IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v14y2017i9p1066-d112043.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

New Methods to Address Old Challenges: The Use of Administrative Data for Longitudinal Replication Studies of Child Maltreatment

Author

Listed:
  • Emily Hurren

    (School of Criminology and Criminal Justice, Griffith Criminology Institute, Griffith University, Mt Gravatt, 4122, Australia)

  • Anna Stewart

    (School of Criminology and Criminal Justice, Griffith Criminology Institute, Griffith University, Mt Gravatt, 4122, Australia)

  • Susan Dennison

    (School of Criminology and Criminal Justice, Griffith Criminology Institute, Griffith University, Mt Gravatt, 4122, Australia)

Abstract

Administrative data are crucial to the “big data” revolution of social science and have played an important role in the development of child maltreatment research. These data are also of value to administrators, policy makers, and clinicians. The focus of this paper is the use of administrative data to produce and replicate longitudinal studies of child maltreatment. Child protection administrative data have several advantages. They are often population-based, and allow longitudinal examination of child maltreatment and complex multi-level analyses. They also allow comparison across subgroups and minority groups, remove burden from individuals to disclose traumatic experiences, and can be less biased than retrospective recall. Finally, they can be linked to data from other agencies to explore comorbidity and outcomes, and are comparatively cost and time effective. The benefits and challenges associated with the use of administrative data for longitudinal child maltreatment research become magnified when these data are used to produce replications. Techniques to address challenges and support future replication efforts include developing a biographical understanding of the systems from which the data are drawn, using multiple data sources to contextualize the data and research results, recognizing and adopting various approaches to replication, and documenting all data coding and manipulation processes. These techniques are illustrated in this paper via a case study of previous replication work.

Suggested Citation

  • Emily Hurren & Anna Stewart & Susan Dennison, 2017. "New Methods to Address Old Challenges: The Use of Administrative Data for Longitudinal Replication Studies of Child Maltreatment," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 14(9), pages 1-12, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:14:y:2017:i:9:p:1066-:d:112043
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/14/9/1066/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/14/9/1066/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Morton, Cory M. & Ocasio, Kerrie & Simmel, Cassandra, 2011. "A critique of methods used to describe the overrepresentation of African Americans in the child welfare system," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 33(9), pages 1538-1542, September.
    2. Green, Beth L. & Ayoub, Catherine & Bartlett, Jessica Dym & Furrer, Carrie & Von Ende, Adam & Chazan-Cohen, Rachel & Klevens, Joanne & Nygren, Peggy, 2015. "It's not as simple as it sounds: Problems and solutions in accessing and using administrative child welfare data for evaluating the impact of early childhood interventions," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 57(C), pages 40-49.
    3. Lightfoot, Elizabeth & Hill, Katharine & LaLiberte, Traci, 2011. "Prevalence of children with disabilities in the child welfare system and out of home placement: An examination of administrative records," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 33(11), pages 2069-2075.
    4. Coohey, Carol & Johnson, Kristen & Renner, Lynette M. & Easton, Scott D., 2013. "Actuarial risk assessment in child protective services: Construction methodology and performance criteria," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 35(1), pages 151-161.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Witte, Susanne, 2020. "Case file analyses in child protection research: Review of methodological challenges and development of a framework," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 108(C).
    2. Schwartz, Ira M. & York, Peter & Nowakowski-Sims, Eva & Ramos-Hernandez, Ana, 2017. "Predictive and prescriptive analytics, machine learning and child welfare risk assessment: The Broward County experience," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 81(C), pages 309-320.
    3. Boatswain-Kyte, Alicia & Esposito, Tonino & Trocmé, Nico & Boatswain-Kyte, Alicia, 2020. "A longitudinal jurisdictional study of Black children reported to child protection services in Quebec, Canada," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 116(C).
    4. Welch, Vicki & Jones, Christine & Stalker, Kirsten & Stewart, Alasdair, 2015. "Permanence for disabled children and young people through foster care and adoption: A selective review of international literature," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 53(C), pages 137-146.
    5. Paquette, G. & Bouchard, Julie & Dion, Jacinthe & Tremblay, Karine N. & Tourigny, M. & Tougas, Anne-Marie & Hélie, Sonia, 2018. "Factors associated with intellectual disabilities in maltreated children according to caseworkers in child protective services," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 90(C), pages 38-45.
    6. McCauley, Erin, 2021. "Differential risks: How disability shapes risk in the transition to adulthood for youth who age out of foster care," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 131(C).
    7. Huffhines, Lindsay & Tunno, Angela M. & Cho, Bridget & Hambrick, Erin P. & Campos, Ilse & Lichty, Brittany & Jackson, Yo, 2016. "Case file coding of child maltreatment: Methods, challenges, and innovations in a longitudinal project of youth in foster care," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 67(C), pages 254-262.
    8. Garcia, Antonio R. & Palinkas, Lawrence A. & Snowden, Lonnie & Landsverk, John, 2013. "Looking beneath and in-between the hidden surfaces: a critical review of defining, measuring and contextualizing mental health service disparities in the child welfare system," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 35(10), pages 1727-1733.
    9. Johnson, Will & Clancy, Thomas & Bastian, Pascal, 2015. "Child abuse/neglect risk assessment under field practice conditions: Tests of external and temporal validity and comparison with heart disease prediction," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 56(C), pages 76-85.
    10. Águila-Otero, A. & Bravo, A. & Santos, I. & Del Valle, J.F., 2020. "Addressing the most damaged adolescents in the child protection system: An analysis of the profiles of young people in therapeutic residential care," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 112(C).
    11. van der Put, Claudia E. & Assink, Mark & Stams, Geert Jan J.M., 2016. "Predicting relapse of problematic child-rearing situations," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 288-295.
    12. Stalker, Kirsten & Taylor, Julie & Fry, Deborah & Stewart, Alastair B.R., 2015. "A study of disabled children and child protection in Scotland — A hidden group?," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 56(C), pages 126-134.
    13. Izakian, Hesam & Russell, Matthew Joseph & Zwicker, Jennifer & Cui, Xinjie & Tough, Suzanne, 2019. "Trajectory of service use among Albertan youth with complex service need," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 100(C), pages 229-238.
    14. Janczewski, Colleen E. & Mersky, Joshua P., 2016. "What's so different about differential response? A multilevel and longitudinal analysis of child neglect investigations," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 67(C), pages 123-132.
    15. Landers, Ashley L. & Danes, Sharon M., 2016. "Forgotten children: A critical review of the reunification of American Indian children in the child welfare system," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 71(C), pages 137-147.
    16. Slayter, Elspeth, 2016. "Youth with disabilities in the United States Child Welfare System," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 64(C), pages 155-165.
    17. Karatekin, Canan & Gehrman, Richard & Lawler, Jamie, 2014. "A study of maltreated children and their families in juvenile court: I. Court performance measures," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 41(C), pages 62-74.
    18. Green, Beth L. & Ayoub, Catherine & Bartlett, Jessica Dym & Furrer, Carrie & Chazan-Cohen, Rachel & Buttitta, Katherine & Von Ende, Adam & Koepp, Andrew & Regalbuto, Eric, 2020. "Pathways to prevention: Early Head Start outcomes in the first three years lead to long-term reductions in child maltreatment," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 118(C).
    19. Powers, Laurie E. & Geenen, Sarah & Powers, Jennifer & Pommier-Satya, Summer & Turner, Alison & Dalton, Lawrence D. & Drummond, Diann & Swank, Paul, 2012. "My Life: Effects of a longitudinal, randomized study of self-determination enhancement on the transition outcomes of youth in foster care and special education," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 34(11), pages 2179-2187.
    20. Jenkins, Brian Q. & Tilbury, Clare & Hayes, Hennessey & Mazerolle, Paul, 2019. "Do measures of child protection recurrence obscure the differences between reporting and substantiation?," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 104(C), pages 1-1.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:14:y:2017:i:9:p:1066-:d:112043. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.