Reliability and Factor Structure of the Psychological Maltreatment and Neglect Scales of the Computer Assisted Maltreatment Inventory (CAMI)

Development and initial psychometric properties of the Computer Assisted Maltreatment Inventory (CAMI): A comprehensive self-report measure of child maltreatment history

“…Items were compared for similarities in content across the three authors' examples. A preliminary pool of 57 items was created through group consensus and reduced to 24 items though factor analysis (see Nash, 2006, available electronically from the corresponding author). Factor loadings for items corresponded closely to the psychological maltreatment subtypes proposed in the Hart et al model and include: denying emotional responsiveness, terrorizing/spurning, and corrupting.…”

The Rating of Emotional Abuse in Childhood (REACH) Questionnaire: A new self-report measure assessing history of childhood emotional abuse

“…CEA is a heterogeneous construct characterised by a repeated pattern of caregiver behaviour or serious incidents that convey to children that they are either unsafe or 'lesser than' in the sense of being unloved, flawed, worthless or only of value in meeting the needs of another person (APSAC; Myers et al, 2001;Taillieu et al, 2016). This can occur through acts of omission or emotional neglect (e.g., absence of parental warmth, support and encouragement) or commission (e.g., parental non-physical aggression towards children) (Wright et al, 2009).…”

“…However, the EAQ was developed to measure current experiences of CEA in child and adolescent populations only. The Computer Assisted Maltreatment Inventory (CAMI;DiLillo et al, 2010) consists of a psychological maltreatment scale for adults, with factor analysis supporting four subscales of denying emotional responsiveness spurning/terrorising, corrupting and demanding/rigid (Nash et al, 2012). While measures like the CAMI have utility in determining pathways to adults outcomes, categories are not always mutually exclusive (Miller-Perrin & Perrin, 2009).…”

“…Although corrupting is often viewed as a deliberate tactic, we excluded it on the grounds that it can be more usefully characterised as a neglectful behaviour, especially in parents where developmental knowledge is lacking. Based on the assumption that CEA typically comprises a persistent or repeated pattern of behaviour, rather than isolated incidents (Myers et al, 2001), the REACH is designed to measure frequency of CEA experiences to identify adults who may have had higher exposure to CEA. Establishing the REACH as a valid and reliable measure of CEA addresses an overlooked consideration of identifying emotional abuse as an adverse childhood experience that may subsequently warrant tailoring treatment to individual needs (Oral et al, 2016).…”