Re: Intergenerational Transmission of Abuse - a Lancet Article

John M Price PhD wrote:
>Greg, scientific abstracts are really dense in information. You have
>snipped, from my recollection, that part which indicated more of a general
>psychopathology than IG learning. These things are not a discussion, save
>in the most general sense.
>
>That's all I can, or will say. Post again, but don't delete important
>information. I dug it out. posted it already, and am not digging it out
>again.
>
>Thanks for understanding.

I consider unsnipped articles a lazy habit, and endeavour to remove
anything not relevant to the current reply. It's easy to say "don't
delete important information" as long as important is undefined.

So no need to thank me, as I don't understand.

That said, here's the whole quote, with my replies, AND explanations of
why I snipped stuff.

John M Price PhD wrote:
> For you all's consideration. There is another indicating, ot me, that
> though there is an intergeneratioas aspect, it seems that psychopathology
> is more prominent. That one I need to see the stats. I added it below.
>
> 1: Lancet. 2000 Sep 2;356(9232):814-9. Related Articles, Links
>
>
> Intergenerational continuity of child physical abuse: how good is the
> evidence?
>
> Ertem IO, Leventhal JM, Dobbs S.
>
> Department of Pediatrics, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven,
> CT, USA. ertem@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> BACKGROUND: There is widespread belief that individuals who were
> physically abused during childhood are more likely to abuse their own
> children than those who were not abused, but the empirical studies
> examining this belief have not been systematically reviewed. The aim of
> this study was to evaluate systematically, based on eight methodological
> standards derived from a hypothetical randomised controlled trial, the
> design of studies investigating the intergenerational transmission of
> child physical abuse. METHODS: We reviewed studies published between 1965
> and 2000 in English that provided information about physical maltreatment
> in two generations and included a comparison group. Two investigators
> independently assessed whether each study met the methodological
> standards.

I'd snipped the background and methods.
I was willing to accept it and their methodology.

I quoted the findings here:
> FINDINGS: In the ten studies identified (four cohort, one
> cross-sectional, and five case-control), the relative risks of
> maltreatment in the children of parents who were abused during childhood
> were significantly increased in four studies (relative risks 4.75-37.8),
> but in three other studies the relative risks were less than 2.

So - of 10 studies, 4 studies found a significant increase in risk, 3
studies found some increase in risk, and 3 showed a very low relative
risk.

Or in other woreds - 7 showed increased risk, 3 showed little relative
risk.

I snipped details of WHY various studies weren't up to standard,
I assumed the important thing was they weren't up to standard:

> Most study reports provided a clear description of abuse of parents
> during childhood and abuse of their children. Five studies failed to avoid recall and
> detection bias; five did not ensure that controls were not themselves
> maltreated; eight did not provide adequate follow-up; and in six the
> report did not state whether the enrolled parent was responsible for the
> maltreatment. Most studies did not control for intervening factors, such
> as sociodemographic characteristics during the time of abuse of the parent
> generation and at the time their children were abused. Only one study met
> all eight criteria (relative risk of abuse transmission 12.6 [95% CI
> 1.82-87.2]) and one met six (1.05 [0.53-2.06]).

I quoted the interpretation of the studies that met the standards, as
follows:

> INTERPRETATION: The one study that met all eight methodological
> standards provided evidence for the intergenerational continuity
> of child physical abuse, but that which met six standards did not
> support the hypothesis.

So only 1 study (of the 10) met their standards, and it provided
evidence of the risk. Another study (with 6 of 8 standards) did not
support it.

I then snipped the recommendation that others use their model,
I was more interested in their findings.

> Use of our model and methodological
> standards should improve the scientific quality of studies
> examining the effects of risk factors for adverse outcomes
> that may continue across generations.
>
> Publication Types:
> Review, Tutorial
> PMID: 11022929 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

So, hope that explains my snipping.
Firstly, I am not aware of anything I snipped as being relevant to my
reply.
Please explain what you thought was important.

Now, let's summarise
- 8 out of 10 studies weren't controlled enough.
- Only 1 study had all 8 methodological standards - & it found links
between abuse and future abuser.
- 1 study had 6 of 8 methodological standards - & it found no links
- 8 studies had < 6 of their standards. 6 of these found links, 2 did
not.

When you ask to be shown evidence of a link between abuse as a child
and future abuser, I think the above is evidence. Naturally this
confused me.

Hence my (reworded) questions:
1. can I check that you are you saying there is no link between being
abused and being an abuser or not?
2. How do you define the separation of pathology and IG learning?

Greg
ps. the second article I find largely irrelevant and since you said
"> Another - (with issues I think) "
I'll leave it out for now.
If you can explain what you think I missed above and why,
I'll happily do the same with the second article if you want.



'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`''`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`
sci.psychology.psychotherapy.moderated is a moderated newsgroup.
Before submitting an article, please read the guidelines which are posted
here bimonthly or the charter on the Web at http://psychcentral.com/sppm/
Submissions are acknowledged automatically.
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Intergenerational Transmission of Abuse - a Lancet Article
    ... >> Intergenerational continuity of child physical abuse: ... >> standards derived from a hypothetical randomised controlled trial, ... not sure you can do a true metaanalysis with risk. ... >> FINDINGS: In the ten studies identified (four cohort, ...
    (sci.psychology.psychotherapy.moderated)
  • Re: Military shares publics declining support for Bush, war
    ... abuse throughout Iraq. ... standards was a major contributor to the prisoner abuse. ... our ideals in order to preserve security? ...
    (alt.guitar.amps)
  • Re: I guess that makes three things the guys done right.
    ... To anyone following this besides Mark and I: Sorry for polluting a.m-b with so much OT. ... the findings were that she was an inept manager rather than being involved in the abuse. ... We have our standards, and if they're not adhered to, they stop being standards. ... Show me some evidence that the abuse of common criminals in AG was orchestrated by the administration, or of the administration condoning that behavior. ...
    (alt.mountain-bike)
  • Abuse risk seen worse as families change
    ... Abuse risk seen worse as families change ... perpetrator had been the boyfriend of the child's mother -- men thrust ... into how rates of abuse correlate with parents' marital status or the ...
    (alt.true-crime)
  • Re: more CRB non-sense
    ... It all comes back to the question of just how widespread is abuse of "this" ... in the shelter across the road from the school. ... Do you think we ought to risk it not being ... patently didn't do their jobs properly in the past, into a police state. ...
    (uk.rec.scouting)
Loading