Educational Research - the Ethics and Aesthetics of Statistics

4 Child Maltreatment in the Last 50 Years 49
Similar research by Straus on neglectful behaviour by parents in the life history
of university students in Europe, North America, Latin America, Asia, Australia
and New Zealand shows the same variety as regards the prevalence of neglectful
behaviour. However, this research shows that it operates at a lower level,
ranging “from 3.2 to 36% (median 12%)”, with the lowest level being found in
New Hampshire, USA. There 3.2% experienced three or more forms of neglectful
behaviour. Korea-Pusan came out on the top with 36.4%. These conclusions are
alarming: “This study [...] found that half of the students experienced at least one
of the eight neglectful behaviors as children, and about 12% experienced a pervasive
pattern of neglect as indicated by three or more of the eight neglectful behaviors
measured”. Although the rates of students “who experienced three or more neglectful
behaviors as a criterion, [...] ranged from a low of 3% to a high of 36%”, they
conclude: “Even the figure of 3% for the university with the lowest rate is high [...]
The results show high rates of neglectful behavior in both developed and underdeveloped
countries and among a privileged sector of those countries” (Straus &
Savage, 2005, pp. 124, 129, 130, 131–133, 134; Berger, Knutson, Mehm, & Perkins,
1988, pp. 259, 260).
Until recently, the prevalence of child maltreatment in the Netherlands has
been estimated using US figures. Looking at the Dutch situation it appears that
40,000–80,000 children were being maltreated each year, depending on the definition
of maltreatment used. Since 2007, new research, carried out on request of the
Dutch government, resulted in substantially higher figures than the earlier extrapolations,
varying from 107,200 according to the Leiden University report to 160,700
children according to the Free University of Amsterdam report (Van IJzendoorn
et al., 2007; Lamers-Winkelman, Slot, Bijl, & Vijlbrief, 2007; Baartman, Bullens, &
Willems, 2005). The difference between these figures can be explained mainly by
the method used. The report by the Free University made use of self-report by children
aged 11–18 years. This can be compared to the method of sampling used
by Straus. What distinguished the methods used by the Free University was the
combination of questions on child maltreatment with questions on other nuisance
making unpleasant events in the life of the children. Moreover, the questionnaire
the children were asked to fill in was not offered as a questionnaire on child maltreatment
but as a Nuisance Making and Unpleasant Events Questionnaire, in Dutch
“Vragenlijst Vervelende en Nare Gebeurtenissen”, abridged as VVNG. As a result,
the participating children were not conscious of the fact that they were filling
in a questionnaire that contributed to a study on child maltreatment. The report
by the Leiden University was not based on child responses, but gained its data
from interviewing professionals. A series of professionals, working at schools and
child protection institutions, acted as monitors of possible child maltreatment. As
expected (if one considers Straus’s experiences), the method of self-report resulted
in higher figures.
Both reports used the same broad definition of child maltreatment as a framework,
namely the definition laid down in the Dutch Law on Youth Care from 2005,
containing both physical and psychological harm, emphasising the child’s dependence,
and including “any form of interaction that is threatening or violent for the