Allegory of the cave: On the theme of substantiation

Child Maltreatment

Volumn 14, Issue 1, 2009, Pages 69-72

  Fluke, John ^a  

^a American Humane Association   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CHILD; CHILD ABUSE; CHILD HEALTH CARE; HUMAN; JURISPRUDENCE; LEGAL ASPECT; PATIENT REFERRAL; PRESCHOOL CHILD; THEORETICAL MODEL;

CHILD; CHILD ABUSE; CHILD HEALTH SERVICES; CHILD, PRESCHOOL; GATEKEEPING; HUMANS; JUDICIAL ROLE; MODELS, THEORETICAL;

EID: 58149519191     PISSN: 10775595     EISSN: 15526119     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/1077559508328257     Document Type: Article

References (15)

1. Baumann, D., Kern, H., & Fluke, J. (1997). Foundations of the decision-making ecology and overview. In D. Bauman & H. Kern (Eds.), Worker improvements to the structured decision and outcome model (pp.). Austin: Texas Department of Protective and Regulatory Services.
2. Besharov, D.J. (1990). Gaining control over child abuse reports. Public Welfare, 48 (2). 34-40.
3. Cross, T., & Casanueva, C. (2009). Caseworker judgments and substantiation. Child Maltreatment, 14 (1). 38-52.
4. Drake, B. (1996). Unraveling unsubstantiated. Child Maltreatment, 1 (5). 261-271.
5. Drake, B., Kohl, P.L., & Jonson-Reid, M. (2009). Time to leave substantiation behind: Findings from a national probability study. Child Maltreatment, 14 (1). 17-26.
6. Fakunmoju, S.B. (2009). Substantiation and adverse appeal outcomes: Content analysis and testing of Drake's harm/evidence model. Child Maltreatment, 14 (1). 53-68.
7. Fuller, T., & Nieto, M. (2009). Substantiation and maltreatment rereporting: A propensity score analysis. Child Maltreatment, 14 (1). 27-37.
8. Hussey, J.M., Marshall, J.M., English, D.J., Knight, E.D., Lau, A.S., Dubowitz, H., et al. (2005). Defining maltreatment according to substantiation: Distinction without a difference ? Child Abuse and Neglect, 29, 479-492.
9. Jones, L.M., Finkelhor, D., & Halter, S. (2006). Child maltreatment trends in the 1990s: Why does neglect differ from sexual and physical abuse. Child Maltreatment, 11 (1). 1-14.
10. Lohman, T., & Siegel, G. (2005). Alternative response in Minnesota: Findings of the program evaluation, Protecting Children, 20 (2-3). 78-92.
11. Ortiz, M.J., Shusterman, G., & Fluke, J.D. (2009). Outcomes for children with allegations of neglect who receive alternative response and traditional investigations: Findings from NCANDS. Protecting Children, 23 (1-2). 57-70.
12. Swets, J.A. (1992). The science of choosing the right decision: Thresholds in high stakes diagnostics. American Psychologist, 47 (4). 522-532.
13. Thompson, K.M., Wonderlich, S.A., Crosby, R.D., Ammerman, F.F., Mitchell, J.E., & Brownfield, D. (2001). An assessment of the recidivism rates in substantiated and unsubstantiated maltreatment cases. Child Abuse and Neglect, 25, 1207-1218.
14. Trocmé, N., Knoke, D., Fallon, B., & MacLaurin, B. (2009). Differentiating between substantiated, suspected, and unsubstantiated maltreatment in Canada. Child Maltreatment, 14 (1). 4-16.
15. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration on Children, Youth and Families. (2008). Child maltreatment 2006: Reports from the states to the National Child Abuse and Neglect Data System. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.