Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice, University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742, USA.
Trauma Violence Abuse. 2012 Jul;13(3):135-52. doi: 10.1177/1524838012447697. Epub 2012 Jun 5.
In this article, the authors critically review the literature testing the cycle of maltreatment hypothesis which posits continuity in maltreatment across adjacent generations. That is, the authors examine whether a history of maltreatment victimization is a significant risk factor for the later perpetration of maltreatment. The authors begin by establishing 11 methodological criteria that studies testing this hypothesis should meet. They include such basic standards as using representative samples, valid and reliable measures, prospective designs, and different reporters for each generation. The authors identify 47 studies that investigated this issue and then evaluate them with regard to the 11 methodological criteria. Overall, most of these studies report findings consistent with the cycle of maltreatment hypothesis. Unfortunately, at the same time, few of them satisfy the basic methodological criteria that the authors established; indeed, even the stronger studies in this area only meet about half of them. Moreover, the methodologically stronger studies present mixed support for the hypothesis. As a result, the positive association often reported in the literature appears to be based largely on the methodologically weaker designs. Based on this systematic methodological review, the authors conclude that this small and methodologically weak body of literature does not provide a definitive test of the cycle of maltreatment hypothesis. The authors conclude that it is imperative to develop more robust and methodologically adequate assessments of this hypothesis to more accurately inform the development of prevention and treatment programs.
在本文中，作者批判性地回顾了检验虐待循环假说的文献，该假说假设虐待在相邻代际中具有连续性。也就是说，作者研究了虐待受害史是否是后来虐待行为的重要危险因素。作者首先确立了检验这一假说的研究应满足的 11 项方法标准。这些标准包括使用代表性样本、有效和可靠的测量方法、前瞻性设计以及每一代人使用不同的报告者等基本标准。作者确定了 47 项研究该问题的研究，并根据 11 项方法标准对这些研究进行了评估。总体而言，这些研究中的大多数报告的发现与虐待循环假说一致。不幸的是，与此同时，很少有研究满足作者确立的基本方法标准；实际上，即使是该领域更强的研究也仅满足其中的一半左右。此外，方法上更强的研究对该假说的支持存在分歧。因此，文献中经常报告的阳性关联似乎在很大程度上基于方法上较弱的设计。基于这项系统的方法学综述，作者得出结论，该假说的这一小部分和方法上较弱的文献并不能对其进行明确的检验。作者得出结论，必须制定更稳健和方法上更适当的评估来更准确地为预防和治疗计划的制定提供信息。
