| Study, Year | Population: N Age Ethnicity Socioeconomic Status |
Setting | Screening Instrument(s) | Findings | Quality Rating Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Caregiver Screen |
|||||
| Reis and Nahmiash, 199561 | N: 139 age: mean 61 ethnicity: NR socioeconomic status: mean annual income $20,000 |
3 groups of caregivers: 44 abusive and 45 non-abusive from social service agency, 50 non-abusive from community | CASE, 8 items (yes/no) | Scores distinguished abusers from non-abusers (Cronbach's alpha = 0.71); other characteristics were similar; CASE scores correlated with IOA (r = 0.41; P < 0.001); CASE scores correlated with HSEAST (r = 0.26; P < 0.025) | Fair Small sample size, administered as part of a social services project, not in a clinical setting |
Elder Screen |
|||||
| Neale et al., 199160 | N: 259 age: mean 77 ethnicity: mostly White socioeconomic status: NR |
3 groups of elders: 170 victims of abuse, 42 referred to APS and found not to be abused, 47 from a family practice clinic | HSEAST, 15 items | Scores distinguished abused from non-abused (P < 0.001; Cronbach's alpha = 0.29); correctly classified 67%-74% of cases; 6 items were strongly related to abuse | Fair Small sample size |
| Moody et al., 200066 | N: 100 age: > 60 all other demographic information: NR |
Convenience sample of elderly living in public housing in Florida | 1) HSEAST, 15 items 2) IOA Screen, 29 items |
Scores for abused and non-abused were significantly different (P < 0.049); correctly classified 71% of cases; discriminates abuse cases 84.4% of the time and non-abuse cases 99.2% of the time | Fair Small sample size, intended for social service practitioners |
|
Notes: APS, Adult Protective Services; CASE, Caregiver Abuse Screen; HSEAST, Hwalek-Sengstock Elder Abuse Screening Test; IOA, Indicator of Abuse; NR, not reported. | |||||