Webster Stephen W, O'Toole Richard, O'Toole Anita W, Lucal Betsy
Department of Sociology, Kent State University, Kent, OH 44242, USA.
Child Abuse Negl. 2005 Nov;29(11):1281-96. doi: 10.1016/j.chiabu.2004.02.007. Epub 2005 Nov 2.
According to mandatory reporting laws for professionals, the relationship between initial recognition that a child may have been abused and the subsequent reporting of that suspected case of child abuse to the responsible agency would, at first glance, appear to be clear. However, this relationship has developed into one of the major social policy controversies of the recent past. Our major goal is to present research findings that address this social policy debate concerning the problems of underreporting and overreporting, focusing specifically on teachers.
A factorial survey design, that combines the advantages of the factorial experiment with those of surveys, was employed in a probability sample of teachers (N=480) who responded to vignettes in which case characteristics were systematically manipulated. Teachers responded with judgments about whether the vignette was child abuse and the likelihood that they would report this suspected case. Characteristics of the teachers and their work setting (school) were also measured.
When comparing the teachers' recognition and reporting scores, we found that they gave the same score for 63% of the vignettes they judged, gave higher reporting than recognition scores (overreporting) for 4% of the vignettes, and gave higher recognition than reporting scores (underreporting) for 33% of the vignettes. Discrepancies between recognition and reporting (over and under reporting) were related to characteristics of the case, teacher, and school where the teacher was employed.
Teachers in our Ohio sample evidence the use of professional discretion in making judgments about the recognition and reporting of child abuse and do not appear to make these judgments with equal certainty. Their use of discretion is more likely to result in underreporting than overreporting.
根据针对专业人员的强制报告法律，乍一看，儿童可能受到虐待的初步认知与随后向负责机构报告该疑似虐待儿童案件之间的关系似乎很明确。然而，这种关系已演变成近期主要的社会政策争议之一。我们的主要目标是呈现研究结果，以解决关于报告不足和报告过度问题的这一社会政策辩论，特别关注教师。
采用一种析因调查设计，该设计结合了析因实验和调查的优点，对一个概率抽样的教师样本（N = 480）进行研究，这些教师对其中案例特征被系统操纵的 vignettes 做出回应。教师们就 vignette 是否构成儿童虐待以及他们报告这一疑似案件的可能性做出判断。同时还测量了教师及其工作场所（学校）的特征。
在比较教师的认知和报告得分时，我们发现他们对所判断的 vignettes 中有63%给出了相同的分数，对4%的 vignettes 给出的报告得分高于认知得分（报告过度），对33%的 vignettes 给出的认知得分高于报告得分（报告不足）。认知与报告之间的差异（报告过度和报告不足）与案例、教师以及教师所在学校的特征有关。
我们俄亥俄样本中的教师在对儿童虐待的认知和报告做出判断时表现出了专业判断力的运用，而且做出这些判断时的确定性似乎并不相同。他们运用判断力更有可能导致报告不足而非报告过度。
