| Name: | Description: | Size: | Format: | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 315.23 KB | Adobe PDF |
Advisor(s)
Abstract(s)
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 (n¼1,123), 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.
Description
Keywords
Domestic Violence Elder Abuse Older Adults Measures Psychological Abuse Severity Levels Determinantes da Saúde e da Doença Violência Doméstica Envelhecimento
Pedagogical Context
Citation
J Adult Protection. 2017;19(6):380-393. doi:10.1108/JAP-06-2017-0025. Special Issue: Safeguarding adults and legal literacy
Publisher
Emerald Publishing Limited
