Exploring victimization patterns with latent class analysis: new Approaches to elder abuse

Santos, Ana João; Nunes, Baltazar; Kislaya, Irina; Gil, Ana Paula; Ribeiro, Oscar

http://hdl.handle.net/10400.18/5926

Use this identifier to reference this record.

Name:	Description:	Size:	Format:
LCA_AJS.pdf		1.27 MB	Adobe PDF	Download

Send Feedback

Authors

Abstract(s)

Objectives: Recognized as an important public health issue, elder abuse has been associated with adverse health and social outcomes. However, findings are often complex and contradictory, which can be attributed to elder abuse being a multidimensional construct that encompasses a set of different abusive behaviours, victims, perpetrators and settings. The array of possible elder abuse configurations is difficult to capture. This study sought to identify victimization patterns that represent distinct elder abuse configurations based on specific abusive behaviours and on the relationship with the perpetrator; it also sought to determine the association between these latent classes with victims’ characteristics. Methods: Data comes from two elder abuse surveys: a representative sample of community-dwelling adults and a convenience sample of older adults reporting elder abuse to four state and NGOs institutions. Latent Class Analysis (LCA) was used to categorize victimization in the population-based (N=245) and in the victims’ sample (N=510) using 7 items measuring physical, psychological and financial abuse, and appointed perpetrators. Chi-square tests were used to compare victims’ characteristics between the different obtained classes. Results: The LCA procedure identified six different latent classes of victimization experiences in each of the samples, which were statistically and plausibly distinct. In the population-based survey: verbal abuse by others (29%); psychological abuse from children/grandchildren (18%); overlooked by others (18%); stolen by others (15%); verbal IPV (14%) and physical and psychological IPV (6%). In the victims’ survey: physical abuse by children/grandchildren (29%); physical IPV (26%); psychological abuse by children/grandchildren (18%); polyvictimization by others (16%); physical abuse by others (6%) and physical and psychological IPV (4%). In the victims survey the six groups significantly differ in age, gender, civil status, cohabitation, perceived social support and functional status. Conclusion: The results support the possibility of the multidimensionality of elder abuse not being accounted by the “classical” abuse typologies. Elder abuse victims seeking help may represent a distinct group from that included in population-based prevalence studies. The appointed perpetrators may be the most meaningful and relevant aspect in distinguishing victimization experiences. Further research is needed to develop tailored interventions to specific elder abuse cases and enhance successful outcomes.