Correction to ‘Parent and Child Agreement on Experience of Potential Traumatic Events’

Tingskull, S., Svedin, C.G., Agnafors, S., Keyser, L., Sydsjö, G., & Nilsson, D. Parent and Child Agreement on Experiences of Potential Traumatic Events. Child Abuse Review, 2015; 24: 170–181. https://doi.org/10.1002/car.2287. Epub 2013 Sep 12.

The Introduction section should be changed from

In order for children with traumatic experiences and traumatic stress reactions to receive treatment or other interventions, following a potentially traumatic experience, parents or adult primary caregivers must identify or recognise their children's distress. Particularly during the repercussions of an accident or other potentially traumatic events, first responders, social workers, healthcare professionals and crisis workers often turn to parents for information about the child's reactions rather than directly to the child (Stover et al., 2010).

Apart from the inconvenience caused to parents by interviewing children, there are many reasons for adults to not refer directly to the child: medical treatment which may leave the child unavailable for interview; parents trying to protect their child from thinking about the event; or the child's involvement in an ongoing investigation. Even clinicians tend to prefer parents' reports when forming an assessment of the child's psychiatric condition; believing that adults are more accurate reporters when children are included as part of an assessment (Grills and Ollendick, 2003). This may be particularly true for children younger than nine-years old (Rapee et al., 1994).

To

If parents or other primary caregivers do not identify or notice their children's symptoms of distress, there is a risk that they will not be offered treatment after exposure to potentially traumatic events. During the repercussions of an exposure to potentially traumatic events first responders, social workers, healthcare professionals and crisis workers often do not turn directly to the child for information (Stover et al., 2010). In addition to the difficulty caused to parents by interviewing their children, there are several reasons for adults not to refer directly to the child. Grills and Ollendick found for example that medical treatment may leave the child in a difficult position to be interviewed; parents may try to protect their child from thinking or talking about the event; the child might also be involved in an ongoing investigation. Also, clinicians are inclined to prefer parent's reports when doing an assessment of the child's psychiatric condition; thinking that, adults are better informers when children are included as part of an assessment (Grills and Ollendick, 2003). For children younger than 9 years old, this may be particularly true (Rapee et al., 1994).

The section Parent–Child Agreement About Symptoms should be changed from

When parents and children are asked independently to report on the child's symptoms, they give different information. Several studies support the finding that parents underestimate their child's post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) symptoms which result from exposure to community violence (Ceballo et al., 2001), chronic medical conditions (Shemesh et al., 2005) and from injury (MeiserStedman et al., 2007, 2008). Ladakakos (2000) found poor agreement between parents and their child regarding the presence of internalising symptoms, but stronger agreement when reporting externalising symptoms. A meta-analysis of 119 studies investigating agreement among multiple informants found that concordance between parents and children was significantly lower for internalising compared with externalising disorders (Achenbach et al., 1987). Other studies have shown that parents may tend to over-report externalising symptoms (Kolko and Kazdin, 1993), and others (Kassam-Adams et al., 2006) found that parents' own responses to a potentially traumatic event influenced their assessment of a child's symptoms. Stover et al. (2010) looked at agreement between parents' and children's reports of the type and level of trauma experienced by children. They also evaluated parent–child agreement about the impact of previous potentially traumatic experiences and how much previous events currently affect the child. They found that correlations were not significant between the parents' and children's reports of the effect of traumas, neither at the time of the incident nor at the time of the interview.

To

Parents and children frequently give different information when they are asked independently to report a on child's symptoms. It has been found that parents often underestimate their child's post-traumatic stress disorder symptoms following from exposure to community violence Ceballo et al., 2001), chronic mental conditions (Shemesh et al., 2005) and from injury (Meiser Stedman et al., 2007, 2008). Ladakakos (2000) found poor agreement between parents and their child concerning the presence of internalizing symptoms and stronger agreement when it comes to reporting externalizing symptoms.

In a meta-analysis with 119 studies that investigated agreement among many informants, it was found that concordance between children and parents was significantly lower for internalizing disorders compared with externalizing disorders (Achenbach et al., 1987).

Some studies have shown that parents are inclined to over-report externalizing symptoms (Kolko and Kazdin, 1993), and others have found that parents' own responses to a potentially traumatic event influenced their assessment of child's symptoms (Kassam-Adams et al., 2006). Stover et al. (2010) looked at agreement between parent's and children's reports of the type and level of trauma experienced by children. They also evaluated parent–child agreement about the impact of previous potentially traumatic experiences and how much previous events currently affects the child. They found that correlations were not significant between the parents' and children's reports of the effect of traumas, neither at the time of the incident nor at the time of the interview (Stover et al., 2010).

The section Parent–Child Agreement About Trauma Exposure History should be changed from

Schreier et al. (2005) found significant discrepancies between parents' and children's reports regarding the number of traumatic events previously experienced by the child. It has been repeatedly shown that parents' reports of children's exposure to violence underestimate the child's level of exposure (Ceballo et al., 2001; Richters and Martinez, 1993; Selner O'Hagan et al., 1998), especially for boys (Kuo et al., 2000). It has also been found that children report exposure to violence more often in their neighbourhood or at school, and parents report more events nearby or at home (Raviv et al., 2001; Thomson et al., 2002). Nevertheless, regarding domestic violence, parents tend to deny or minimise the presence of children during incidents of violence, suggesting that the children were sleeping, playing outdoors or doing something else, such as watching television (Jaffe et al., 1990). Even though mothers try to protect their children from violence, studies have shown that 68% to 87% of incidents of partner abuse are, in fact, witnessed by children (Jaffe et al., 1990).

To

Regarding the number of traumatic events previously experienced by the child, Schreier and colleagues (2005) found significant differences between parents' and children's reports. Recurrently, it has been shown that parents tend to underestimate when reporting of the child's level of exposure to violence (Ceballo et al., 2001; Richters and Martinez, 1993; Selner O'Hagan et al., 1998). Kuo and colleagues (2000) found that this is especially true for boys. It has also been found differences in parents' and children's report where children tend to report exposure to violence more frequently in their neighbourhood or at school and parents report more events nearby or at home (Raviv et al., 2001; Thomson et al., 2002). When it comes to domestic violence, parents tend to deny or minimize the presence of children during incidents of violence, reporting that they were sleeping, playing outdoors or doing something else such as watching television (Jaffe et al., 1990). Jaffe et al. (1990) found that 68% to 87% of incidents of partner abuse are witnessed by children.

The section Agreement by Gender and Age should be changed from

It is not clear how the age of the child influences the degree of parent–child concordance about child PTSD symptoms. Between younger children and their parents, discrepancies have been shown to be more pronounced (Dyb et al., 2003). Shemesh et al. (2005) found that the gap between adolescents' (n = 47) reports of their PTSD symptoms and those of their parents was greater than reports of children under age 12 (n = 29) and their parents. The small number of children in each group may have compromised this finding. According to De Los Reyes and Kazdin (2005) inconsistent results in studies investigating the relationship between the age of the child and informant discrepancies may be attributable to inconsistencies in characteristics of the sample, including categorisation of the age of the child and the research methodology.

Stover et al. (2010) examined concordance between parents and children on child trauma history and the subjective report of the impact of the traumas experienced. They found that agreement between parent and child reports of traumas experienced was not significant for serious accidents, separation from significant others and physical assault. As a result of the relatively small sample size (males n = 32, females n = 44), comparisons based on age and gender did not allow for more specific analysis in adolescents.

To

The findings on how the age of the child impacts the concordance about child PTSD symptoms are poor. Between younger children and their parents, differences have been shown to be bigger (Dyb et al., 2003). The gap between adolescents' (n = 47) reports of their PTSD symptoms and those of their parents was greater than reports of children under age 12 (n = 29) and their parents (Shemesh et al., 2005). The small number of children in each group may have compromised this finding. According to De Los Reyes and Kazdin (2005), inconsistent results in studies investigating the relationship between the age of the child and informant discrepancies may be likely to be caused by inconsistencies in characteristics of the sample, such as categorization of age of the child and the research methodology.

Stover and colleagues (2010) examined concordance between parents and children on child trauma history and the subjective reports of the impact of traumas experienced. They found that agreement between parent and child reports of traumas experienced was not significant for serious accidents, separation from significant others and physical assault. As a result of the relatively small sample size (males n = 32, females n = 44), comparisons based on age and gender did not allow for more specific analysis in adolescents.