PURPOSES: (a) To identify reliable and valid questions that identify elder abuse, (b) to assess the reliability and validity of extant self-reported elder abuse screens in a high-risk elderly population, and (c) to describe difficulties of completing and interpreting screens in a high-need elderly population. DESIGN AND METHODS: All elders referred to research-trained social workers in a community service agency were asked to participate. Of the 70 elders asked, 49 participated, 44 completed the first questionnaire, and 32 completed the duplicate second questionnaire. A research assistant administered the telephone questionnaires. RESULTS: Twenty-nine (42%) persons were judged abused, 12 (17%) had abuse reported, and 4 (6%) had abuse substantiated. The elder abuse screen instruments were not found to be predictive of assessed abuse or as predictors of reported abuse; the measures tended toward being inversely predictive. Two questions regarding harm and taking of belongings were significantly different for the assessed abused group. IMPLICATIONS: In this small group of high-need community-dwelling elders, the screens were not effective in discriminating between abused and nonabused groups. Better instruments are needed to assess for elder abuse.
PURPOSES: (a) To identify reliable and valid questions that identify elder abuse, (b) to assess the reliability and validity of extant self-reported elder abuse screens in a high-risk elderly population, and (c) to describe difficulties of completing and interpreting screens in a high-need elderly population. DESIGN AND METHODS: All elders referred to research-trained social workers in a community service agency were asked to participate. Of the 70 elders asked, 49 participated, 44 completed the first questionnaire, and 32 completed the duplicate second questionnaire. A research assistant administered the telephone questionnaires. RESULTS: Twenty-nine (42%) persons were judged abused, 12 (17%) had abuse reported, and 4 (6%) had abuse substantiated. The elder abuse screen instruments were not found to be predictive of assessed abuse or as predictors of reported abuse; the measures tended toward being inversely predictive. Two questions regarding harm and taking of belongings were significantly different for the assessed abused group. IMPLICATIONS: In this small group of high-need community-dwelling elders, the screens were not effective in discriminating between abused and nonabused groups. Better instruments are needed to assess for elder abuse.