Psychological elder abuse: measuring severity levels or potential family conflicts?
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/JAP-06-2017-0025 |
| Pages | 380-393 |
| Published date | 11 December 2017 |
| Date | 11 December 2017 |
| Author | Ana João Santos,Baltazar Nunes,Irina Kislaya,Ana Paula Gil,Oscar Ribeiro |
| Subject Matter | Health & social care,Vulnerable groups,Adult protection,Safeguarding,Sociology,Sociology of the family,Abuse |
Psychological elder abuse: measuring
severity levels or potential family
conflicts?
Ana João Santos, Baltazar Nunes, Irina Kislaya, Ana Paula Gil and Oscar Ribeiro
Abstract
Purpose –Psychological elder abuse (PEA) assessment is described with different thresholds. The purpose
of this paper is to examine how the prevalence of PEA and the phenomenon’s characterisation varied using
two different thresholds.
Design/methodology/approach –Participants from the cross-sectional population-based study, Aging
and Violence (n ¼1,123), answered three questions regarding PEA. The less strict measure considered PEA
as a positive response to any of the three evaluated behaviours. The stricter measure comprised the
occurrence, for more than ten times, of one or more behaviours. A multinomial regression compared cases
from the two measures with non-victims.
Findings –Results show different prevalence rates and identified perpetrators. The two most prevalent
behaviours (ignoring/refusing to speak and verbal aggression) occurred more frequently (W10 times).
Prevalence nearly tripled for “threatening”from the stricter measure (W10 times) to the less strict (one to ten
times). More similarities, rather than differences, were found between cases of the two measures. The
cohabiting variable differentiated the PEA cases from the two measures; victims reporting abuse W10 times
were more likely to be living with a spouse or with a spouse and children.
Research limitations/implications –Development of a valid and reliable measure for PEA that includes
different ranges is needed.
Originality/value –The study exemplifies how operational definitions can impact empirical evidence and the
need for researchers to analyse the effect of the definitional criteria on their outcomes, since dichotomization
between victim and non-victim affects the phenomenon characterisation.
Keywords Domestic violence, Elder abuse, Older adults, Measures, Psychological abuse, Severity levels
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
Elder abuse and neglect is a difficult construct to measure, with reported variation on
methodologies, instruments and measures employed by different prevalence studies (Cooper
et al., 2008; de Donder et al., 2011). Most common types of abuse include psychological,
financial, physical and sexual abuse, but psychological is the one with less published literature,
lacking development from a measurement point a view (Conrad et al., 2009; Dong, 2014;
Macassa et al., 2013). Notwithstanding, this form of abuse is rather often identified in prevalence
studies as the most common. Two recent multi-national European studies found 25.3 per cent
psychological abuse among older women (Luoma et al., 2011) and prevalence rates for older
adults from seven European countries ranging between 10.5 (Italy) and 29.7 per cent (Sweden)
(Soares et al., 2010).
This study examines the impact of employing two different measures to evaluate psychological
elder abuse (PEA), on prevalence estimates, identified perpetrators and victims’risk factors to
explore whether milder psychological abuse behaviours are aetiologic predictive forms of
psychological abuse or of family functioning?
Received 23 June 2017
Revised 28 September 2017
9 October 2017
11 October 2017
Accepted 12 October 2017
The Aging and Violence study was
supported by the Foundation for
Science and Technology
(Fundação para a Ciência e
Tecnologia) in Portugal (grant
PTDC/CS-SOC/110311/2009).
Ana João Santos is a PhD
Candidate at the Instituto de
Ciências Biomédicas Abel Salazar,
Universidade do Porto, Porto,
Portugal and is at the Department
of Epidemiology, InstitutoNacional
de Saúde DoutorRicardo Jorge,
Lisbon, Portugal.
Baltazar Nunes is a Researcher at
the Department of Epidemiology,
Instituto Nacional de Saúde Doutor
Ricardo Jorge, Lisbon, Portugal
and is at the CISP –Centro de
Investigação em Saúde Pública,
Escola Nacional de Saúde Pública,
Lisbon, Portugal.
Irina Kislaya is a ResearchFellow at
the Department of Epidemiology,
Instituto Nacional de Saúde Doutor
Ricardo Jorge, Lisbon, Portugal.
Ana Paula Gil is a Researcher
at the CICS.NOVA –Centro
Interdisciplinar de Ciências Sociais,
Faculdade de Ciências Sociais e
Humanas, Universidade Nova de
Lisboa, Lisbon, Portugal.
Oscar Ribeiro is a researcher
at the CINTESIS –Centro de
Investigação em Tecnologias e
Serviços de Saúde, Universidade
do Porto, Porto, Portugal and is at
the Instituto Superior de Serviço
Social do Porto, Porto, Portugal.
PAGE380
j
THE JOURNAL OF ADULT PROTECTION
j
VOL. 19 NO. 6 2017, pp. 380-393, © Emerald Publishing Limited, ISSN 1466-8203 DOI 10.1108/JAP-06-2017-0025
To continue reading
Request your trial