An Integrated Resilience and Ecological Model of Child Abuse (REC-Model)

Systematic Review of Child Abuse Perpetrators Worldwide: Characteristics and Risk Factors

“…Two of the studies demonstrated that marital conflict and parents' marital status were significantly associated with child abuse (15,17). Marital conflict significantly leads to higher risk of abusing the child (15). In this study, they also demonstrated that Chinese cultural values among parents strengthened the negative effect of marital conflict on child abuse.…”

“…Anxious-ambivalent attachment and avoidant attachment type of child-parent relationship were found to play a significant role in predicting emotional and physical abuse of a child (18). Low parent-child attachment was significantly associated with a high risk of child abuse (15). In this study, Ling & Kwok (15) further demonstrated that Chinese cultural parenting values will increase child abuse when parent-child attachment is low and decrease child abuse when parent-child attachment is high.…”

“…While Rodriguez & Tucker (17) found that single mothers obtained significantly higher abuse risk scores in CAPI, two other studies showed that mother's marital status (either married or single) was not associated with child abuse (21,22). Four of the studies demonstrated that parents who were having issue with child-parent relationship would significantly obtain higher risk of child abuse score (15,16,18,21). Parents of children in the abuse group were more likely to be assessed as lacking parental responsiveness ability compare to nonabuse group (21).…”

“…They found that parents with high distress but low social support obtained the highest abuse risk scores. Two of the studies demonstrated that marital conflict and parents' marital status were significantly associated with child abuse (15,17). Marital conflict significantly leads to higher risk of abusing the child (15).…”

Child physical abuse risk factors: A systematic review and a meta-analysis

“…While most of the studies in the Stith et al (2009) meta-analysis involved U.S. samples, a few studies used non-U.S. samples (e.g., samples from Hong Kong [Chan, 1994;Lau & Donnan, 1987] and samples from Spain [Cerezo & D'Ocon, 1995;de Paul & Arruabarrena, 1995]). Since research has shown cross-cultural differences in CPA definitions and CPA risk factors (Hyun & Adams, 2016;Lansford et al, 2015;Ling & Kwok, 2017;Meinck et al, 2015;Raman & Hodes, 2012;Sebre et al, 2004), it is unclear why these studies were included and what effect they may have had on the Stith et al findings. To control for potential cross-cultural differences, in the present review, only studies using U.S. samples were reviewed.…”