Where are all the males? Gender-specific typologies of childhood adversity based on a large community sample

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Background: Methodological issues have been identified when quantifying exposure to adversity and abuse. To address a single type may obscure covarying effects. To sum multiple exposures gives equal weight to each. Latent class analysis (LCA) addresses this by identifying homogenous subpopulations. Most studies using LCA have pooled gender data in spite of evidence that the nature and frequency of exposure differs by gender. Males report more interpersonal abuse, females report more of other exposures, particularly sexual.
Objective: This study aimed to identify if stratifying data by gender resulted in different profiles of adversity/abuse.
Participants and setting: The National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions (NESARC) wave II, a large community-based survey, nationally representative of the US population.
Method: This study used 14 indicators of childhood adversity as the basis for LCA.
Results: The number and nature of classes differed by gender. The best solution for females was 4-class: a low risk class; a class at higher risk of sexual abuse; a class at higher risk of physical abuse; a class at higher risk of combined physical and sexual abuse. The best solution for males had only 3-classes; a low risk class, a class at higher risk of sexual abuse; a class at higher risk of physical abuse. The combined dataset resulted in a solution similar to the female solution.
Conclusion: The importance of developing models for males and females separately was evidenced by the male and female classes being differentially associated with mental health variables.
LanguageEnglish
Pages149-159
Number of pages11
JournalChild Abuse & Neglect
Volume90
Early online date16 Feb 2019
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 1 Apr 2019

Fingerprint

Sex Offenses
Mental Health
Alcohols
Weights and Measures
Population
Physical Abuse
Surveys and Questionnaires

Keywords

  • Abuse
  • Adversity
  • Childhood trauma
  • Gender
  • Latent class analysis

Cite this

@article{7669f6d5f5b6471dbc7a72573639ca20,
title = "Where are all the males? Gender-specific typologies of childhood adversity based on a large community sample",
abstract = "Background: Methodological issues have been identified when quantifying exposure to adversity and abuse. To address a single type may obscure covarying effects. To sum multiple exposures gives equal weight to each. Latent class analysis (LCA) addresses this by identifying homogenous subpopulations. Most studies using LCA have pooled gender data in spite of evidence that the nature and frequency of exposure differs by gender. Males report more interpersonal abuse, females report more of other exposures, particularly sexual. Objective: This study aimed to identify if stratifying data by gender resulted in different profiles of adversity/abuse.Participants and setting: The National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions (NESARC) wave II, a large community-based survey, nationally representative of the US population.Method: This study used 14 indicators of childhood adversity as the basis for LCA. Results: The number and nature of classes differed by gender. The best solution for females was 4-class: a low risk class; a class at higher risk of sexual abuse; a class at higher risk of physical abuse; a class at higher risk of combined physical and sexual abuse. The best solution for males had only 3-classes; a low risk class, a class at higher risk of sexual abuse; a class at higher risk of physical abuse. The combined dataset resulted in a solution similar to the female solution. Conclusion: The importance of developing models for males and females separately was evidenced by the male and female classes being differentially associated with mental health variables.",
keywords = "Abuse, Adversity, Childhood trauma, Gender, Latent class analysis",
author = "Grainne McAnee and M Shevlin and Jamie Murphy and JE Houston",
year = "2019",
month = "4",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.chiabu.2019.02.006",
language = "English",
volume = "90",
pages = "149--159",
journal = "Child Abuse and Neglect",
issn = "0145-2134",
publisher = "Elsevier",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Where are all the males? Gender-specific typologies of childhood adversity based on a large community sample

AU - McAnee, Grainne

AU - Shevlin, M

AU - Murphy, Jamie

AU - Houston, JE

PY - 2019/4/1

Y1 - 2019/4/1

N2 - Background: Methodological issues have been identified when quantifying exposure to adversity and abuse. To address a single type may obscure covarying effects. To sum multiple exposures gives equal weight to each. Latent class analysis (LCA) addresses this by identifying homogenous subpopulations. Most studies using LCA have pooled gender data in spite of evidence that the nature and frequency of exposure differs by gender. Males report more interpersonal abuse, females report more of other exposures, particularly sexual. Objective: This study aimed to identify if stratifying data by gender resulted in different profiles of adversity/abuse.Participants and setting: The National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions (NESARC) wave II, a large community-based survey, nationally representative of the US population.Method: This study used 14 indicators of childhood adversity as the basis for LCA. Results: The number and nature of classes differed by gender. The best solution for females was 4-class: a low risk class; a class at higher risk of sexual abuse; a class at higher risk of physical abuse; a class at higher risk of combined physical and sexual abuse. The best solution for males had only 3-classes; a low risk class, a class at higher risk of sexual abuse; a class at higher risk of physical abuse. The combined dataset resulted in a solution similar to the female solution. Conclusion: The importance of developing models for males and females separately was evidenced by the male and female classes being differentially associated with mental health variables.

AB - Background: Methodological issues have been identified when quantifying exposure to adversity and abuse. To address a single type may obscure covarying effects. To sum multiple exposures gives equal weight to each. Latent class analysis (LCA) addresses this by identifying homogenous subpopulations. Most studies using LCA have pooled gender data in spite of evidence that the nature and frequency of exposure differs by gender. Males report more interpersonal abuse, females report more of other exposures, particularly sexual. Objective: This study aimed to identify if stratifying data by gender resulted in different profiles of adversity/abuse.Participants and setting: The National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions (NESARC) wave II, a large community-based survey, nationally representative of the US population.Method: This study used 14 indicators of childhood adversity as the basis for LCA. Results: The number and nature of classes differed by gender. The best solution for females was 4-class: a low risk class; a class at higher risk of sexual abuse; a class at higher risk of physical abuse; a class at higher risk of combined physical and sexual abuse. The best solution for males had only 3-classes; a low risk class, a class at higher risk of sexual abuse; a class at higher risk of physical abuse. The combined dataset resulted in a solution similar to the female solution. Conclusion: The importance of developing models for males and females separately was evidenced by the male and female classes being differentially associated with mental health variables.

KW - Abuse

KW - Adversity

KW - Childhood trauma

KW - Gender

KW - Latent class analysis

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85061531273&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.chiabu.2019.02.006

DO - 10.1016/j.chiabu.2019.02.006

M3 - Article

VL - 90

SP - 149

EP - 159

JO - Child Abuse and Neglect

T2 - Child Abuse and Neglect

JF - Child Abuse and Neglect

SN - 0145-2134

ER -