Child Abuse Potential Inventory (CAPI)
|Name||Child Abuse Potential Inventory (CAPI)|
|Purpose||Screen for the detection of physical child abuse in parents or primary caregivers|
|Population||18 to 99 years|
CAPI comprise of the primary clinical scale (Abuse) can be divided into six factor scales: Distress, Rigidity, Unhappiness, Problems With Child and Self, Problems With Family, and Problems With Others. Further it contains three validity scales: Lie, Random Response, and Inconsistency.
|Time||Approximately 12-20 minutes|
|Author||Joel S. Milner, PhD|
|Publisher||Psychological Assessment Resources, Inc.|
The CAP Inventory was originally designed to provide an estimate of parental risk in suspected cases of child physical abuse. The CAP Inventory is now used as a risk screening tool in a variety of assessment situations. The CAP Inventory has a third-grade reading level. Respondents are instructed to respond to each item by indicating whether they agree or disagree with the item statement.
CAPI comprise of the primary clinical scale (Abuse) can be divided into six factor scales: Distress, Rigidity, Unhappiness, Problems With Child and Self, Problems With Family, and Problems With Others. To detect response distortions it contains three validity scales: Lie, Random Response, and Inconsistency. The three validity scales used in different paired combinations to form three validity indexes the faking-good index, the faking-bad index and random-response index. If any validity index is elevated, the Child Physical Abuse Scale score may not be an accurate representation of the respondent’s abuse score.In addition Ego-strength scale and the loneliness scale used to develop with the subsets of 160 items.
Internal consistency estimates range from .92 to .95 for general population (n = 2,062), at-risk (n = 178), neglectful (n = 218), and physically abusive (n = 152) parent groups (Milner, 1986). Internal consistency estimates range from .85 to .96 across different gender, age, education, and ethnic groups (Milner, 1986)… Internal consistency estimates (split-half reliability coefficients) across a variety of samples (general 2 population, at risk, maltreating) for each of the six CAP subscales are as follows: distress, .93-.97; rigidity, .77-.89; unhappiness, .54-.83; problems with child and self, .53-.72; problems with family, .64- .84; and problems from others.61-.77. Test-retest reliability estimates across a three-month time period for the six CAP subscales are as follows: distress, .70; rigidity, .84; unhappiness, .69; problems with child and self, .55; problems with family, .66; and problems from others, .72.
The Abuse scale has high internal consistency reliabilities (.92-.96 for controls and .95-.98 for abusers); test-retest estimates for the Abuse scale also are strong (.91 and .75 for 1-day and 3-month intervals, respectively).
Studies using the CAP Inventory (in Brazil and internationally) presented results showing the validity of this instrument, enabling the identification of groups of parents who mistreat and do not mistreat their children and a convergence of data when compared to other instruments related to family violence.
Norms of CAPI was developed with a small , fairly homogeneous group of families involved with Child Protection services in North Carolina.
CAPI is suggested for Intervention/treatment programs particularly at pre- and post-treatment and on a follow-up basis.