Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Childhood emotional abuse (CEA) is a highly prevalent but often overlooked area of child mental health research. One of the major hurdles in research in this area is the difficulty in defining emotional abuse (EA) across different cultures. This article aims to review the operational definitions and structured instruments used to assess CEA and to critically analyse the existing lacunae and challenges in this area. Original articles, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses with the objective of assessing emotional abuse in children and adolescent populations were chosen for the study. From the chosen articles, the data pertaining to the definition or structured instrument used to assess CEA was extracted and a narrative review was done. A total of 4 operational definitions and 9 structured instruments were included in the review of the 26 included articles. From this review, as per the author, some of the shortcomings of the available definitions and tools for assessing CEA include a paucity of instruments to assess EA in young children and special populations, the need for consensus on the terminologies used to denote EA, the need for longitudinal studies, the need for culturally appropriate standards for assessment, and also the need to understand the context of EA. A CEA assessment framework has been proposed that includes a longitudinal and qualitative assessment of the subjective experience of the child, which includes the context of EA, so as to plan individualized interventions.

Keywords

Childhood emotional abuse emotional abuse emotional neglect psychological maltreatment

Introduction

Emotional abuse (EA) is a highly prevalent form of abuse reported in children and adolescent populations across the world.¹ While the research on sexual and physical abuse in children has gained adequate attention from researchers and policymakers, childhood emotional abuse (CEA) remains overlooked.² It is well understood from the available literature that CEA poses a significant impact on the developing brain, which leads to long-term mental and physical health consequences,^{3, 4} and this emphasizes the need for research in this area.

Although EA often, or rather always, coexists with other forms of abuse,⁵ there are certain features that are unique to it. EA is not described in terms of certain circumscribed events but is a longstanding pattern of maladaptive relationship between the child and the caregiver.^{5, 6} The wounds/scars of EA are not physically distinct to others; rather, they are a subjective perception.⁷ As indistinct or ill-defined as it already is, with the added cultural connotations,⁸ identifying and defining CEA in both clinical and legal contexts is a major challenge.⁵ Again, unlike other forms of abuse, a global definition for EA cannot be accepted as different cultural practices across the world influence the way of parent–child interactions and thus the types and forms of EA as well.⁸ This difficulty in defining EA is one of the major barriers for research in this area.⁵

Across the years, researchers have tried to define CEA through operational definitions and structured instruments. One of the first documented efforts to define EA was the definition of “psychological maltreatment” (PM), which was put forward in the International Conference of Psychological Abuse of Children and Youth (1983). Later, Hart and Brassard (1987) proposed an operational definition for PM that included acts of commission such as verbal threats, terrorizing, and criticizing, as well as acts of omission such as ignoring and a lack of expression of affection.⁹ This definition is certainly a landmark in CEA research, gives a broad perspective on CEA, and has paved the way for further definitions and tools for the assessment of CEA. With the advent of new instruments and definitions, the nomenclature has also been changing, with the terms “psychological maltreatment” and “emotional maltreatment” being used synonymously with EA.^{9, 10}

These manifold definitions and varying terminologies highlight a general lack of consensus among the scientific community on the definition of CEA. Hence, there is a need to systematically evaluate the available definitions and tools for assessing CEA to understand how the definitions have scientifically evolved over the years. It is also important to critically analyse the existing lacunae and challenges in this area that are causing possible hindrance to research in this field.

In this article, the aim is to review and critically evaluate the operational definitions and structured instruments used to identify CEA in clinical research.

Methodology

Research articles with the following inclusion criteria were identified for the review:

Original research papers/systematic reviews/meta-analyses where the objective of the study has been to identify CEA

Papers that have clearly stated in their methodology the operational definition or structured instruments used to identify CEA

Studies done in children or adolescent populations

Articles published in English in peer-reviewed journals

Research articles with the following exclusion criteria were identified for the review:

The articles that used non-validated scales to identify CEA

Studies with legal definitions, as this review is on definitions of CEA in clinical research

A thorough and unbiased electronic search was done for articles meeting the above criteria in the following databases: MEDLINE through PubMed, ScienceDirect, and Google Scholar. The articles used the keywords “Emotional Abuse”/“Emotional Maltreatment”/“Psychological Abuse”/ “Psychological Maltreatment”/ “Child Abuse” AND “Children /Adolescents” /“Definitions” /“Tools” /“Structured Instruments”/“Scale”/“Scales.” The titles and abstracts of the articles that met the broad inclusion criteria were initially examined, from which articles eligible for the review were chosen and full texts were scrutinized to be included in the study.

Results

The PRISMA flowchart for the literature search is given in Figure 1.

Figure 1.

PRISMA Flow Chart of Literature Search.

From the articles (n = 26) chosen for the review, data related to the operational definition or structured instrument used to identify CEA was carefully extracted and tabulated (Table 1). A total of 4 operational definitions and 9 structured instruments were included in the review, which were extracted from the 26 articles that met the inclusion and exclusion criteria. The details of the definitions and scales included in the study are mentioned in Tables 2 and 3, respectively.

Table 1.

Studies Included in the Study with the Definitions/Structured Instruments Used.

Author, Year	Place of Conduct	Study and Sample Characteristics	Primary Objective	Definition/Structured Instrument Used to Identify CEA
Brassard et al, 1993³⁶	USA	Scale validation; mother–child dyads recruited with children who are preschoolers and school going	To assess the validity and reliability of Psychological Maltreatment Rating Scales (PMRS)	PMRS
Straus et al, 1998¹⁶	USA	Tool validation through telephonic interviews of children under 18 years and their parents	To create parent–child version of Conflicts Tactics Scale (CTS-PC)	CTS-PC
Fernandopulle, 2003¹⁹	Sri Lanka	Scale validation, children between 13 and 15 years of age	To develop a scale to measure EA among school children	Scale to measure EA as validated in the study
Kaslow and Thompson, 2008³⁷	USA	Cross-sectional study; African-American mother– child dyads; mothers referred with a history of IPV¹ whose children are between 8 and 12 years of age	To determine the interactive effects of child maltreatment and mothers’ history of IPV on child’s psychological functioning	Childhood Trauma Questionnaire (CTQ)
Sesar et al, 2008²¹	Bosnia and Herzegovina	Cross-sectional study; adolescents 15–20 years of age	To study the prevalence of different forms of psychological maltreatment and its relation with psychological problems	Child Maltreatment Questionnaire
Zolotor et al, 2009¹⁷	Columbia, Iceland, India, Russia	Validation of tool; children between 12 and 17 years of age	To develop a child victimization survey and determine its validity through multinational pilot surveys	ISPCAN² Child Abuse Screening Tool–Child version (ICAST-C)
Christoffersenand DePanfilis, 2010³⁸	Denmark	Cross-sectional study; children and adolescents (0–22 year olds) who were identified as “at-risk” by child protection agencies	To determine the correlation between PM and suicide attempts and contemplations in children	PM as defined by Brassard and Hart, 2000
de la Vega et al, 2011³⁹	Spain	Cross-sectional study; 4–17-year-olds whose mothers experienced IPV⁷	To explore the differential adverse outcomes of PM in children whose mothers experienced IPV	PM as defined by APSAC³
Slep et al, 2011²³	USA	Study to validate operational definition of childhood emotional abuse; parents of children under 18 were recruited for the study	To develop and validate operational definition for emotional aggression by parents and emotional abuse	Definition of emotional aggression and emotional abuse as developed in the study
de la Vega et al, 2013⁴⁰	Spain	Cross-sectional study; 4–17-year-olds whose mothers experienced IPV	To determine whether accumulation of different types of PM has impact on child’s psychopathology and functioning	PM as defined by APSAC
Meinck et al, 2013²²	South Africa	Cross-sectional analysis of a longitudinal cohort study; adolescents aged between 13 and 19 years	To study the risk and protective factors for severe abuse victimization	Items on EA from the UNICEF⁴ “Measures of National Level Monitoring of Orphans and Other Vulnerable children”
Stange et al, 2013⁴¹	USA	Longitudinal study; adolescents aged 12–13 years recruited	To determine whether overgeneral autobiographical memory (OGM) and emotional maltreatment predict depressive symptoms in adolescence	EA and EN subscales of CTQ
Hamilton et al, 2013⁴²	USA	Longitudinal study; adolescents aged between 12 and 13 years recruited	To study the specificity of EA, EN, and peer victimization as predictors of depressive versus anxiety symptoms	EA and EN subscales of CTQ
Maguire et al, 2014²⁷	United Kingdom	Systematic review; studies done in children between 5 and 14 years of age experiencing EA¹/EN²	To identify the observable behavioral features in children (5–14 years) experiencing EA/EN	WHO⁵ definition of EA and neglect, 2002 APSAC definition of PM
Kabaskal and Arslan, 2014²⁰	Turkey	Validation of tool; adolescents aged 15–19 years of age	To examine the validity and reliability of second short form of Perception Psychological Maltreatment Inventory for Adolescents	Perception of Psychological Maltreatment Inventory for Adolescents–short form (POPMIFA)
Rizvi and Najam, 2014¹⁰	Pakistan	Cross-sectional study; adolescents aged between 13 and 17 years of age	To identify the relationship between psychological abuse and mental health problems	Psychological Maltreatment experience Scale (PMES)
Banducci et al, 2014⁴³	USA	Cross-sectional community study; adolescents aged between 10 and 12 years old	To determine the effects of CEA and 5-HTTLPR⁶ polymorphism on depressive symptoms	CTQ
Chamberland, 2015⁴⁴	Canada	Children under 18 years who were referred to Youth Protection Services, Quebec, and who were identified as a part of the Quebec Incidence Study	To identify the rates of different forms of PM and its correlates	Emotional neglect, denigration, terrorization as defined by APSAC (direct forms of PM) Exposure to spousal abuse (indirect form of PM)
Arslan, 2015⁴⁵	Turkey	Validation of questionnaire; adolescents aged 14–19 years	To develop a valid and reliable tool to assess PM in adolescents	Psychological Maltreatment Questionnaire (PMQ)
Arslan, 2016¹¹	Turkey	Analytical cross-sectional study; adolescents 14–19 years old	To understand the mediating role of resilience and self-esteem on the relationship between PM and emotional and behavioral problems	Perception of Psychological Maltreatment Inventory for Adolescents (POPMIFA)
Arslan, 2017¹²	Turkey	Analytical cross-sectional study; sample from schools of adolescents 14–18 years old	To study the mediating effects of coping strategies on the association between PM and mental health	PMQ
Arslan, 2018¹³	Turkey	Analytical cross-sectional study; sample from schools of adolescents between 14 and 19 year olds	To study the mediating role of social acceptance and social connectedness on the effect of PM on subjective well-being	PMQ
Miller et al, 2017⁴⁶	USA	Longitudinal study; children aged 7–12 years	To longitudinally determine the relationship of childhood maltreatment and suicidal ideation	Emotional Maltreatment subscale of CTQ
Mwakanyamale and Yizhen, 2019⁴⁷	Tanzania	Cross-sectional community-based study; sample taken from secondary school students	To study the relationship between childhood PM and self-esteem and psychological distress	CTQ
Lakhdir et al, 2019⁴⁸	Pakistan	Analytical cross- sectional study; 11–17-year-old children and their parents	To determine the relationship of intergenerational abuse with childhood emotional maltreatment	ICAST-C⁶
Luo et al, 2020¹⁴	China	Cross-sectional study; sample from schools in China of students aged between 9 and 13 years	To study the mediating effect of social support and self-esteem on the relationship between PM and loneliness	Child Psychological maltreatment scale (CPMS)

Notes: IPV - intimate partner violence; ISPCAN - International Society for the Prevention of Child Abuse and Neglect; APSAC - American Professional Society on the Abuse of Children; UNICEF - United Nations Children’s Emergency Fund; WHO - World Health Organization; HTTLPR - serotonin transporter-linked polymorphic region.

Table 2.

Review of Operational Definitions of CEA.

Definition	Author/Source, Year	Term Used to Describe CEA	Components in the Definition That look at Acts of Commission	Components in the Definition That Look at Acts of Omission
WHO¹⁵	Consultation on Child Abuse Prevention, Geneva, 1999	EA and EN	Defined under EA: restricting a child’s movements, denigration, ridicule, threats and intimidation, discrimination, rejection, and other physical forms of hostile treatment	Defined under EN: failure of a parent to provide (when he/she is in a position to provide) for the development of the child in the areas of health, education, emotional development, nutrition, shelter, and safe living conditions
Operational definition of emotional aggression by parents and emotional abuse²³	Slep et al, 2011	Emotional aggression EA (this includes emotional aggression act, which has an impact on the child)	Emotional aggression includes acts like calling child hurtful names, threaten to hurt the child or threaten to destroy their favorite things, mock the child, embarrass them in front of others It becomes emotional abuse if these cause an impact on child, like he/she develops depressive symptoms, becomes nervous, or seeks help of a mental health professional	Nil
UNICEF “Measures of National-Level Monitoring of Orphans and Other Vulnerable children”²²	Questions taken from CTS-PC (Straus et al, 1998) and ICAST-P (Runyan et al, 2009)	Subsumed under the domain household violence, child abuse, and corporal punishment	Child being threatened to be sent away/to invoke ghosts/to be harmed; verbal insults	Keeping them out of school; withholding meal
APSAC⁶	Brassard et al, 2019	PM	Spurning, terrorizing, exploiting, corrupting, isolating	Emotional unresponsiveness; mental health, medical and educational neglect

Table 3.

Review of Structured Instruments/Scales Used to Identify CEA.

Name of the Scale	Author, Year	Scale Description	Reliability and validity
CTQ¹⁸	Bernstein et al, 1994	70-item self-report inventory assessing abuse and neglect in childhood and adolescence; validated in 12 years and above Short form: 28 items Has separate questions for EA and EN	Cronbach’s α for EA 0.95 and EN 0.95 Test-retest reliability: 0.79–0.86 Concurrent validity: compared with therapist evaluation for EA r = 0.46 (Bernstein 1997)
PMES¹⁰	Petretic-Jackson et al, 1995	53-item self-report questionnaire with separate forms for father and mother Assesses five types of psychological abuse: verbal abuse/attacks on self-worth, neglectful/rejecting behaviors, withholding supporting behaviors, minimizing, isolating and terrorizing, and exploitative parental behaviors	Cronbach’s α: 0.97
CTS-PC¹⁶	Straus et al, 1998	Psychological aggression scale assesses EA; this has five items: shouting/yelling, threatening to hit, cursing, being called dumb/lazy, threatening to send away Parent report scale	Cronbach’s α: 0.6
Child Maltreatment Questionnaire²¹	Karlovic et al, 2001	Framed based on comprehensive child maltreatment scales for adults Questions enquiring all forms of abuse included in the questionnaire Validated in Croatian population	Not available
Sri Lankan Scale to measure EA among school children¹⁹	Fernandopulle, 2003	Self-report scale with 46 items Validated in adolescents aged between 13 and 15 years in Sri Lanka Subcategories: denying emotional responsiveness, rejection, ignoring, methods of disciplining, terrorizing	Cronbach’s α: 0.89 Test-retest reliability: 0.73
ICAST-C¹⁷	Zolotor et al, 2009	Two forms: ICAST-C home (38 items) and ICAST-C institution (44 items); entails questions on all forms of abuse with specific questions on psychological victimization Validated in adolescents 12–17 years in 4 countries and translated into 6 languages	Cronbach’s α: for psychological victimization, 0.78 (ICAST-C home) and 0.86 (ICAST-C institution)
CPMS¹⁴	Pan et al, 2010	23-item self-report instrument to assess PM Five subscales assess terrorizing, belittling, intermeddling, and conniving	Cronbach’s α: 0.84
POMIFA (short form)²⁰	Kabasakal and Arslan, 2020	Self-report validated in adolescents Separate scales for father and mother; each has 32 items (in original scale, each has 100 items) Five subscales: severe and subtle rejection, unrealistic expectations, degrading, acceptance/respect	Father form α = 0.88 Mother form α = 0.92
PMQ⁴⁵	Arslan, 2015	27 items with four subscales: terrorizing and degrading, emotional unresponsiveness, rejecting and isolating, corrupting Validated in adolescents between 14 and 19 years	Internal reliability Cronbach’s α = 0.82–0.93 Concurrent validity: compared with resilience r = −0.59, negative self-concept r = 0.36, depression = 0.35

Terms Used to Describe EA

Different definitions and scales have used different terminology for EA. The most commonly used term is “psychological maltreatment” (PM),^{6, 11–14} as in the original definition by Brassard and Hart,⁹ which includes both acts of omission and commission. WHO defines EA and EN as separate constructs.¹⁵ “Psychological aggression” is the term used to describe the pattern of EA between parent and child in CTS-PC.¹⁶ In the more recent scale, ICAST-C, the term “child victimization” subsumes different forms of abuse, and the term “psychological victimization” is used to describe EA.¹⁷

Domains of EA Assessed

There is considerable overlap regarding the domains of EA assessed by different definitions and scales. Some of the themes/domains that are common to most of the scales include terrorizing, verbal threats to harm or abandon, degrading, and isolating.^{6, 10, 11, 15} The impact of EA/EN on childhood development has life-long implications, and WHO’s definition explicitly states that not providing opportunity for developmental experiences can be considered EN.¹⁵ The APSAC definition also acknowledges the deprivation of developmental experiences as a form of PM.⁶

Assessment of EA in Different Age Groups

Six out of the nine structured instruments reviewed have been validated in the adolescent population.^{11, 17–21} There are no scales that specifically look into EA in a younger population. The operational definitions may be used across different age groups. The APSAC definition does state the need to use different strategies that are developmentally appropriate to assess PM across different age groups. APSAC also gives specific behavioral indicators for EA in different age groups, from infancy to adolescence.⁶

Self- Versus Parent-reported Assessments

All the scales validated in the adolescent population are self-reported scales. CTS-PC, which can be used across different age groups, is a parent-reported scale.¹⁶ The operational definitions reviewed are to be applied by the observer/researcher based on the information gathered from the interview with parents/children.^{6, 15, 22} But the definition of emotional aggression and emotional abuse developed by Slep et al. is a parent-reported assessment.²³

Validity and Reliability of the Scales

All the scales reviewed here have an internal consistency alpha of 0.82¹²–0.97¹⁰. The papers that validated the reviewed scales mention the challenge in defining the concurrent validity of the instruments because of the lack of a gold standard assessment tool for emotional abuse.^{17, 18} Thus, the authors have either compared the assessment from the scale with the independent assessment of psychiatrist¹⁹ or therapist¹⁸ or the scores from the scale with other related constructs such as depression, a negative view of self, and resilience.¹²

Cross-sectional Versus Longitudinal Assessment

The scales and definitions reviewed here are based on cross-sectional interviews. But most of them have questions framed in a way that captures a pattern of interaction that has been present for a certain period of time.^{12, 17, 18} Some of the instruments also try to quantify this by documenting the frequency of each act that is included under EA.^{17, 23} The APSAC definition also mentions the need for a longitudinal assessment of patterns of maladaptive interaction between a child and a caregiver.⁶

Cultural Factors in Assessments

Among the structured instruments reviewed, one of the scales included certain questions on EA that are culturally relevant. In this scale, they included certain terms in the local language (Singala), which are commonly used in the population to verbally degrade others.¹⁹ The APSAC definition mentions the need to evaluate the acts and behaviors reported in light of the cultural practices of the population before drawing conclusions.⁶ Most of the scales have been validated in a particular set of population, but ICAST-C is validated through pilot studies in four different countries and is translated into six languages.¹⁷

Discussion

From the definitions and instruments reviewed in this article, we can see that there is a general lack of consensus related to the terms used to describe EA. While terms like “psychological maltreatment” include both EA and EN,⁶ certain definitions and instruments conceptualize EA and EN as two separate constructs.^{15, 17, 18} While evidence from factor analysis studies supports that these should be treated as separate entities,²⁴ from a clinical and intervention perspective, should we treat EA and EN differently? There is evidence from research that both EA and EN in childhood increase the odds of developing depression, anxiety, substance use, and suicidal ideas, with the odds being slightly higher in EA than in EN.³ The crux of both EA and EN is a negative parent–child interaction pattern. Most often, EA and EN coexist, and the interventions are mostly focused on rebuilding a healthy family environment and ensuring the protection of the child.²⁵ Thus, understanding EA and EN as dichotomous variables under the broader construct of PM is more meaningful from a clinical perspective.

Paucity of Instruments for Assessing CEA in Young Children

It is interesting to note that the instruments reviewed above are only a fraction of those available to assess CEA in the literature. This is because most of the tools for assessing CEA are validated in the adult population to assess it retrospectively.²⁶ Among the measures used in the child population, the majority are validated for adolescents.^{12, 17–20} This highlights the relative paucity of instruments to assess CEA in young children. It is important to identify EA in this population as it affects critical periods of development that have a lasting impact on physical and mental health. While assessing CEA in young children, it is important to keep in mind their developmental stage, especially their speech and emotional and cognitive skills, and frame questionnaires that are developmentally appropriate.²⁷ Sometimes we may also need to use experiential methods such as play and art to elicit the history of EA from them.

Assessing CEA in Special Populations

Children with special needs—those with intellectual disability, physical disability, sensory impairments, and chronic medical illness—are often victims of abuse, especially physical and emotional.²⁸ EA is often very contextual and related to their disability or illness and does not adequately get captured in the above-reviewed definitions or instruments. Again, as with young children, alternative methods of interviewing and assessments need to be employed here, as well as the need to plan individualized intervention plans.

Need for Longitudinal Assessments

The operational definitions emphasize that EA is the result of a long-standing conflictual relationship between the caregiver and the child; thus, there is a need to longitudinally assess the caregiver–child interaction pattern to elicit EA.⁶ Most of the structured instruments use a Likert scale–based assessment to elicit the frequency of each behavior that is subsumed under EA.¹⁷ But this is not a true objective measure of an enduring pattern of abuse. Thus, research on CEA should aim at longitudinal objective assessments of interaction patterns, which will more reliably pick up EA in children.

Cultural Challenges in CEA

The biggest critique of the available assessments is a lack of generalizability owing to the cultural variation in child-rearing practices around the world and its implications for what counts as emotional abuse in different parts of the world. If we look at the example of a lack of emotional expression of affection as a sign of emotional neglect, we need to keep in mind that in many cultures, it is normative not to express affection verbally or by physical gestures like hugging or kissing. But instead, affection is many a times expressed through materials like buying the child’s favorite food, toy, etc.¹⁹

While keeping the child “grounded” is a common disciplining practice in some cultures, corporal punishment is common, accepted, and normalized in several other cultures.²⁹ Gender-based differential parenting in some cultures causes specific patterns of PM where girl children are verbally abused for not doing household chores, for not coming home early, for their dressing, as well as other forms of differential treatment where they are deprived of their material needs and opportunities.³⁰ In cultures where children are expected to financially contribute to the household from a very young age, it is not uncommon for them to be victims of economic exploitation/terrorizing, which is a documented form of EA.^{6, 15}

Another context of child maltreatment that has cultural underpinnings is parental perceptions and responses to their child’s gender identity and sexual orientation. In certain cultures, children with same-sex orientation or those who are struggling with gender identity issues are at risk of being psychologically maltreated.³¹

EA in the context of academics also varies across different cultures. While educational neglect is a well-documented form of childhood neglect, the opposite is common in some cultures.³² The Asian style of parenting has been positively attributed to high academic achievement.^{33, 34} But prioritizing education over other normal childhood experiences often puts the children at risk for “academics-influenced” psychological maltreatment. Evidence from research shows that parents constantly remind children about their own sacrifice, make constant comparisons with their peers, and equate academic achievement to honor.³⁵ This leads to a parent–child interaction where emotional needs are delivered based on an academic achievement–based yardstick.

Most of the issues discussed above do qualify for emotional abuse or neglect as per the definitions provided above, but they often miss out on being documented because the act often becomes culturally normalized.

“Context” Versus “The Act”: What Matters More in Emotional Abuse?

As discussed above, the acts that constitute emotional abuse or neglect can be well captured by some of the operational definitions discussed above,^{6, 9, 15} but it is the context of the abuse that differs. One may argue that the aim of the definitions/tools is to pick up the act and not the context. But the context reflects the subjective meaning the child gives to the act, and this subjective experience of the child determines the impact of the act on the child. It is very important to pick up this dimension as it influences the intervention for EA.

Conclusion

The operational definitions of EA in the literature are comprehensive in picking up the acts that constitute EA. But there is a need to develop a methodology to assess EA in different age groups and special populations that is culturally appropriate. The need to longitudinally understand parent–child interactional dynamics and the context behind abuse cannot be ignored.

A framework with a qualitative analysis of different contexts of parent–child interactions, subjective experience of the child regarding the EA, and parental perception of the documented act of the EA while keeping in mind the developmental age of the child needs to be included in the clinical assessment of CEA. This will help in a holistic understanding of CEA to plan individualized intervention plans.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author received no financial support for the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.

Statement of Informed Consent and Ethical Approval

Not relevant as no participants were recruited for the study.

References

Stoltenborgh

, Bakermans-Kranenburg

, Alink

LRA

, IJzendoorn

MH van

. The universality of childhood emotional abuse: a meta-analysis of worldwide prevalence. J Aggress Maltreat Trauma. 2012;21(8):870–890. doi: 10.1080/10926771.2012.708014

Egeland

. Taking stock: childhood emotional maltreatment and developmental psychopathology. Child Abuse Negl. 2009;33(1):22–26. doi: 10.1016/j.chiabu.2008.12.004

Norman

, Byambaa

, De

, Butchart

, Scott

, Vos

. The long-term health consequences of child physical abuse, emotional abuse, and neglect: a systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS Med. 2012;9(11). doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1001349

Yates

. The developmental consequences of child emotional abuse: a neurodevelopmental perspective. J Emot Abuse. 2007;7(2):9–34. doi: 10.1300/J135v07n02_02

Glaser

. Emotional abuse and neglect (psychological maltreatment): a conceptual framework. Child Abuse Negl. 2002;26(6):697–714. doi: 10.1016/S0145-2134(02)00342-3

Brassard

, Hart

, Baker

AAL

. APSAC Monograph on Psychological Maltreatment (PM). Published online December 12, 2019:109.

Gavin

. Sticks and stones may break my bones: the effects of emotional abuse. J Aggress Maltreat Trauma. 2011;20(5): 503–529. doi: 10.1080/10926771.2011.592179

Chan

, Elliott

, Chow

, Thomas

. Does professional and public opinion in child abuse differ? An issue of cross-cultural policy implementation. Child Abuse Rev. 2002;11(6):359–379. doi: 10.1002/car.767

Brassard

, Donovan

. Defining psychological maltreatment. In: Feerick

, Knutson

, Trickett

, Flanzer

, eds. Child Abuse and Neglect: Definitions, Classifications, and a Framework for Research. Paul H Brookes Publishing Co.; 2006:151–197.

10.

Rizvi

SFI

. Parental psychological abuse and mental health problems in adolescents. Pak J Med Sci. 2014;30(2). doi: 10.12669/pjms.302.4593

11.

Arslan

. Psychological maltreatment, emotional and behavioral problems in adolescents: the mediating role of resilience and self-esteem. Child Abuse Negl. 2016;52:200–209. doi: 10.1016/j.chiabu.2015.09.010

12.

Arslan

. Psychological maltreatment, coping strategies, and mental health problems: a brief and effective measure of psychological maltreatment in adolescents. Child Abuse Negl. 2017;68:96–106. doi: 10.1016/j.chiabu.2017.03.023

13.

Arslan

. Psychological maltreatment, social acceptance, social connectedness, and subjective well-being in adolescents. J Happiness Stud. 2018;19(4):983–1001. doi: 10.1007/s10902-017-9856-z

14.

Luo

, Liu

, Zhang

. Psychological maltreatment and loneliness in Chinese children: the role of perceived social support and self-esteem. Child Youth Serv Rev. 2020; 108:104573. doi: 10.1016/j.childyouth.2019.104573

15.

Geneva

, Team

WHOV

and

. Research GF for H. Report of the Consultation on Child Abuse Prevention, 29–31 March 1999. Published online, 1999. Accessed July 25, 2020. https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/65900

16.

Straus

, Hamby

, Finkelhor

, Moore

, Runyan

. Identification of child maltreatment with the parent–child conflict tactics scales: development and psychometric data for a national sample of American parents. Child Abuse Negl. 1998;22(4):249–270. doi: 10.1016/S0145-2134(97)00174-9

17.

Zolotor

, Runyan

, Dunne

, . ISPCAN Child Abuse Screening Tool Children’s Version (ICAST-C): Instrument development and multi-national pilot testing. Child Abuse Negl. 2009;33(11):833–841. doi: 10.1016/j.chiabu.2009.09.004

18.

Bernstein

, Ahluvalia

, Pogge

, Handelsman

. Validity of the childhood trauma questionnaire in an adolescent psychiatric population. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 1997;36(3): 340–348. doi: 10.1097/00004583-199703000-00012

19.

Fernandopulle

, Fernando

. Development and initial validation of a scale to measure emotional abuse among school children aged 13–15 years in Sri Lanka. Child Abuse Negl. 2003;27(10):1087–1099. doi: 10.1016/j.chiabu.2003.09.006

20.

Kabasakal

, Arslan

. The second short form of perception psychological maltreatment inventory for adolescents: the study of validity and reliability. Ergenler İçin Algılanan Duygusal/Psikolojik İstismar Ölçeği Kısa Formu-II: Geçerlilik ve Güvenirlilik Çalışması. Published online, 2014. Accessed June 23, 2020. http://acikerisim.lib.comu.edu.tr:8080/xmlui/handle/COMU/1102

21.

Sesar

, Živčić-Bećirević

, Sesar

. Multi-type maltreatment in childhood and psychological adjustment in adolescence: questionnaire study among adolescents in Western Herzegovina canton. Croat Med J. 2008;49(2):243–256. doi: 10.3325/cmj.2008.2.243

22.

Meinck

, Cluver

, Boyes

, Ndhlovu

. Risk and protective factors for physical and emotional abuse victimisation amongst vulnerable children in South Africa. Child Abuse Rev. 2013;24(3):182–197. doi: 10.1002/car.2283

23.

Slep

AMS

, Heyman

, Snarr

. Child emotional aggression and abuse: definitions and prevalence. Child Abuse Negl. 2011;35(10):783–796. doi: 10.1016/j.chiabu.2011.07.002

24.

Baker

AJL

, Festinger

. Emotional abuse and emotional neglect subscales of the CTQ: associations with each other, other measures of psychological maltreatment, and demographic variables. Child Youth Serv Rev. 2011;33(11):2297–2302. doi: 10.1016/j.childyouth.2011.07.018

25.

Glaser

. How to deal with emotional abuse and neglect—further development of a conceptual framework (FRAMEA). Child Abuse Negl. 2011;35(10):866–875. doi: 10.1016/j.chiabu.2011.08.002

26.

Tonmyr

, Draca

, Crain

, MacMillan

. Measurement of emotional/psychological child maltreatment: a review. Child Abuse Negl. 2011;35(10):767–782. doi: 10.1016/j.chiabu.2011.04.011

27.

Maguire

, Williams

, Naughton

, . A systematic review of the emotional, behavioural and cognitive features exhibited by school-aged children experiencing neglect or emotional abuse: systematic review of school-aged neglect/emotional abuse. Child Care Health Dev. 2015;41(5):641–653. doi: 10.1111/cch.12227

28.

Stalker

, McArthur

. Child abuse, child protection and disabled children: a review of recent research. Child Abuse Rev. 2012;21(1):24–40. doi: 10.1002/car.1154

29.

Lansford

, Chang

, Dodge

, . Physical discipline and children’s adjustment: cultural normativeness as a moderator. Child Dev. 2005;76(6):1234–1246. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2005.00847.x

30.

UNICEF. Parenting matters: Examining Parenting approaches and practices in early childhood years. Published online, 2018. Accessed July 26, 2020. https://www.unicef.org/india/media/3776/file/Key-Findings-Parenting-Study.pdf

31.

Firth

. Childhood abuse and depressive vulnerability in clients with gender dysphoria. Couns Psychother Res. 2014;14(4):297–305. doi: 10.1080/14733145.2013.845236

32.

Kim

, Wang

, Orozco-Lapray

, Shen

, Murtuza

. Does “tiger parenting” exist? parenting profiles of Chinese Americans and adolescent developmental outcomes. Asian Am J Psychol. 2013;4(1):7–18. doi: 10.1037/a0030612

33.

Ngo

, Lee

. Complicating the image of model minority success: a review of Southeast Asian American education. Rev Educ Res. 2007;77(4):415–453. doi: 10.3102/0034654307309918

34.

Yang

W (Eric)

, Zhou

. What accounts for Chinese-American children’s high academic performance: a literature review of parental influences and home environment. GiftEduc Int. 2008;24(1):88–104. doi: 10.1177/026142940802400111

35.

Dundes

, Cho

, Kwak

. The duty to succeed: honor versus happiness in college and career choices of East Asian students in the United States. Pastor Care Educ. 2009;27(2):135–156. doi: 10.1080/02643940902898960

36.

Brassard

, Hart

, Hardy

. The psychological maltreatment rating scales. Child Abuse Negl. 1993;17(6): 715–729. doi: 10.1016/S0145-2134(08)80003-8

37.

Kaslow

, Thompson

. Associations of child maltreatment and intimate partner violence with psychological adjustment among low SES, African American children. Child Abuse Negl. 2008;32(9):888–896. doi: 10.1016/j.chiabu.2007.09.012

38.

Christoffersen

, Diane

. Psychological maltreatment and adolescents’ suicidal behavior: a nationwide sample of 1,055 children at risk. J Child Adolesc Trauma. 2010;3(2):109–124. doi: 10.1080/19361521003761242

39.

de la Vega

, de la Osa

, Ezpeleta

, Granero

, Domènech

. Differential effects of psychological maltreatment on children of mothers exposed to intimate partner violence. Child Abuse Negl. 2011;35(7):524–531. doi: 10.1016/j.chiabu.2011.03.006

40.

de la Vega

, de la Osa

, Granero

, Ezpeleta

. Severity of psychological maltreatment and accumulative risk for psychopathology in children of mothers exposed to intimate partner violence. J Fam Viol. 2013;28(5):427–434. doi: 10.1007/s10896-013-9521-1

41.

Stange

, Hamlat

, Hamilton

, Abramson

, Alloy

. Overgeneral autobiographical memory, emotional maltreatment, and depressive symptoms in adolescence: evidence of a cognitive vulnerability–stress interaction. J Adolesc. 2013;36(1):201–208. doi: 10.1016/j.adolescence.2012.11.001

42.

Hamilton

, Shapero

, Stange

, Hamlat

, Abramson

, Alloy

. Emotional maltreatment, peer victimization, and depressive versus anxiety symptoms during adolescence: hopelessness as a mediator. J Clin Child Adolesc Psychol. 2013;42(3):332–347. doi: 10.1080/15374416.2013.777916

43.

Banducci

, Gomes

, MacPherson

, . A preliminary examination of the relationship between the 5-HTTLPR and childhood emotional abuse on depressive symptoms in 10–12-year-old youth. Psychol Trauma. 2014;6(1):1–7. doi: 10.1037/a0031121

44.

Chamberland

, Fallon

, Black

, Trocmé

, Chabot

. Correlates of substantiated emotional maltreatment in the second Canadian incidence study. J Fam Viol. 2012;27(3): 201–213. doi: 10.1007/s10896-012-9414-8

45.

Arslan

. Development Psychological Maltreatment Question- naire (PMQ): Investigating psychometric properties in adolescents. Bartın Univ J Faculty Educ. 2015; 4(2): 727–738. doi: 10.14686/buefad.v4i2.5000146983

46.

Miller

, Jenness

, Oppenheimer

, Gottleib

ALB

, Young

, Hankin

. Childhood emotional maltreatment as a robust predictor of suicidal ideation: a 3-year multi-wave, prospective investigation. J Abnorm Child Psychol. 2017;45(1):105–116. doi: 10.1007/s10802-016-0150-z

47.

Mwakanyamale

, Yizhen

. Psychological maltreatment and its relationship with self-esteem and psychological stress among adolescents in Tanzania: a community based, cross-sectional study. BMC Psychiatry. 2019;19(1):176. doi: 10.1186/s12888-019-2139-y

48.

Lakhdir

MPA

, Nathwani

, Ali

, . Intergenerational transmission of child maltreatment: predictors of child emotional maltreatment among 11 to 17 years old children residing in communities of Karachi, Pakistan. Child Abuse Negl. 2019;91:109–115. doi: 10.1016/j.chiabu.2019.0₹3.004

Operational Definitions and Structured Instruments for Childhood Emotional Abuse in Clinical Research: A Narrative Review

Abstract

Keywords

Introduction

Methodology

Results

PRISMA Flow Chart of Literature Search.

Terms Used to Describe EA

Domains of EA Assessed

Assessment of EA in Different Age Groups

Self- Versus Parent-reported Assessments

Validity and Reliability of the Scales

Cross-sectional Versus Longitudinal Assessment

Cultural Factors in Assessments

Discussion

Paucity of Instruments for Assessing CEA in Young Children

Assessing CEA in Special Populations

Need for Longitudinal Assessments

Cultural Challenges in CEA

“Context” Versus “The Act”: What Matters More in Emotional Abuse?

Conclusion

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

Funding

Statement of Informed Consent and Ethical Approval

References