sexual assault. Child Abuse & Neglect, 28(3): 253–265.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bonardi, D. J.1999. Teachers' decisions to report child abuse: The effects of ethnicity, attitudes, and experiences, Palo Alto, CA: Pacific Graduate School of Psychology. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation)</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Briggs, F. and Hawkins, R.1997. Child protection: A guide for teachers and child care professionals, St Leonards, , Australia: Allen & Unwin.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Briggs, F. and Potter, G. K.2004. Singaporean early childhood teachers' responses to myths about child abuse. Early Childhood Development and Care, 174(4): 339–355.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Butler, D., Mathews, B., Farrell, A. and Walsh, K.2009. Teachers' duties to reported suspected child abuse and tortious liability. Torts Law Journal, 17(1): 1–23.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Clark, L. A. and Watson, D.1995. Constructing validity: Basic issues in objective scale development. Psychological Assessment, 7(3): 309–319.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Compaan, C., Doueck, H. J. and Levine, M.1997. Mandated reporter satisfaction with child protection: More good news for workers?. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 12(6): 847–857.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Conger, T. L.1994. Teachers' knowledge, attitudes, and beliefs of child abuse: A rural perspective, Arlington, TX: University of Texas. (Unpublished master's thesis)</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Crenshaw, W. and Crenshaw, L.1992. Crenshaw abuse reporting survey—School form, Lawrence, KS: University of Kansas. (Unpublished survey instrument)</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Crenshaw, W. B., Crenshaw, L. M. and Lichtenberg, J. W.1995. When educators confront child abuse: An analysis of the decision to report. Child Abuse & Neglect, 19(9): 1095–1113.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> De Vaus, D. A.2002. Surveys in social research, Crows Nest, , Australia: Allen & Unwin.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Delaronde, S., King, G., Bendel, R. and Reece, R.2000. Opinions among mandated reporters toward child maltreatment reporting policies. Child Abuse & Neglect, 24(7): 901–910.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dillman, D. A.2007. Mail and Internet surveys: The tailored design method, Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dube, S. R., Anda, R. F., Whitfield, C. L., Brown, D. W., Felitti, V. J., Dong, M. and Giles, W. H.2005. Long-term consequences of childhood sexual abuse by gender of victim. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 28(5): 430–438.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dunne, M. P., Purdie, D. M., Cook, M. D., Boyle, F. M. and Najman, J. M.2003. Is child sexual abuse declining? Evidence from a population-based survey of men and women in Australia. Child Abuse & Neglect, 27(2): 141–152.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Egu, C. L. and Weiss, D. J.2003. The role of race and severity of abuse in teachers' recognition or reporting of child abuse. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 12(4): 465–474.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Einsel, C.1992. An examination of teachers' and counselors' knowledge and attitudes concerning child abuse in a selected Florida school district, Manhattan, KS: Kansas State University. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation)</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Engel, N.1998. School personnel's experience and attitudes regarding child abuse and reporting, Long Beach, CA: California State University. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation)</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Feng, J.-Y. and Levine, M.2005. Factors associated with nurses' intention to report child abuse: A national survey of Taiwanese nurses. Child Abuse & Neglect, 29, : 783–795.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Finkelhor, D.1993. Epidemiological factors in the clinical identification of child sexual abuse. Child Abuse & Neglect, 17, : 67–70.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Finkelhor, D.1994. Current information on the scope and nature of child sexual abuse. The Future of Children, 4(2): 31–53.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Firsestone, L. M.1987. Teachers' knowledge and attitudes about child abuse and neglect: A case study, Manhattan, KS: Kansas State University. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation)</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fleming, J.1997. Prevalence of childhood sexual abuse in a community sample of Australian women. Medical Journal of Australia, 166(2): 65–68.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gelles, R. J.1977. Questionnaire: An exploratory study of defining and classifying cases of child abuse, Philadelphia, PA: Unpublished questionnaire, HEW Grant 90-C-425. School of Social Work, University of Pennsylvania.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Giovannoni, J. and Becerra, R. M.1979. Defining child abuse, New York, NY: Free Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hamilton, N. W.1998. An investigation of the school's response to child abuse: A study of activities, knowledge and attitudes and the role of the school psychologist, New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation)</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hawkins, R. and McCallum, C.2001. Mandatory notification training for suspected child abuse and neglect in South Australian schools. Child Abuse & Neglect, 25, : 1603–1625.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Haynes, S. N., Richard, D. C. S. and Kubany, E. S.1995. Content validity in psychological assessment: A functional approach to concepts and methods. Psychological Assessment, 7(3): 238–247.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hazzard, A.1984. Training teachers to identify and intervene with abused children. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 13(3): 288–293.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hazzard, A. and Rupp, G.1986. A note on the knowledge and attitudes of professional groups towards child abuse. Journal of Community Psychology, 14(2): 219–223.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hinson, J. and Fossey, R.2000. Child abuse: What teachers in the 90s know, think and do. Journal of Education For Students Placed at Risk, 5(3): 251–266.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jones, D. A., Trundinger, P. and Crawford, M.2004. Intelligence and achievement of children referred following sexual abuse. Journal of Paediatrics and Child Health, 40(8): 455–460.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kalichman, S. C., Craig, M. E. and Follingstad, D. R.1990. Professionals' adherence to mandatory child abuse reporting laws: Effects of responsibility attribution, confidence ratings, and situational factors. Child Abuse & Neglect, 14(1): 69–77.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kendall-Tackett, K. A., Williams, L. M. and Finkelhor, D.1993. Impact of sexual abuse on children: A review and synthesis of recent empirical studies. Psychological Bulletin, 133: 164–180.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kenny, M.2001a. Child abuse reporting: Teachers' perceived deterrents. Child Abuse & Neglect, 25(1): 81–92.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kenny, M. C.2001b. Compliance with mandated child abuse reporting: Comparing physicians and teachers. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 34(1): 9–23.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kenny, M. C.2004. Teachers' attitudes toward and knowledge of child maltreatment. Child Abuse & Neglect, 28(12): 1311–1319.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Krosnick, J. A., Judd, C. M. and Wittenbrink, B.2005. "The measurement of attitudes". In The handbook of attitudes, Edited by: Albarracin, D., Johson, B. T. and Zanna, M. P.21–76. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Levin, P. G.1983. Teachers' perceptions, attitudes, and reporting of child abuse and neglect. Child Welfare, 62(1): 14–20.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> MacIntyre, D. and Carr, A.1999. Evaluation of the effectiveness of the stay safe primary prevention programme for child sexual abuse. Child Abuse & Neglect, 23(12): 1307–1325.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mahoney, K. S.1995. School personnel and mandated reporting of child maltreatment. Journal of Law & Education, 24(2): 227–239.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mathews, B. and Kenny, M. C.2008. Mandatory reporting legislation in the United States, Canada and Australia: A cross-jurisdictional review of key features, differences, and issues. Child Maltreatment, 13(1): 50–63.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> May-Chahal, C. and Cawson, P.2005. Measuring child maltreatment in the United Kingdom: A study of the prevalence of child abuse and neglect. Child Abuse & Neglect, 29(9): 969–984.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McIntyre, T., C.1987. Teacher awareness of child abuse and neglect. Child Abuse & Neglect, 11(1): 133–135.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McIntyre, T.1990. The teacher's role in cases of suspected child abuse. Education and Urban Society, 22(3): 300–306.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Medrano, N. P.2001. Mandated reporters: A study of knowledge, attitudes and responses to allegations of child abuse, Long Beach, CA: California State University. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation)</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Meyers, M.1986. School psychologists' attitudes towards reporting child abuse, New York, NY: Pace University. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation)</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Neyra, L. M.1997. Knowledge of child abuse reporting among elementary school teachers, Long Beach, CA: California State University. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation)</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nightingale, N. N. and Walker, E. F.1986. Identification and reporting of child maltreatment by head start personnel: Attitudes and experiences. Child Abuse & Neglect, 10(2): 191–199.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> O'Donnell, J.1995. "Pilot project between California State University, Long Beach, Department of Social Work, and the County of Los Angeles Department of Children and Family Services". In Pilot project between California State University, Long Beach, CA: California State University.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Olson, M. and Sykes, B. S.1982. Child sexual abuse: A collaborative approach to prevention and treatment, Seattle, WA: Seattle University. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation)</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Oseroff, A., Oseroff, C., Westling, D. and Gessner, L.1999. Teachers' beliefs about maltreatment of students with emotional/behavioral disorders. Behavioral Disorders, 24(3): 197–209.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> O'Toole, R., Webster, S. W., O'Toole, A. W. and Lucal, B.1999. Teachers' recognition and reporting of child abuse: A factorial survey. Child Abuse & Neglect, 23(11): 1083–1101.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pelcovitz, D. A.1977. Child abuse as viewed by suburban elementary school teachers, Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation)</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pelcovitz, D. A.1980. Child abuse as viewed by suburban elementary school teachers, Saratoga, CA: Century Twenty-One Publishing.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Peters, D. F.2001. Examining child sexual abuse evaluations: The types of information affecting expert judgment. Child Abuse & Neglect, 25(1): 149–178.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Polit, D. F. and Beck, C. T.2006. The content validity index: Are you sure you know what's being reported? Critique and recommendations. Research in Nursing and Health, 29(5): 489–497.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Putnam, F. W.2003. Ten-year research update review: Child sexual abuse. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 42(3): 269–278.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Reisenauer, T. M.1987. Knowledge of, compliance with, and attitudes toward the child abuse reporting law: An examination of the reactions of psychologists, physicians, and master level social workers, Columbia, MI: University of Missouri. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation)</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Reyome, N. D. and Gaeddert, W.1998. Teachers' awareness of child and adolescent maltreatment. Child Study Journal, 28(2): 111–122.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ridgway, A. H. K.2005. Teachers' knowledge of child abuse reporting laws, Long Beach, CA: California State University. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation)</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rodriguez, C. M.2002. Professionals' attitudes and accuracy on child abuse reporting decisions in New Zealand. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 17(3): 320–342.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rosenberg, M. J. and Hovland, C. I.1960. "Cognitive, affective, and behavioral components of attitudes". In Attitude organisation and change: An analysis of consistency among attitude components, Edited by: Hovland, C. I. and Rosenberg, M. J.1–14. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rosien, J., Helms, L. and Wanat, C.1993. Intent v practice: Incentives and disincentives for child abuse reporting by school personnel. Brigham Young University Education and Law Journal, 2(1): 102–125.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sanghara, K. K. and Wilson, J. C.2006. Stereotypes and attitudes about child sexual abusers: A comparison of experienced and inexperienced professionals in sex offender treatment. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 11(2): 229–244.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Shor, R.1997. Identification and reporting of maltreated children by teachers in Israel. Early Childhood Development and Care, 134: 61–73.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Stubblefield, B. L.2002. Mandated child abuse reporting practices of Oklahoma educators, Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation)</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sylvester, L.1997. Talking about touching: Personal safety curricula preschool to grade 3. Curriculum evaluation summary, Seattle, WA: Committee for Children.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tharinger, D., Russian, T. and Robinson, P.1989. School psychologists' involvement in the school's response to child abuse. School Psychology Review, 18(3): 386–399.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tite, R.1991. Child abuse: The role of the school, Toronto, Ontario, , Canada: University of Toronto. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation)</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tite, R.1993. How teachers define and respond to child abuse: The distinction between theoretical and reportable cases. Child Abuse & Neglect, 17(5): 591–603.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tite, R.1994a. Detecting the symptoms of child abuse: Classroom complications. Canadian Journal of Education, 19(1): 1–13.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tite, R.1994b. Muddling through: The procedural marginalization of child abuse. Interchange, 25(1): 87–108.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Trickett, P. K., Horowitz, L., Reiffman, A. and Putnam, F. W.1997. "Characteristics of sexual abuse trauma and the prediction of developmental outcomes". In Rochester symposium on developmental psychopathology. Volume VIII: The effects of trauma on the developmental process, Edited by: Cicchetti, D. and Toth, S. L.289–314. Rochester, NY: University of Rochester Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Turbett, J. P. and O'Toole, R.1983. Teachers' recognition and reporting of child abuse. Journal of School Health, 53(10): 605–609.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Turner, B. J.1994. Teachers' knowledge, attitudes, and beliefs about child abuse and neglect, Arlington, TX: University of Texas. (Unpublished master's thesis)</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. 1998. Child maltreatment 1996: Reports from the states to the National Child Abuse and Neglect Data System, Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Van Haeringen, A. R., Dadds, M. and Armstrong, K. L.1998. The child abuse lottery—Will the doctor suspect and report? Physician attitudes towards and reporting of suspected child abuse and neglect. Child Abuse & Neglect, 22(3): 159–169.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Volpe, R.1984. A psychoeducational program dealing with child abuse for elementary school children. Child Abuse & Neglect, 8(4): 511–517.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Walker, E. J.1994. An investigation of the knowledge of and compliance with privileged communication and child abuse reporting laws among psychologists in the state of New Jersey, New Brunswick, NJ: Graduate School of Applied and Professional Psychology, Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation)</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wallace, M. and Wray, A.2006. Critical reading and writing for postgraduates, Los Angeles, CA: Sage.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Walsh, K., Bridgstock, R., Rassafiani, M., Farrell, A. and Schweitzer, R.2008. Case, teacher and school characteristics influencing teachers' detection and reporting of child physical abuse and neglect: Results from an Australian survey. Child Abuse & Neglect, 32(10): 983–993.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Watson, D.2006. "In search of construct validity: Using basic concepts and principals of psychological measurement to define child maltreatment". In Child abuse and neglect: Definitions, classifications, & a framework for research, Edited by: Feerick, M. M., Knutson, J. F., Trickett, P. K. and Flanzer, S. M.199–230. Baltimore, MD: Paul H Brookes Publishing.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Webster, S. W., O'Toole, R., O'Toole, A. W. and Lucal, B.2005. Overreporting and underreporting of child abuse: Teachers' use of professional discretion. Child Abuse & Neglect, 29(11): 1281–1296.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Westcott, H. and Jones, D.1999. Annotation: The abuse of disabled children. Journal of Child Psychology & Psychiatry, 40(4): 497–506.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Whitney, H. C.1977. The effects of inservice training sessions on attitudes of selected day care personnel toward suspected child abuse practices, Minneapolis, MN: Walden University. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation)</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Willis, G. B.2005. Cognitive interviewing: A tool for improving questionnaire design, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zellman, G.1992. The impact of case characteristics on child abuse reporting decisions. Child Abuse & Neglect, 16(1): 57–74.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zellman, G. L. and Antler, S.1990. Mandated reporters and CPS: A study in frustration. Public Welfare, 48(1): 30–41. 47</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zellman, G. L. and Bell, R. M.1990. The role of professional background, case characteristics, and protective agency response in mandated child abuse reporting, Santa Monica, CA: Rand.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Kerryann Walsh; Mehdi Rassafiani; Ben Mathews; Ann Farrell and Des Butler</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author; Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib56" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib71" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib90" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib98" firstref="ref11"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref12"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib47" firstref="ref13"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib87" firstref="ref14"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib45" firstref="ref15"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib55" firstref="ref16"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref18"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib48" firstref="ref19"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib66" firstref="ref20"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib95" firstref="ref21"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib101" firstref="ref22"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref28"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib51" firstref="ref30"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref32"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib96" firstref="ref34"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib94" firstref="ref35"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib67" firstref="ref39"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref40"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib102" firstref="ref41"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib103" firstref="ref42"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref43"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref46"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib60" firstref="ref47"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib80" firstref="ref49"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib59" firstref="ref54"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl35" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref60"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl36" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref65"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl37" bibid="bib100" firstref="ref68"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl38" bibid="bib70" firstref="ref69"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl39" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref70"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl40" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref71"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl41" bibid="bib75" firstref="ref84"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl42" bibid="bib76" firstref="ref87"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ885025
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Report
PubTypeId: report
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Teachers' Attitudes toward Reporting Child Sexual Abuse: Problems with Existing Research Leading to New Scale Development
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Walsh%2C+Kerryann%22">Walsh, Kerryann</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Rassafiani%2C+Mehdi%22">Rassafiani, Mehdi</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Mathews%2C+Ben%22">Mathews, Ben</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Farrell%2C+Ann%22">Farrell, Ann</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Butler%2C+Des%22">Butler, Des</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Journal+of+Child+Sexual+Abuse%22"><i>Journal of Child Sexual Abuse</i></searchLink>. 2010 19(3):310-336.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 325 Chestnut Street Suite 800, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Fax: 215-625-2940; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 27
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2010
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Information Analyses<br />Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Sexual+Abuse%22">Sexual Abuse</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Child+Abuse%22">Child Abuse</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Focus+Groups%22">Focus Groups</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Content+Validity%22">Content Validity</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Construct+Validity%22">Construct Validity</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Test+Validity%22">Test Validity</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Field+Tests%22">Field Tests</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Measures+%28Individuals%29%22">Measures (Individuals)</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Teacher+Responsibility%22">Teacher Responsibility</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Teacher+Attitudes%22">Teacher Attitudes</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Models%22">Models</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Test+Construction%22">Test Construction</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Attitude+Measures%22">Attitude Measures</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Interviews%22">Interviews</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Psychometrics%22">Psychometrics</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Disclosure%22">Disclosure</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Literature+Reviews%22">Literature Reviews</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Test+Items%22">Test Items</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Foreign+Countries%22">Foreign Countries</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Geographic Terms
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Australia%22">Australia</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1080/10538711003781392
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 1053-8712
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: This paper details a systematic literature review identifying problems in extant research relating to teachers' attitudes toward reporting child sexual abuse and offers a model for new attitude scale development and testing. Scale development comprised a five-phase process grounded in contemporary attitude theories, including (a) developing the initial item pool, (b) conducting a panel review, (c) refining the scale via an expert focus group, (d) building content validity through cognitive interviews, and (e) assessing internal consistency via field testing. The resulting 21-item scale displayed construct validity in preliminary testing. The scale may prove useful as a research tool, given the theoretical supposition that attitudes may be changed with time, context, experience, and education. Further investigation with a larger sample is warranted. (Contains 3 tables and 1 figure.)
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: Ref
  Label: Number of References
  Group: RefInfo
  Data: 103
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2010
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ885025
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ885025
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1080/10538711003781392
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 27
        StartPage: 310
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Sexual Abuse
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Child Abuse
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Focus Groups
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Content Validity
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Construct Validity
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Test Validity
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Field Tests
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Measures (Individuals)
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Teacher Responsibility
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Teacher Attitudes
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Models
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Test Construction
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Attitude Measures
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Interviews
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Psychometrics
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Disclosure
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Literature Reviews
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Test Items
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Foreign Countries
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Australia
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Teachers' Attitudes toward Reporting Child Sexual Abuse: Problems with Existing Research Leading to New Scale Development
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Walsh, Kerryann
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Rassafiani, Mehdi
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Mathews, Ben
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Farrell, Ann
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Butler, Des
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 01
              Type: published
              Y: 2010
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 1053-8712
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 19
            – Type: issue
              Value: 3
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Journal of Child Sexual Abuse
              Type: main
ResultId 1