Research on Turkish and U.S. Teachers as Mandated Reporters of Child Abuse and Neglect: A Comparative Scoping Review

IF 5.4 1区 社会学 Q1 CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY
Ozan Selcuk, Kate Phillippo
{"title":"Research on Turkish and U.S. Teachers as Mandated Reporters of Child Abuse and Neglect: A Comparative Scoping Review","authors":"Ozan Selcuk, Kate Phillippo","doi":"10.1177/15248380251329479","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Child abuse and neglect remain, unfortunately, a pervasive issue worldwide. Teachers play a critical role in identifying and reporting suspected child abuse and neglect and are often considered the “front line” due to their daily access to children. Although teachers are required to report suspected child abuse and neglect, concerns have arisen about teachers’ capability due to international instances of under- and overreporting. We therefore turned to empirical evidence to better understand teachers’ capacity to serve as accurate, well-informed mandated reporters. This comparative scoping review explored the extent and nature of empirical, peer-reviewed research on teachers’ mandatory reporting in Türkiye and the United States, countries that present contrasts in the mandatory reporting laws’ longevity and cultural norms about responsibility for children’s well-being. We followed Preferred Reporting Items of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis-Scoping Review guidelines. We manually identified studies from seven electronic databases: ASOS Index, DergiPark, ERIC, SCOPUS, SOBIAD, ULAKBİM, and Web of Science. This search process identified 52 empirical studies. Findings shed light on the challenges and concerns surrounding teachers’ mandatory reporting responsibilities in both countries, particularly limited opportunities to learn about reporting requirements, the recognition of abuse and neglect, and multiple rationales for teachers’ hesitancy to report. However, some evidence also indicates the effectiveness of teacher training with regard to teachers’ policy understanding, confidence in recognition skills, and reporting frequency. These findings inform implications for policy development, teacher professional development, and subsequent research in both countries.","PeriodicalId":54211,"journal":{"name":"Trauma Violence & Abuse","volume":"13 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":5.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Trauma Violence & Abuse","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/15248380251329479","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Child abuse and neglect remain, unfortunately, a pervasive issue worldwide. Teachers play a critical role in identifying and reporting suspected child abuse and neglect and are often considered the “front line” due to their daily access to children. Although teachers are required to report suspected child abuse and neglect, concerns have arisen about teachers’ capability due to international instances of under- and overreporting. We therefore turned to empirical evidence to better understand teachers’ capacity to serve as accurate, well-informed mandated reporters. This comparative scoping review explored the extent and nature of empirical, peer-reviewed research on teachers’ mandatory reporting in Türkiye and the United States, countries that present contrasts in the mandatory reporting laws’ longevity and cultural norms about responsibility for children’s well-being. We followed Preferred Reporting Items of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis-Scoping Review guidelines. We manually identified studies from seven electronic databases: ASOS Index, DergiPark, ERIC, SCOPUS, SOBIAD, ULAKBİM, and Web of Science. This search process identified 52 empirical studies. Findings shed light on the challenges and concerns surrounding teachers’ mandatory reporting responsibilities in both countries, particularly limited opportunities to learn about reporting requirements, the recognition of abuse and neglect, and multiple rationales for teachers’ hesitancy to report. However, some evidence also indicates the effectiveness of teacher training with regard to teachers’ policy understanding, confidence in recognition skills, and reporting frequency. These findings inform implications for policy development, teacher professional development, and subsequent research in both countries.
土耳其和美国教师作为儿童虐待和忽视的强制性记者的研究:比较范围审查
不幸的是,虐待和忽视儿童仍然是全世界普遍存在的问题。教师在发现和报告涉嫌虐待和忽视儿童方面发挥着关键作用,由于他们每天都能接触到儿童,因此往往被视为“第一线”。虽然教师被要求报告涉嫌虐待和忽视儿童的情况,但由于国际上存在少报和多报的情况,人们对教师的能力产生了担忧。因此,我们转向经验证据,以更好地了解教师作为准确、消息灵通的强制性记者的能力。这一比较范围审查探讨了在日本和美国对教师强制性报告进行的经验性、同行评议研究的范围和性质,这两个国家在强制性报告法律的持续时间和关于儿童福祉责任的文化规范方面存在差异。我们遵循系统评价的首选报告项目和荟萃分析-范围评价指南。我们手动从七个电子数据库中确定研究:ASOS Index, DergiPark, ERIC, SCOPUS, SOBIAD, ULAKBİM和Web of Science。这个搜索过程确定了52个实证研究。调查结果揭示了两国教师在强制性报告责任方面面临的挑战和担忧,特别是了解报告要求的机会有限,对虐待和忽视的认识,以及教师不愿报告的多种原因。然而,一些证据也表明,教师培训在教师的政策理解、对识别技能的信心和报告频率方面是有效的。这些发现为两国的政策制定、教师专业发展和后续研究提供了信息。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
13.60
自引率
7.80%
发文量
131
期刊介绍: Trauma, Violence, & Abuse is devoted to organizing, synthesizing, and expanding knowledge on all force of trauma, abuse, and violence. This peer-reviewed journal is practitioner oriented and will publish only reviews of research, conceptual or theoretical articles, and law review articles. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse is dedicated to professionals and advanced students in clinical training who work with any form of trauma, abuse, and violence. It is intended to compile knowledge that clearly affects practice, policy, and research.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信