2011
DOI: 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2010.07.023
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Revisiting the Issue of the Child Abuse Potential Inventory's Internal Consistency in Adolescent Samples

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1

Citation Types

0
12
0

Year Published

2012
2012
2020
2020

Publication Types

Select...
7

Relationship

2
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 10 publications
(12 citation statements)
references
References 17 publications
0
12
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The CAPI was found to have adequate psychometric properties with diverse populations, including adolescent parents. 27,28 Reliability analysis with this group of adolescent parents resulted in an adequate level of internal consistency (a = 0.79).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 93%
“…The CAPI was found to have adequate psychometric properties with diverse populations, including adolescent parents. 27,28 Reliability analysis with this group of adolescent parents resulted in an adequate level of internal consistency (a = 0.79).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 93%
“…Sixty‐eight of these participants could not be reliably classified with respect to CPA risk status because of evidence of response distortion on the Child Abuse Potential (CAP) Inventory (9 randomly responded, 59 faked good). Exclusion for these reasons, and the exclusion rate, is typical of research using the CAP Inventory to establish CPA risk groups (e.g., Milner, , , ; Wells et al, ). Moreover, 11 additional participants were excluded from analyses because they failed to provide valid data for at least one positive memory or one negative memory.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This exclusion rate, and exclusion for these reasons, is typical of research using the CAP Inventory to establish CPA risk groups (e.g., Milner, 1986Milner, , 1994Milner, , 2003Wells et al, 2011). The remaining 165 participants were classified as either low CPA risk (n = 90) or high CPA risk (n = 75) based on their CAP abuse risk scores.…”
Section: Participantsmentioning
confidence: 99%