Child-to-parent Violence and Parent-to-child Violence: A Meta-analytic Review

The Eu opean Jou nal o Psychology
Applied o Legal Con ex
The Eu opean Jou nal o Psychology Applied o Legal Con ex (2019) 11(2) 51-59
ISSN: 1889-1861/© 2019 Colegio O icial de Psicólogos de Mad id. This is an open access a icle unde he CC BY-NC-ND license (h p://c ea i ecommons.o g/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
h ps://jou nals.copmad id.o g/ejpalc
Child- o-pa en iolence has ecei ed li le a en ion in he
scien i ic li e a u e, bu ecen ly i has become he ocus o scien i ic
sc u iny owing o he sudden inc ease in he eco ded a es o his
ype o iolence (Cond y & Miles, 2014). Thus, he p e alence o child-
o-pa en iolence (i.e., hi ing ei he pa en ) in he USA o a 3-yea
pe iod anged om 6.5 o 10.8% (Peek, Fishe , & Kidwell, 1985); in
Canada o a 6-mon h pe iod he p e alence a e anged om 12%
o 60% o physical agg ession and e bal agg ession, espec i ely
(Pagani e al., 2004, 2009); in Spain, whe e mos ield s udies ha e
been pe o med (Moulds & Day, 2017), he p e alence a e anged
om 21% o physical iolence and psychological abuse o 46% o
emo ional abuse (Jau eguiza & Ibabe, 2013). In con as , o he
s udies in Canada and F ance ound much lowe p e alence a es o
a ound 0.6% (DeKese edy, 1993; Lau en & De y, 1999). Mo eo e ,
p e alence is in luenced by sociodemog aphic a iables, economic
s a us, child and pa en gende , and amily s uc u e (Agnew &
Huguley, 1989; Nowakowski-Sims & Rowe, 2015; Peek e al., 1985). The
disc epancies in he esul s o p e alence a es a e in all p obabili y
due o di e en de ini ions o child- o-pa en iolence, which in
u n en ail a ia ions in measu es and measu emen ins umen s.
ARTICLE INFO
A icle his o y:
Recei ed 28 No embe 2018
Accep ed 6 Ma ch 2019
Keywo ds:
Child- o-pa en iolence
Pa en - o-child iolence
Di ec ic imiza ion
Vica ious ic imiza ion
Me a-analysis
ABSTRACT
In o de o examine he li e a u e on he ela ionship be ween child- o-pa en iolence and pa en - o-child iolence, a
me a-analy ic e iew was designed wi h 26 e ec sizes assessing he ela ionship be ween child- o-pa en and pa en -
o-child iolence in 19 p ima y s udies. Co ela ional e ec sizes we e compu ed and co ec ed o sampling e o , and
p edic o and c i e ion un eliabili y. The esul s showed a signi ican ly posi i e, medium magni ude (ρ = .36) mean
ue e ec size o he ela ionship be ween child- o-pa en iolence and pa en - o-child iolence. Simila esul s
we e ound o di ec and ica ious ic imiza ion. The p obabili y o de eloping child- o-pa en iolence o child en
ic imized by pa en s inc eased 71% as compa ed o non- ic imized child en. The child- o pa en iolence ype (physical
o psychological), and he popula ion (judicial o communi y) we e analysed as mode a o s. The esul s e ealed simila
e ec s in bo h ypes o child- o-pa en iolence and in bo h popula ions: a signi ican ly posi i e, medium in magni ude
mean ue e ec size. The heo e ical and p ac ical implica ions o measu ing child- o pa en iolence a e discussed.
La iolencia de los hijos hacia los pad es y de los pad es hacia los hijos: una
e isión me aanalí ica
RESUMEN
Con el p opósi o de examina la li e a u a sob e la elación en e la iolencia de hijos a pad es y la iolencia de pad es a hijos,
se diseñó una e isión me aanalí ica con 26 amaños del e ec o que e alúan la elación de la iolencia en e hijos y pad es
y pad es e hijos en 19 es udios p incipales. Se calcula on y co igie on los amaños del e ec o co elacional pa a el e o de
mues eo y la p edicción y la iabilidad del c i e io. Los esul ados mos a on una magni ud media signi ica i amen e posi-
i a (ρ = .36), que signi ica el amaño e dade o del e ec o pa a la elación en e la iolencia de hijos a pad es y la iolencia
de pad es a hijos. Se encon a on esul ados simila es pa a la ic imización di ec a e indi ec a. La p obabilidad de desa olla
iolencia de hijos a pad es pa a los niños ic imizados po los pad es aumen ó 71% en compa ación con los niños no ic imi-
zados. El ipo de iolencia del niño hacia el pad e ( ísica o psicológica) y la población (judicial o comuni a ia) se analiza on
como mode ado es. Los esul ados e ela on e ec os simila es en ambos ipos de iolencia en e pad es e hijos en ambas
poblaciones: un ni el de e ec o medio signi ica i amen e posi i o, de magni ud media. Se discu en las implicaciones eó icas
y p ác icas pa a medi la iolencia de los hijos hacia sus pad es.
Palab as cla e:
Violencia de hijos a pad es
Violencia de pad es a hijos
Vic imización di ec a
Vic imización secunda ia
Me aanálisis
Child- o-pa en Violence and Pa en - o-child Violence: A Me a-analy ic Re iew
Raquel Gallegoa, Me cedes No oa, F ancisca Fa iñab, and Ramón A cea
a
Uni e si y o San iago de Compos ela, Spain;
b
Uni e si y o Vigo, Spain
Ci e his a icle as: Gallego, R., No o, M., Fa iña, F., & A ce, R. (2019). Child- o-pa en iolence and pa en - o-child iolence: A me a-analy ic e iew.
The Eu opean Jou nal o
Psychology Applied o Legal Con ex , 11,
51-59. h ps://doi.o g/10.5093/ejpalc2019a4
Funding: This esea ch has been sponso ed by a g an o he Spanish Minis y o Economy, Indus y and Compe i i eness (PSI2017-87278-R).
Co espondence: me [email p o ec ed] (M. No o).
52
R. Gallego e al. / The Eu opean Jou nal o Psychology Applied o Legal Con ex (2019) 11(2) 51-59
Hence, an a ay o de ini ions may be ound in he li e a u e om
hose es ic ed o physically iolen beha iou o h ea s (Agnew
& Huguley, 1989; Foo & Ma golin, 1995; Gelles & S aus, 1979;
Ha bin & Madde, 1979; K a coski, 1985; Peek e al., 1985) o o he s
including psychological iolence and inancial abuse (Cal e e, O ue,
Gámez-Guadix, & Bushman, 2015; Haw, 2010; Jau eguiza , Ibabe, &
S aus, 2013; Ke hineni, 2004); o he de ini ions equi e only one
incidence (Co ell & Monk, 2004; Mo al, Ga cía, Cue os, & Si en ,
2017), bu o he s en ail ei e a ion (Hol , 2013); ye o he de ini ions
equi e in en o cause inju y (wi h he exclusion o pa hologies,
illegal subs ance abuse, homicide, o a emp ed homicide, wi hou
a p e ious his o y o iolence), bu o he de ini ions do no (Co ell,
2001; Ha bin & Madden, 1979; Hol , 2013; Lau en & De y, 1999;
Loinaz, And és-Pueyo, & Pe ei a, 2017). Simila ly, he e is a b oad
spec um o measu emen ins umen s o e alua ing child- o-
pa en iolence. Thus, he Con lic Tac ics Scale-Pa en Child (S aus
& Fauchie , 2008) measu es e bal iolence (psychological) in e ms
o shou ing, insul s and h ea s o pa en s, and physical iolence
as hi ing, punching, kicking, whe eas he Wi hin-Family Violence
Scale (Ibabe & Jau eguiza , 2011) measu es physical iolence,
as hi ing pa en s and psychological h ough insul s, h ea s, o
blackmail ( he la e is e e ed o as emo ional abuse, which is a
o m o psychological abuse) and in he Adolescen Child- o-Pa en
Agg ession Ques ionnai e (Cal e e e al., 2013) pushing, punching
o kicking pa en s cons i u es physical iolence, shou ing, insul ing,
blackmailing, annoying, and disobeying a e o ms o psychological
iolence, and aking money wi hou pe mission is an example o
inancial abuse. Pa adoxically, none o hese ins umen s e alua e
ei e a ion, which is pa icula ly c ucial in psychological iolence – he
in en o cause inju y, no he inju y caused (A ce, Fa iña, & Vila iño,
2015). As o he manda o y applica ion o he Uni ed Na ions’ (1985)
de ini ion o ic im (child- o-pa en iolence implies he exis ence
o a ic im, pa en o gua dian), “ ic ims means pe sons who,
indi idually o collec i ely, ha e su e ed ha m, including physical
o men al inju y, emo ional su e ing, economic loss o subs an ial
impai men o hei undamen al igh s”. In sho , wi hou a ic im
he e is no child- o-pa en iolence, and o i o occu he e mus
be physical o psychological (men al inju y, emo ional su e ing)
inju y, inancial abuse, o impai men o undamen al human
igh s. Thus, i a beha iou is o cons i u e child- o-pa en iolence
i mus cause inju y ( ic imiza ion) by de ini ion. Iden i ying inju y
is no p oblema ic when dealing wi h physical iolence (e.g., kicks,
punches, blows), bu psychological iolence, including emo ional
abuse, is subjec o in e p e a ion. Disobedience, shou ing, insul ing,
o blackmailing do no ine i ably cause inju y – his would imply i
he e is no ic im he e is no child- o-pa en psychological iolence.
In addi ion, he ac ha esea ch was ini ially ocused on physical
child- o-pa en iolence (Agnew & Huguley, 1989; Foo & Ma golin,
1995; K a coski, 1985; Peek e al., 1985), and subsequen ly included
psychological iolence (Cal e e, O ue, Gámez-Guadix, del Hoyo-
Bilbao, & López de A oyabe, 2015; Haw, 2010; Jau eguiza e al., 2013;
Ke hineni, 2004), and ha measu emen ins umen s do no e alua e
he same con en would explain he inconsis encies in p e alence
da a ound in he li e a u e.
Fu he mo e, sel - epo ed child- o-pa en iolence p e alence
a es a e unde es ima ed due o a sys ema ic measu emen e o .
Succinc ly, sel - epo s minimize iolence (da k delinquency), and
ic imiza ion (un epo ed ic imiza ion) (Cond y & Miles, 2014).
The easoning unde lying bo h sou ces o e o a y om ea o
epo ing, eelings o guil , and de ensi eness – which accoun o
he unde epo ed esponse bias (A ce, Fa iña, Seijo, & No o, 2015;
Ha bin & Madden, 1979).
As o he a es o pa en - o-child iolence, be ween 10 and 20%
o child en a e exposed o in ima e pa ne iolence (i.e., ica ious
ic imiza ion) and be ween 1.5% and 16% o child mal ea men
(i.e., di ec ic imiza ion) mainly (> 80%) pe pe a ed by pa en s o
ca egi e s (Gilbe , Kemp e al., 2009; Gilbe , Widom e al., 2009;
Seijo, Fa iña, Co as, No o, & A ce, 2016). Simila ly han o child-
o-pa en iolence, he la ge di e si y in p e alence is media ed
by he de ini ion o iolence agains child en (e.g., mal ea men ,
physical abuse, neglec , emo ional abuse), he da a sou ce (e.g.,
o icial s a is ics, communi y s udies), and he measu emen o child
mal ea men .
In heo e ical e ms, he social lea ning heo y (Bandu a & Wal e s,
1959, 1963) pu po s o explain child- o-pa en iolence (Rybski,
1998). Acco ding o his heo y, he iolen beha iou employed
by pa en s in hei ela ionships be ween hemsel es ( ica ious
ic imiza ion), and wi h hei child en (di ec ic imiza ion) se e as
a model ha child en lea n by modelling i (Co ell & Monk, 2004;
Ulman & S aus, 2003). Two complemen a y explana o y models (see
Figu e 1) ha e been p oposed o explain he ela ion be ween pa en -
o-child and child- o-pa en agg ession h ough ime (B ezina, 1999).
In model 1, pa en - o-child agg ession p edic s child- o-pa en
agg ession, and subsequen ly child- o-pa en agg ession inhibi s
pa en - o-child agg ession. The e is no ecip oci y, bu compensa ion
(lagged e ec s). Model 2 p edic s ecip ocal e ec s (simul aneous o
close in ime) be ween pa en - o-child and child- o-pa en iolence
(bidi ec ional iolence). Though he social lea ning heo y and he
models ha e ecei ed b oad suppo , esul s con a y o he models
ha e been ound (Robinson, Da idson, & D ebo , 2004).
As o he mode a o s o he ela ionship be ween pa en - o-
child and child- o-pa en iolence, bo h child ic imiza ion ypes
Model 1: Lagged e ec s
Time 1: Pa en - o-child iolence
Model 2: Simul aneous o close e ec s
Pa en - o-child iolence
Time 2: Child- o-pa en
iolence
Pa en - o-child iolence
Child- o-pa en iolence
Inhibi ing
Unidi ec ional
Bidi ec ional
Figu e 1. Explaining Models o he Rela ion be ween Pa en - o-child and Child- o-pa en Violence h ough Time.
53
Child- o-pa en Violence and Pa en - o-child Violence: A Me a-analy ic Re iew
(di ec and ica ious) and he child- o-pa en iolence ype (physical,
psychological, inancial) ha e been assessed. Bo h he di ec ype o
child ic imiza ion, (Cal e e, O ue, & Samped o, 2011; Gámez-Guadix
& Cal e e, 2012; Ha z, 1995; Ibabe, 2015; Kennedy, Edmonds, Dann, &
Bu ne , 2010; K a coski, 1985; Maxwell & Maxwell, 2003; Me edi h,
Abbo , & Adams, 1986; Ulman & S aus, 2003) and he ica ious ype
(Cal e e e al., 2011; Ca lson, 1990; Gámez-Guadix & Cal e e, 2012;
Ibabe, 2015; Kennedy e al., 2010; Li ings on 1986; Ulman & S aus,
2003) a e belie ed o aise he likelihood o exhibi ing child- o-
pa en iolence. Likewise, he ela ionship be ween child- o-pa en
iolence ype wi h ic imiza ion om pa en s has also been s udied,
showing ha ic imized child en exe cised bo h ypes o iolence on
pa en s (Cal e e e al., 2011; Gámez-Guadix & Cal e e, 2012; Lyons,
Bell, F eche e, & Romano, 2015; Ma golin & Baucom, 2014). Simila
esul s we e ound wi h communi y (Gámez-Guadix & Cal e e, 2012;
Ibabe, 2015; Ma golin & Baucom, 2014) and judicial (Con e as &
Cano, 2014, 2016; Kennedy e al., 2010) popula ions.
Bea ing hese indings in mind, he aim o his s udy was o
pe o m a me a-analy ical e iew in o de o examine i pa en -
o-child iolence p edic s child- o-pa en iolence; o assess
he e ec s o he mode a o s analysed in he li e a u e, and he
consis ency in he esul s be ween popula ions (communi y
and judicial); o compa e he empi ical suppo unde lying he
explana o y models; o quan i y he inc emen al p obabili y o
exhibi ing child- o-pa en iolence linked o pa en - o-child
iolence; o s udy he inc emen al alidi y be ween p edic o s; and
o quan i y he classi ica ion a es o he child- o-pa en iolence
measu emen ins umen s.
Me hod
Li e a u e Sea ch
An exhaus i e sea ch o he scien i ic li e a u e was pe o med
based on a mul ime hod app oach in ol ing 4 di e en me a-sea ch
s a egies: Google Schola , PsycIn o Web o Science and Scopus
scien i ic da abases, and Dialne , TESEO, and Psicodoc bibliog aphic
po als, as well as he bibliog aphic e e ences o he pape s selec ed
in he p esen s udy.
The elec onic sea ch keywo ds we e gene a ed h ough a
sys em o successi e app oxima ions by adding he ollowing
ele an keywo ds included in he selec ed pape s: “child- o-
pa en iolence”, “ iolence agains pa en s”, “pa en abuse”, “ amily
iolence”, “in a amily iolence”, “pa en - o-child iolence”,
“domes ic iolence”.
Inclusion and Exclusion C i e ia
Bea ing he aims o his me a-analysis in mind, he inclusion
c i e ia o he p ima y s udies o he me a-analysis we e ha hey:
(1) included da a on any ype o ic imiza ion, and a measu e o child-
o-pa en iolence and (2) p o ided s a is ics o calcula ing he e ec
sizes (means, s anda d de ia ion, s anda d e o ), o o he s a is ics
ha could be con e ed o e ec sizes. In cases whe e c i ical da a o
compu ing he e ec size was lacking, he au ho s we e con ac ed o
ele an in o ma ion.
Thus, 23 p ima y s udies ul illed he inclusion c i e ia, o which
4 we e subsequen ly elimina ed owing o he impossibili y o
de e mining he e ec size and 3 due o da a duplica ion. F om he
emaining 19 s udies, a o al o 26 e ec sizes we e ob ained o he
analysis o he ela ion be ween child- o-pa en and pa en - o-child
iolence; e ec sizes o mode a o s anged om 6 o 18. The s udy
sea ch lowcha is shown in Figu e 2.
Reco ds iden i ied h ough
da abase sea ching
(
n
=25)
Addi ional eco ds iden i ied
h ough o he sou ces
(
n
= 1)
Reco ds a e duplica es
emo ed
(
n
=3)
Reco ds sc eened
(
n
= 23)
Full- ex a icles assessed
o eligibili y
(
n
=23)
Full- ex a icles
excluded, wi h easons
(
n
= 1)
S udies included in
quan i a i e syn hesis
(me a-analysis)
(
n
= 22)
Iden i ica ionSc eeningEligibili
Figu e 2. Flow Diag am o he Me a-analysis.
Coding
The selec ed pape s we e coded (see Appendix) acco ding o he
ollowing in o ma ion: (a) e e ence o he pape , (b) sample size,
(c) e ec size, and (d) eliabili y o he measu emen ins umen s
employed. The nex s ep was o sea ch o mode a ing a iables,
each independen ly e alua ed o ob ain in e - a e ag eemen
(kappa = 1) o he ype o iolence exhibi ed (child- o-pa en
physical and psychological iolence, wi h emo ional abuse
included in he la e ca ego y), o he sample (communi y and
judicial popula ions), and o he ypes o ic imiza ion (di ec and
ica ious).
Da a Analysis
The e ec sizes we e aken di ec ly om he p ima y
(co ela ional) s udies when co ela ions (
) we e p o ided. Fo he
expe imen al s udies, Hedges and Olkin’s (1985) δ was compu ed,
as de i ed om he p ocedu e o K aeme and And ews (1982). The
δ was compu ed con as ing he obse ed p opo ion in he s udy
(child- o-pa en iolence) wi h a es alue. Fo he es alue, he
weigh ed mean p opo ion o he sample size o egis e ed cases o
child- o-pa en iolence we e compu ed (i.e., he p obabili y o child-
o-pa en iolence in child en ha we e no he a ge o pa en - o-
child ic imiza ion) in he con ol g oups o he expe imen al s udies.
Thus, he e ec size was es ima ed by he di e ence o he in e se
o he no mal cumula i e dis ibu ion unc ion, , being δ he
di e ence o he in e se unc ion o he obse ed p obabili y o child-
o-pa en iolence in he expe imen al g oup minus he es alue,
. Then, δ alues we e ans o med in o co ela ions
by he o mula .
A andom e ec psychome ic co ela ional me a-analysis was
pe o med on he e ec s sizes o he p ima y s udies, in line wi h
Schmid and Hun e ’s (2015) p ocedu e, whe e he obse ed e ec
sizes we e, a a i s s ep, co ec ed by sampling e o (
w), i.e., weigh ing
e ec size by sample size – ba e-bo n p ocedu e –, and, a a second
s ep, hey we e co ec ed o p edic o and c i e ion un eliabili y ( ),
i.e., by he measu emen e o in X and Y [ ]. As
o he s udy o mode a o s o he obse ed ela ionship be ween
p edic o and c i e ion, he decision ule applied was de i ed om
he amoun o e o a iance explained by he a i ac ual a iance.
Acco ding o his ule, i a i ac ual a iance (i.e., sampling e o ,
measu emen e o , and ange es ic ion) accoun s o mos o he
54
R. Gallego e al. / The Eu opean Jou nal o Psychology Applied o Legal Con ex (2019) 11(2) 51-59
sample a iance, i would appea ha he emaining unexplained
a iance is no sys ema ic. Abou his, Schmid and Hun e (1981)
ound ha a i ac s accoun , on a e age, o 72% o he e o a iance,
wi h a 75% decision ule; i.e., i he a i ac s explain less han 75%
o he a iance, hen mode a o s a e p esen . In he p esen me a-
analysis, his decision ule may all sligh ly as ange es ic ion was
no co ec ed ( ange es ic ion and measu emen e o oge he
accoun ed o a ound 15% o he a iance).
In his esea ch se ing, Cohen’s U, BESD (binomial e ec size
display), PS (p obabili y o supe io i y), and Cohen’s
q
(di e ence
be ween wo co ela ions) s a is ics p o ed o be use ul o
comple ing he esul s o he me a-analysis, and bes owing p ac ical
alue o he esul s (Amado, A ce, Fa iña, & Vila iño, 2016; Amado,
A ce, & He aiz, 2015; Fa iña, Redondo, Seijo, No o, & A ce, 2017). As
ea men e icacy was no examined in he design o he p ima y
s udies, BESD was subs i u ed by he o ecas ing index. F om his,
he inc emen al alidi y be ween wo p edic o s (p opo ion o
imp o emen in he p edic ion o he la ge o e he lowe ), he
di e ence be ween he indexes o o ecas ing (Guil o d & F uch e ,
1978), E1–E2, was compu ed.
P edic o and C i e ion Reliabili y
No all o he p ima y s udies epo ed he eliabili y o he
measu emen ins umen s used o measu ing ic imiza ion
(p edic o ), such as child- o-pa en iolence (c i e ion). In s udies
whe e eliabili y was no epo ed, eliabili y o he o iginal
ins umen was used. Mo eo e , he a e age eliabili y o he
s udies was compu ed using se e al measu emen s om di e en
ins umen s o he same a iable (i.e., pa en - o-child iolence
and child- o-pa en iolence). In hese case, whe e c i e ion o
p edic o eliabili y was no a ailable, co ec ion o a enua ion
was compu ed by means o an a i ac dis ibu ion (Schmid &
Hun e , 2015).
Resul s
S udy o Ou lie s
P io o calcula ing he me a-analysis i sel , ou lie alues in he
gene al me a-analysis we e analysed, ha is, he magni ude o he
associa ion be ween child- o-pa en iolence and ic imiza ion,
in o de o iden i y ex eme ou lie s udies, being ca e ul no o
elimina e mode a o s (Tukey, 1960). Thus, he c i e ion ± 1.5 * IQR
was used o iden i y ou lie alues, and ± 3 * IQR o iden i y ex eme
alues, bu no ex eme alues no ou lie s we e obse ed.
Child- o-pa en Violence Vic imiza ion Me a-analyses
The esul s o he child- o-pa en iolence me a-analysis (see
Table 1) e ealed a posi i e (be ween exposu e o di ec and ica ious
iolence du ing childhood and he de elopmen o iolen beha iou
owa ds pa en s), signi ican ( he con idence in e al had no alue 0),
and o a medium magni ude (ρ = .36) mean ue (i.e., co ec ed o
c i e ion and p edic o un eliabili y) e ec size (ρ), explaining 13.0%
o he a iance. The esul s a e gene alizable o 90% o any o he
sample (c edibili y in e al had no alue 0) wi h a lowe e ec size
(lowe limi o he in e al) o .18 (be ween small, .10 and medium,
.30). Mo eo e , pa en ally ic imized child en had 71% mo e
p obabili y (PS) o exe cising child- o-pa en iolence as compa ed
o child en who had no su e ed pa en - o-child iolence, he e was
no o e lapping in 46% o he dis ibu ion a ea o he popula ions o
child- o-pa en iolence and non-child- o-pa en iolence (U1) –
ha is, hey we e o ally independen iolen beha iou s exe cised
on pa en s –, and he co ec classi ica ion o child agg esso s (U2)
would be a ound 65% (15% highe han he andom 50%), and 78%
(28% highe han andom) o non-agg esso s (U3). As he ype o
iolence o which a child has been exposed (di ec and ica ious)
is said o mode a e di e ences in child- o-pa en iolence (Cal e e,
O ue, Gámez-Guadix, del Hoyo-Bilbao e al., 2015; Ibabe, 2014),
bo h ypes o iolence we e analysed independen ly. The same
pa e n o esul s (i.e., a posi i e, signi ican , gene alizable, and o
a medium magni ude mean ue e ec size) was obse ed in di ec
and ica ious ic imiza ion (see Table 1), explaining 16.8% and 13.7%,
espec i ely, wi h a o al independence be ween popula ions o 52%
and 47%, a co ec classi ica ion a e o 67% and 66% o agg esso s,
and 82% and 79% o non-agg esso s, and wi h a highe p obabili y
o exe cising iolence owa ds pa en s o 74% and 71%, o di ec
and ica ious ic imiza ion, espec i ely. Simila ly, he esul s a e
gene alizable o 90% o o he samples wi h a minimum e ec size
o .19 and .26 (be ween small and medium). Compa a i ely, child
di ec and ica ious ic imiza ion we e equally ela ed o child- o-
pa en iolence,
q
s = .048,
ns
, wi h an inc emen al alidi y (E1–E2) in
he p edic ion o di ec child- o-pa en iolence ic imiza ion (o e
ica ious) o only 1.7%. Thus, di ec and ica ious child ic imiza ion
we e equally ela ed o child- o-pa en iolence.
Ne e heless, mode a o s media ed he e ec s ( he pe cen
a iance o obse ed co ela ions a ibu ed o a i ac ual e o s
was lowe han 75%). Thus, he analysis o mode a o s is needed.
S udy o Mode a o s
Child- o-pa en iolence ype (i.e., physical and psychological)
showed a posi i e, signi ican , and medium magni ude (ρ = .31 and
.33 ic imiza ion o physical and psychological iolence) mean ue
e ec size (see Table 2), wi h ic imiza ion by pa en s explaining 9.6%
and 10.9% o he a iance, espec i ely. The esul s a e gene alizable
o 90% o u u e samples wi h a minimum e ec size o .19 and
.26 (be ween small and medium). The p obabili y ha pa en - o-
child ic imiza ion (as compa ed o non- ic ims o pa en - o-child
iolence) esul ed in physical iolence owa ds pa en s was 68%, and
69% o psychological iolence, whe eas he popula ion a eas o child
agg esso s and child non-agg esso s was comple ely independen
a 41% and 43%, espec i ely, o physical and psychological iolence
on pa en s; he co ec classi ica ion o agg esso s was 63% and 64%,
and non-agg esso s 74% and 76%. Likewise, he compa ison o he
e ec size o he ype o iolence exe cised on pa en s, physical o
psychological, showed bo h ypes o iolence we e equally ela ed,
q
s = .022,
ns
, o pa en - o-child iolence, wi h a pe cen age inc ease
in psychological iolence owa ds pa en s (as compa ed o physical)
o only 0.7%.
Table 1. Resul s o he Co ela ional Me a-analyses o Pa en - o-child Violence and Child- o-pa en Violence
k N
w
SD
ρ
SD
ρ%Va 95% CIρ80% CIρ
Pa en - o-child iolence 26 9521 .28 .1189 .36 .1378 18.48 .30, .42 .18, .54
Di ec 14 6406 .31 .1100 .41 .1299 20.02 .33, .49 .24, .58
Vica ious 14 5983 .27 .1133 .37 .1408 16.68 .29, .45 .19, .55
No e. k
= numbe o independen samples;
N
= o al sample size;
w = sample size weigh ed mean obse ed co ela ion;
SD
= sample size weigh ed obse ed s anda d de ia ion
o co ela ions; ρ = mean ue sco e co ela ion; %Va = pe cen a iance o obse ed co ela ions a ibu able o s a is ical a i ac s; 95% CIρ = lowe and uppe limi s o he 95%
con idence in e al o he mean ue sco e co ela ion; 80% CIρ = lowe and uppe limi s o he 80% c edibili y in e al.
55
Child- o-pa en Violence and Pa en - o-child Violence: A Me a-analy ic Re iew
No wi hs anding, mode a o s media ed he e ec s ( he pe cen
a iance o obse ed co ela ions a ibu ed o a i ac ual e o s
was lowe han 75%), meaning ha mode a o s should be analysed.
Ne e heless, bo h insu icien independen samples and he non-
iden i ica ion in s udies o mode a o s which could mode a e his
ela ion did no acili a e he analysis o addi ional mode a o s.
The second mode a o o he ela ionship be ween pa en - o-
child ic imiza ion and child- o-pa en iolence o be analysed was
popula ion (judicial and communi y) (Rosado, Rico, & Can ón-Co -
és, 2017). The esul s o he me a-analyses (see Table 3) e ealed a
posi i e, signi ican , medium magni ude (ρ = .36 and .42 o com-
muni y and judicial samples), and a mean ue e ec size (see Ta-
ble 2), explaining 12.9% and 17.6% o he a iance. The esul s a e
gene alizable o 90% o o he samples wi h a minimum e ec size
o .18 (be ween small and medium), and .30 (medium) e ec size
o he communi y and judicial popula ions, espec i ely. As o he
p obabili y o supe io i y, child en om he communi y popula ion
who su e ed pa en al iolence had a p obabili y o pa en ic imi-
za ion o 71%, and o 74% o judicial child en. The independence o
he a eas was 46% and 54% o he communi y and judicial popu-
la ion, espec i ely, and he co ec classi ica ion o agg esso s was
65% and 68%, and non-agg esso s 78% and 82%. The compa ison be-
ween bo h popula ions in he magni ude o he ela ion be ween
ic imiza ion and child- o-pa en iolence showed an equally
in ense ela ion,
q
s = .071,
ns
, wi h he pe cen age inc ease in he
p edic ion o child- o-pa en iolence in he judicial popula ion (as
compa ed o he communi y popula ion) o 2.5%.
Discussion
The ollowing conclusions may be d awn om he esul s o he
me a-analysis:
1. A child’s exposu e o pa en al iolence was a signi ican
p edic o o child- o-pa en iolence. Mo eo e , e idence
ha he e a e no incon enien s udies (con a y o he
hypo hesis), and ha he esul s can be gene alized o o he
samples (90% o he s udies on he same popula ion ound
an e ec size equal o o la ge han an
o .18), con e s he
s a us o ac (Poppe , 1961) o he hypo hesis ha pa en -
o-child iolence p edic s child- o-pa en iolence. As o
he explana o y models de i ed om social lea ning heo y,
he expe imen al designs employed in s udies we e limi ed
o examining i pa en - o-child iolence p edic ed child-
o-pa en iolence (lagged e ec s), gi ing suppo o he
compensa ion model. No s udy es ed he bidi ec ional
model. In o he wo ds, he esul s suppo ed ha child- o-
pa en iolence is a consequence o pa en - o-child iolence
(compensa ion). Wha emains o be de e mined is i
ecip ocal e ec s (simul aneous o close in ime) may also
explain he ela ionship be ween child- o-pa en and pa en -
o-child iolence (bidi ec ional). Fu u e esea ch should
examine i iolence be ween pa en s and child en is indeed
bidi ec ional, i.e., wo-way.
2. As o he p ac ical implica ions, he p obabili y o exe cising
child- o-pa en iolence in ic ims o pa en - o-child
iolence was a ound 70% abo e baseline (non-pa en - o-child
iolence ic ims) unde di e en condi ions (popula ion,
ype o iolence, and ype o ic imiza ion). Consequen ly,
pa en - o-child iolence igge ed a child- o-pa en iolence
esponse a ound 70%.
3. As o p ac ice oo, he esul s o he me a-analyses exhibi ed
ha pa en - o-child ic imiza ion classi ied co ec ly sligh ly
less han 50% o he child en in o child- o-pa en o ende s
and non-child- o-pa en o ende s, being app oxima ely
he double (
OR
2) o non-child- o-pa en o ende s
( anging o e chance, i.e., 50%, om 24% o 32%) han o
child- o-pa en o ende s ( anging om 13% o 18%). Thus,
non-pa en - o-child iolence was a be e p edic o o non-
child- o-pa en iolence han pa en - o-child iolence o
child- o-pa en iolence.
4. Sligh ly unde 50% o he popula ion o child en ( o al
independence o he dis ibu ion o popula ions o agg esso s
and non-agg esso s) we e classi ied wi h he measu emen s
o he s udies (i.e., on a con inuum, no in bina y ca ego ies)
as genuine child- o-pa en agg esso s and child- o-pa en
non-agg esso s. Con a y, sligh ly mo e han 50% o he child
popula ion may no be classi ied as pa en o ende s o non-
pa en o ende s. This means ha he ac ual measu emen
does no disc imina e e ec i ely be ween hese wo
popula ions. In sho , young o ende s and non-o ende s
sha e beha iou s ha measu emen ins umen s assess as
iolence owa ds hei pa en s. Thus, u u e esea ch mus be
designed o measu e bo h g oups independen ly.
5. The esul s o he me a-analysis suppo ha bo h di ec
ic imiza ion o child en and he exposu e o ica ious
iolence we e signi ican and obus p edic o s (i.e., medium
magni ude e ec size and gene alizable o addi ional samples)
o child- o-pa en iolence. Mo eo e , he p edic i e alue o
bo h ac o s o child- o-pa en iolence was simila , wi h an
inc ease in p edic i e alidi y o he highes p edic o (di ec
ic imiza ion), and he lowes ( ica ious ic imiza ion), which
was p ac ically negligible (1.7%). None heless, da a om
Table 2. Resul s o he Co ela ional Me a-analyses o he Child- o-pa en Violence Type (Physical and Psychological)
Type o iolence
CVρ
k N
w
SD
ρ
SD
ρ%Va 95% CIρ80%
Physical 64,618 .25 .0685 .31 .0847 20.02 .23, .39 .19, .41
Psychological 64,618 .25 .0623 .33 .0546 39.33 .27, .39 .26, .40
No e. k
= numbe o independen samples;
N
= o al sample size;
w = sample size weigh ed mean obse ed co ela ion;
SD
= sample size weigh ed obse ed s anda d de ia ion
o co ela ions; ρ = mean ue sco e co ela ion;
SD
ρ = ue sco e s anda d de ia ion; %Va = pe cen a iance o obse ed co ela ions a ibu able o s a is ical a i ac s; 95% CIρ
= lowe and uppe limi s o he 95% con idence in e al o he mean ue sco e co ela ion; 80% CVρ = lowe and uppe limi s o he 80% c edibili y in e al.
Table 3. Resul s o he Co ela ional Me a-analyses o he Popula ion Type (Communi y and Judicial)
Popula ion
CVρ
k N
w
SD
ρ
SD
ρ%Va 95% CIρ80%
Communi y 18 8,969 .28 .1190 .36 .1424 13.87 .29, .43 .18, .54
Judicial 9859 .39 .1223 .42 .0900 51.71 .33, .51 .30, .53
No e. k
= numbe o independen samples;
N
= o al sample size;
w = sample size weigh ed mean obse ed co ela ion;
SD
= sample size weigh ed obse ed s anda d de ia ion
o co ela ions; ρ = mean ue sco e co ela ion;
SD
ρ = ue sco e s anda d de ia ion; %Va = pe cen a iance o obse ed co ela ions a ibu able.

56
R. Gallego e al. / The Eu opean Jou nal o Psychology Applied o Legal Con ex (2019) 11(2) 51-59
p ima y s udies a e sys ema ically in luenced by me hod
bias leading o misleading conclusions. Conc e ely, me hod
biases obse ed in he p ima y s udied included common
sou ce e ec s (e.g., consis ency mo i , social desi abili y),
i em cha ac e is ic e ec s (e.g., i em social desi abili y), i em
con en e ec s (e.g., in e mixing o i ems and cons uc s),
and measu emen con ex e ec s (e.g., c i e ion and
p edic o measu ed a he same empo al poin and wi h
he same subjec s) (Podsako , MacKenzie, Lee, & Podsako ,
2003). These obse ed sou ces o me hod biases in p ima y
s udies indica e ha a iance may be a ibu ed mo e o
he measu emen me hod han o he measu ed cons uc s
(common me hod a iance). In o he wo ds, he explained
a iance may es mo e on me hod bias han on s udies’
measu emen . Addi ionally, hese me hod biases may p o ide
al e na i e explana ions o esul s. Thus, hese measu emen
e o s in alida e he conclusions om he me a-analysis as
he measu emen s o he p ima y s udies a e con amina ed by
sys ema ic measu emen e o s. A p oposed emedy o his
is Ha man’s one ac o es . This solu ion was es ed wi h he
ic imiza ion p edic o (see abo e). Howe e , his s a is ical
emedy is insu icien as main e ec s o di ec , ica ious
ic imiza ion and i s in e ac ion emain unknown. Thus, in
o de o de e mine he p edic i e alue o di ec and ica ious
ic imiza ion and i s in e ac ion o child- o-pa en iolence,
empi ical designs should en ail he c ea ion o a ac o wi h
excluding g oups o di ec and ica ious ic im child en. This
unde sco es ha a igid c i e ion (gold s anda d) o classi y
o ende s and non-o ende s should be de ined.
6. Pa en - o-child iolence p edic ed signi ican ly, wi h a
medium e ec size and gene alizable o bo h psychological
and physical child- o-pa en iolence. The p edic i e powe
was analogous o physical and psychological iolence,
and he e was no inc emen al alidi y (0.7%) o he highe
(psychological) o e he lowe (physical) p edic o . The same
sou ces o biases as o di ec and ica ious ic imiza ion
we e pe inen o hese esul s and conclusions. Thus,
hese esul s should be e- es ed wi h he a o emen ioned
empi ical designs.
7. The esul s o he me a-analyses o he communi y and
judicial popula ions show ha pa en - o-child iolence
p edic ed child- o-pa en iolence. This p edic ion was
no only signi ican bu o a medium o la ge e ec size,
and gene alizable o he whole communi y and judicial
popula ions. Unexpec edly, he mean p edic i e alue was
equal o bo h popula ions and he e was no a ele an
inc emen al alidi y (i.e., 2.5%) o he p edic ion in he judicial
popula ion ( he judicial judgmen se es as a gold s anda d
o classi y all hem as au hen ic child- o-pa en o ende s;
hus, i was expec ed ha pa en - o-child iolence p edic s
highe child- o-pa en iolence in his popula ion) o e he
communi y one. Sea ching o causes o his, signi ican
di e ences,
q
s = .128,
p
< .01, we e ound be ween he 80%
lowe limi o he c edibili y in e al, bu no o he uppe
limi ,
q
s = .014,
ns
. Ne e heless, he obse ed 80% lowe
limi o he c edibili y in e al o he communi y popula ion
es ablished a minimum p edic i e powe o a small o
medium e ec size (
= .18). In o he wo ds, he measu emen
ins umen s used classi ied mo e han 90% o he child en
om he communi y as o ende s. Undoub edly, his implies
me hod bias and equi es he s ic de ini ion o he c i e ia
(e.g., judicial judgmen making) o co ec ly classi y child- o-
pa en o ende s in communi y popula ion.
In conclusion, p ima y s udies on he ela ionship be ween
pa en - o-child iolence and child- o-pa en iolence en ail ce ain
limi a ions ha should be bo ne in mind in u he esea ch. The
li e a u e has ocused exclusi ely on child ic imiza ion om pa en s
as a p edic o o child- o-pa en iolence and has o e looked he
simul aneous analysis o bo h child- o-pa en iolence and pa en -
o-child iolence, and child- o-pa en iolence as a p edic o o
pa en - o-child iolence (Ba le-Ha ing, Slesnick, & Ca mona, 2015;
Moylan e al., 2010). Thus, u u e esea ch should ocus on analysing
simul aneously child- o-pa en iolence and pa en - o-child
iolence, and child- o-pa en iolence as a p edic o o pa en - o-
child iolence. Measu emen o child- o-pa en iolence and pa en -
o-child iolence should be unde aken using o he measu emen
ins umen s (Cal e e, Gámez-Guadix, & O ue, 2014), wi h igid and
clea ly de ined c i e ia o classi ying ypes o iolence. Fu he mo e,
all me hod biases obse ed in he li e a u e (p ima y s udies) should
be con olled o mi iga ed in u u e esea ch design. Finally, po en ial
ele an mode a o s o he ela ionship be ween pa en - o-child and
child- o-pa en iolence, such as child gende o he p edic i e alue
o pa en - o-child iolence in o he con ex s such as da ing iolence,
should be assessed (S i h e al., 2000). Howe e , pa en - o-child
iolence is a obus p edic o o child- o-pa en iolence.
Con lic o In e es
The au ho s o his a icle decla e no con lic o in e es .
Re e ences
As e isks e e o s udies includes in me a-analysis.
Agnew, R., & Huguley, S. (1989). Adolescen iolence owa ds pa en s.
Jou nal o Ma iage and Family, 51
, 699-711. Re ie ed om h p://
www.js o .o g/s able/352169
Amado, B. G., A ce, R., Fa iña, F., & Vila iño, M. (2016). C i e ia-based
con en analysis (CBCA) eali y c i e ia in adul s: A me a-analy ic
e iew.
In e na ional Jou nal o Clinical and Heal h Psychology, 16,
201-210. h ps://doi.o g/10.1016/j.ijchp.2016.01.002
Amado, B. G., A ce, R., & He aiz, A. (2015). Psychological inju y in ic ims o
child sexual abuse: A me a-analy ic e iew.
Psychosocial In e en ion,
24
, 49-62. h ps://doi.o g/10.1016/j.psi.2015.03.002
A ce, R., Fa iña, F., Seijo, D., & No o, M. (2015). Assessing imp ession
managemen wi h he MMPI-2 in child cus ody li iga ion.
Assessmen ,
22,
769-777. h ps://doi.o g/10.1177/1073191114558111
A ce, R., Fa iña, F., & Vila iño, M. (2015). Daño psicológico en casos de íc imas
de iolencia de géne o: un es udio compa a i o de las e aluaciones
o enses [Psychological inju y in in ima e pa ne iolence cases: A
con as i e analysis o o ensic measu es].
Re is a Ibe oame icana de
Psicología y Salud, 6,
72-80. h ps://doi.o g/10.1016/j. ips.2015.04.002
Bandu a, A., & Wal e s, R. (1959).
Adolescen agg ession: A s udy o he
in luence o child- aining p ac ices and amily in e ela ionships.
New Yo k, NY: Ronald P ess.
Bandu a, A., & Wal e s, R. (1963).
Social lea ning and pe sonali y
de elopmen .
New Yo k, NY: Hol , Rineha and Wins on.
Ba le-Ha ing, S., Slesnick, N., & Ca mona, J. (2015). Recip oci y in
adolescen and ca egi e iolence
. Jou nal o Family Violence, 30,
149-
159. h ps://doi.o g/10.1007/s10896-014-9659-5
B ezina, T. (1999). Teenage iolence owa d pa en s as an adap a ion o amily
s ain: E idence om a na ional su ey o male adolescen s.
You h &
Socie y, 30,
416-444. h ps://doi.o g/10.1177/0044118X99030004002
*B owne, K., & Hamil on, C. (1998). Physical iolence be ween young
adul s and hei pa en s: Associa ions wi h a his o y o child
mal ea men .
Jou nal o Family Violence, 13
, 59-79. h ps://doi.
o g/10.1023/A:1022812816957
*Ca lson, B. E. (1990). Adolescen obse e s o ma i al iolence.
Jou nal o
Family Violence, 5
, 285-299. h ps://doi.o g/10.1007/BF00979065
Cal e e, E., Gámez-Guadix, M., & O ue, I. (2014). Ca ac e ís icas
amilia es asociadas a iolencia ilio-pa en al en adolescen s
[Family cha ac e is ics associa ed wi h child- o-pa en agg essions
in adolescen s].
Anales de Psicología, 30
, 1176-1182. h ps://doi.
o g/10.6018/analesps.30.3.166291
Cal e e, E., Gámez-Guadix, M., O ue, I., González-Diez, Z., de A oyabe, E.
L., Samped o, … Bo ajo, E. (2013). B ie epo : The adolescen child-
o-pa en agg ession ques ionnai e: An examina ion o agg essions
agains pa en s in Spanish adolescen s.
Jou nal o Adolescence, 36,
1077-1081. h ps://doi.o g/10.1016/j.adolescence.2013.08.017
*Cal e e, E., O ue, I., Gamez-Guadix, M., & Bushman, B. J. (2015). P edic o s o
child- o-pa en agg ession: A 3-yea longi udinal s udy.
De elopmen al
Psychology, 51,
663-676. h ps://doi.o g/10.1037/a0039092
*Cal e e, E., O ue, I., Gámez-Guadix, M., del Hoyo-Bilbao, J., & López de
A oyabe, E. (2015). Child- o-pa en iolence: An explo a o y s udy o
57
Child- o-pa en Violence and Pa en - o-child Violence: A Me a-analy ic Re iew
he oles o amily iolence and pa en al discipline h ough he s o ies
old by Spanish child en and hei pa en s.
Violence and Vic ims, 30,
935-947. h ps://doi.o g/10.1891/0886-6708.VV-D-14-00105
*Cal e e, E., O ue, I., & Samped o, R. (2011). Violencia ilio-pa en al en
la adolescencia: Ca ac e ís icas ambien ales y pe sonales [Child
o pa en iolence in adolescence: En i onmen al and indi idual
cha ac e is ics].
In ancia y Ap endizaje, 34,
349-363. h ps://doi.
o g/10.1174/021037011797238577
Cond y, R., & Miles, C. (2014). Adolescen o pa en iolence: F aming and
mapping a hidden p oblem.
C iminology & C iminal Jus ice, 14,
257-
275. h ps://doi.o g/10.1177/1748895813500155
*Con e as, L., & Cano, M. C. (2014). Adolescen s who assaul hei pa en s:
A di e en amily p o ile o young o ende s
. Violence and Vic ims, 29,
393-406. h ps://doi.o g/10.1891/0886-6708.VV-D-12-00132
*Con e as, L., & Cano, M. C. (2016). Child- o-pa en iolence: The ole
o exposu e o iolence and i s ela ionship o social-cogni i e
p ocessing.
Eu opean Jou nal o Psychology Applied o Legal Con ex ,
8
, 43-50. h ps://doi.o g/10.1016/j.ejpal.2016.03.003
Co ell, B. (2001).
Pa en abuse: The abuse o pa en s by hei eenage
child en.
O awa, ON: Heal h Canada.
Co ell, B., & Monk, P. (2004). Adolescen - o-pa en abuse a quali a i e
o e iew o common hemes.
Jou nal o Family Issues, 25,
1072-1095.
h ps://doi.o g/10.1177/0192513X03261330
DeKese edy, W. S. (1993).
Fou a ia ions o amily iolence: A e iew
o sociological esea ch.
O awa, ON: Na ional Clea inghouse on
Family Violence.
Fa iña, F., Redondo, L., Seijo, D., No o, M., & A ce, R. (2017). A me a-analy ic
e iew o he MMPI alidi y scales and indexes o de ec de ensi eness
in cus ody e alua ions.
In e na ional Jou nal o Clinical and Heal h
Psychology, 17,
128-138. h ps://doi.o g/10.1016/j.ijchp.2017.02.002
Foo, L., & Ma golin, G. (1995). A mul i a ia e in es iga ion o da ing
agg ession.
Jou nal o Family Violence, 10,
351-377. h ps://doi.
o g/10.1007/BF02110711
*Gámez-Guadix, M., & Cal e e, E. (2012). Violencia iliopa en al y su
asociación con la exposición a la iolencia ma i al y la ag esión
de pad es a hijos [Child- o-pa en iolence and i s associa ion
wi h exposu e o ma i al iolence and pa en - o-child iolence].
Psico hema, 24,
277-283. Re ie ed om h p://www.psico hema.
com/pd /4011.pd
Gelles, R., & S aus, M. (1979). Violence in he Ame ican amily.
Jou nal o Social
Issues, 35,
15-39. h ps://doi.o g/10.1111/j.1540-4560.1979. b00799.x
Gilbe , R., Kemp, A., Thobu n, J., Sidebo ham, P., Rad o d, L., Glase ,
D., & MacMillan, H. L. (2009). Recognising and esponding o child
mal ea men .
The lance , 373
(9658), 167-180. h ps://doi.o g/10.1016/
S0140-6736(08)61707-9
Gilbe , R., Widom, C. S., B owne, K., Fe gusson, D., Webb, E., & Janson,
S. (2009). Bu den and consequences o child mal ea men in high-
income coun ies.
The lance , 373
(9657), 68-81. 1 h ps://doi.
o g/10.1016/S0140-6736(08)61706-7
Guil o d, J. P., & F uch e , B. (1978).
Fundamen al s a is ics in psychology
and educa ion
(Six h Edi ion). New Yo k, NY: McG aw-Hill.
Ha bin, H., & Madden, D. (1979). Ba e ed pa en s: A new synd ome.
Ame ican Jou nal Psychia y, 136,
1288-1291. h ps://doi.o g/10.1176/
ajp.136.10.1288
Ha z, D. (1995). Compa a i e con lic esolu ion pa e ns among pa en s-
een dyads o ou e hnic g oups in Hawaii.
Child Abuse and Neglec ,
19,
681-689. h ps://doi.o g/10.1016/0145-2134(95)00026-5
Haw, A. L. (2010).
Pa en ing o e iolence: Unde s anding and empowe ing
mo he s a ec ed by adolescen iolence in he home.
Pe h, WA:
Depa men o Communi ies, O ice o Women’s In e es s. Re ie ed
om h ps://pa gilescen e.o g.au/abou -pgc/ epo s/pa en ing-o e -
iolence- inal- epo .pd
Hedges, L. V., & Olkin, I. (1985).
S a is ical me hods o me a-analysis.
O lando, FL: Academic P ess.
Hol , A. (2013).
Adolescen - o-pa en abuse: Cu en unde s andings in
esea ch, policy and p ac ice.
B is ol, UK: Policy P ess.
*Ibabe, I. (2014). Di ec and indi ec e ec s o amily iolence on child- o-
pa en iolence.
Es udios de Psicología, 35,
137-167. h ps://doi.o g/10
.1080/02109395.2014.893647
*Ibabe, I. (2015). P edic o es amilia es de la iolencia ilio-pa en al. El
papel de la disciplina amilia [Family p edic o s o child- o-pa en
iolence: The ole o amily discipline].
Anales de Psicología, 31,
615-
625. h ps://doi.o g/10.6018/analesps.31.2.174701
Ibabe, I., & Jau eguiza , J. (2011). ¿Has a qué pun o la iolencia ilio-
pa en al es bidi eccional? [To wha ex en is child- o-pa en iolence
bi-di ec ional?]
Anales de Psicología, 27,
256-277. Re ie ed om
h ps://digi um.um.es/xmlui/bi s eam/10201/26513/1/Has a%20
qu%C3%A9%20pun o%20la%20 iolencia%20 ilio-pa en al%20es%20
bidi eccional.pd
*Ibabe, I., Jau eguiza , J., & Díaz, Ó. (2009). Adolescen iolence agains
pa en s. Is i a consequence o gende inequali y?
Eu opean Jou nal
o Psychology Applied o Legal Con ex , 1
, 3-24. Re ie ed om h p://
sepj .webs.u igo.es/index.php?op ion=com_docman& ask=doc_
download&gid=9&I emid=110&lang=en
*Izagui e, A., & Cal e e, E. (2017). Exposu e o amily iolence as a
p edic o o da ing iolence and child- o-pa en agg ession in
Spanish adolescen s.
You h & Socie y, 49,
393-412. h ps://doi.
o g/10.1177/0044118X16632138
Jau eguiza , J., & Ibabe, I. (2013). Violen and p osocial beha iou by adolescen s
owa d pa en s and eache s in a communi y sample.
Psychology in he
School, 50,
451-470. h ps://doi.o g/10.1002/pi s.21685
Jau eguiza , J., Ibabe, I., & S aus, M. A. (2013). Violen and p osocial beha io
by adolescen s owa d pa en s and eache s in a communi y sample.
Psychology in he Schools, 50,
451-470. h ps://doi.o g/10.1002/
pi s.21685
*Kennedy, T., Edmonds, W., Dann, K., & Bu ne , K. (2010). The clinical
and adap i e ea u es o young o ende s wi h his o ies o child-
pa en iolence.
Jou nal o Family Violence, 25,
509-520. h ps://doi.
o g/10.1007/s10896-010-9312-x
Ke hineni, S. (2004). You h-on-pa en iolence in a cen al Illinois
coun y.
You h Violence and Ju enile Jus ice, 2,
374-394. h ps://doi.
o g/10.1177/1541204004267785
K aeme , H. C., & And ews, G. (1982). A non-pa ame ic echnique o
me a-analysis e ec size calcula ion.
Psychological Bulle in, 91,
404-
412. h ps://doi.o g/10.1037/0033-2909.91.2.404
*K a coski, P. (1985). You h iolence di ec ed owa d signi ican o he s.
Jou nal o Adolescence, 8,
145-157.
*Langhin ichsen-Rohling J., & Neidig, P. (1995). Violen backg ounds o
economically disad an aged you h: Risk ac o s o pe pe a ing
iolence?
Jou nal o Family Violence, 10
, 379-397. h ps://doi.
o g/10.1007/BF02110712
Lau en , A., & De y, A. (1999). Violence o F ench adolescen s owa d hei
pa en s: Cha ac e is ics and con ex s.
Jou nal o Adolescen Heal h, 25,
21-26. h ps://doi.o g/10.1016/S1054-139X(98)00134-7
*Li ings on, L (1986). Child en’s iolence o single mo he s.
The Jou nal o
Sociology & Social Wel a e, 13,
920-933.
Loinaz, I., And és-Pueyo, A., & Pe ei a, R. (2017). Fac o es de iesgo de
iolencia ilio-pa en al: una ap oximación con juicio de expe os
[Child- o-pa en iolence isk ac o s: An app oach wi h expe
judgemen ].
Acción Psicológica,
14, 17-32. h ps://doi.o g/10.5944/
ap.14.2.20747
*Lyons, J., Bell, T., F éche e, S., & Romano, E. (2015). Child- o-pa en
iolence: F equency and amily co ela es.
Jou nal o Family Violence,
30,
729-742. h ps://doi.o g/10.1007/s10896-015-9716-8
*Ma golin, G., & Baucom, B. R. (2014). Adolescen s’ agg ession o
pa en s: Longi udinal links wi h pa en s’ physical agg ession.
Jou nal o Adolescen Heal h, 55,
645-651. h ps://doi.o g/10.1016/j.
jadoheal h.2014.05.008
Maxwell, C., & Maxwell, S. (2003). Expe iencing and wi nessing amilia
agg ession and hei ela ionship o physically agg essi e beha iou s
among Filipino adolescen s.
Jou nal o In e pe sonal Violence, 18,
1432-1451. h ps://doi.o g/10.1177/0886260503258034
*Me edi h, W., Abbo , D., & Adams, S. (1986). Family iolence: I s ela ion
o ma i al and pa en al sa is ac ion and amily s eng hs.
Jou nal o
Family Violence, 1
, 299-305. h ps://doi.o g/10.1007/BF00978274
Mo al, M. V., Ga cía, A., Cue os, G., & Si en , C. (2017). Violencia en el
no iazgo, dependencia emocional y au oes ima en adolescen es
y jó enes españoles [Da ing iolence, emo ional dependence and
sel -es eem in spanish adolescen s and young adul s].
Re is a
Ibe oame icana de Psicología y Salud, 8,
96-107, h ps://doi.
o g/10.23923/j. ips.2017.08.009
Moulds, L. G., & Day, A. (2017). Cha ac e is ics o adolescen iolence
owa ds pa en s – A apid e idence assessmen .
Jou nal o Agg ession,
Con lic and Peace Resea ch, 9,
195-209. h ps://doi.o g/10.1108/
JACPR-11-2016-0260
Moylan, C., He enkohl, T., Sousa, C., Tajima, E., He enkohl, R., & Russo, M.
(2010). The e ec s o child abuse and exposu e o domes ic iolence
on adolescen in e nalizing and ex e nalizing beha iou s p oblems.
Jou nal o Family Violence, 25,
53-63. h ps://doi.o g/10.1007/s10896-
009-9269-9
Nowakowski-Sims, E., & Rowe, A. (2015). Using auma in o med ea men
models wi h child- o-pa en iolence.
Jou nal o Child & Adolescen
T auma, 8,
237-244. h ps://doi.o g/10.1007/s40653- 015-0065-9
Pagani, L., T emblay, R., Nagin, D., Zoccolillo, M., Vi a o, F., & McDu , P.
(2004). Risk ac o models o adolescen e bal and physical agg ession
owa d mo he s
. In e na ional jou nal o beha io al de elopmen , 28,
528-537. h ps://doi.o g/10.1080/01650250444000243
Pagani, L., T emblay, R. E., Nagin, D., Zoccolillo, M., Vi a o, F., & McDu ,
P. (2009). Risk ac o models o adolescen e bal and physical
agg ession owa d a he s.
Jou nal o Family Violence, 24,
173-182.
h ps://doi.o g/10.1007/s10896-008-9216-1
*Peek, C., Fische , J., & Kidwell, J. (1985). Teenage iolence owa d pa en s:
A neglec ed dimension o amily iolence.
Jou nal o Ma iage and he
Family, 47
, 1051-1058. h ps://doi.o g/10.2307/352350
Podsako , P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J.-Y., & Podsako , N. P. (2003).
Common me hod bias in beha io al esea ch: A c i ical e iew o he
li e a u e and ecommended emedies.
Jou nal o Applied Psychology,
88,
879-903. h ps://doi.o g/10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879
Poppe , K. R. (1961).
The logic o scien i ic disco e y.
New Yo k, NY:
Science Edi ions.
*Rechea, C., & Cue o, A. L. (2010).
Meno es ag eso es en el ámbi o
amilia
[Domes ic se ing child o ende s] (Resea ch Repo , No.
58
R. Gallego e al. / The Eu opean Jou nal o Psychology Applied o Legal Con ex (2019) 11(2) 51-59
18). Re ie ed om h ps://p e ia.uclm.es/cen o/c iminologia/pd /
in o mes/18_2010.pd
Robinson, P., Da idson, L., & D ebo , M. (2004). Pa en abuse on he
ise: A his o ical e iew.
Ame ican Associa ion o Beha io al Social
Science Online Jou nal,
58-67. Re ie ed om h p://aabss.o g/
Pe spec i es2004/AABSS_58-67.pd
Rosado, J., Rico, E., & Can ón-Co és, D. (2017). In luence o psychopa hology
on he pe pe a ion o child- o-pa en iolence: Di e ences as
a unc ion o sex.
Anales de Psicología, 33,
243-251. h ps://doi.
o g/10.6018/analesps.33.2.240061
Rybski, N. (1998).
An e alua ion o a amily g oup he apy p og am o
domes ically iolen adolescen s
(Unpublished doc o al disse a ion).
Uni e si y o A izona, A izona. Re ie ed om h p://hdl.handle.
ne /10150/288862
Schmid , F. L., & Hun e , J. E. (1981). Employmen es ing: Old heo ies and
new esea ch indings.
Ame ican Psychologis , 36,
1128-1137. h ps://
doi.o g/10.1037/0003-066X.36.10.1128
Schmid , F. L., & Hun e , J. E. (2015).
Me hods o me a-analysis: Co ec ing
e o s and bias in esea ch indings
(3 h ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Seijo, D., Fa iña, F., Co as, T., No o, M., & A ce, R. (2016). Es ima ing he
epidemiology and quan i ying he damages o pa en al sepa a ion in
child en and adolescen s.
F on ie s in Psychology, 7,
1611. h p://doi.
o g/10.3389/ psyg.2016.01611
S i h, S. M., Rosen, K. H., Middle on, K. A., Busch, A. L., Lundebe g, K., &
Ca l on, R. P. (2000). The in e gene a ional ansmission o spouse
abuse: A me a-analysis.
Jou nal o Ma iage and he Family, 62,
640-
654. h ps://doi.o g/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2000.00640.x
S aus, M., & Fauchie , A. (2008).
The in e na ional pa en ing s udy.
Re ie ed om h p://pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2/IPS.h m
Tukey, J. W. (1960). A su ey o sampling om con amina ed dis ibu ions.
In I. Olkin, J. G. Ghu ye, W. Hoe ding, W. G. Madoo, & H. Mann (Eds.),
Con ibu ions o p obabili y and s a is ics
(pp. 448-485). S an o d, CA:
S an o d Uni e si y P ess.
*Ulman, A., & S aus, M. (2003). Violence by child en agains mo he s in
ela ion o iolence be ween pa en s and co po al punishmen by
pa en s.
Jou nal o Compa a i e Family S udies, 34
, 41-60. Re ie ed
om h p://www.js o .o g/s able/41603861
Uni ed Na ions. (1985).
Decla a ion o basic p inciples o jus ice o ic ims
o c ime and abuse o powe
(Gene al Assembly esolu ion 40/34 o
29 No embe 1985). Vienna, Aus ia: Uni ed Na ions. Re ie ed om
h p://www.un.o g/documen s/ga/ es/40/a40 034.h m
59
Child- o-pa en Violence and Pa en - o-child Violence: A Me a-analy ic Re iew
Appendix
Selec ed Pape s Coding
S udy Popula ion
N
Age Gende Pa en - o-child iolence
(Meassu e)
xx
Child- o-pa en - iolence
(Meassu e)
xx Analysis
K a coski (1985) Communi y 63 --- --- Ad hoc ques ionnai e --- Ad hoc ques ionnai e --- P opo ions
Peek, Fishe , and
Kidwell (1985) Communi y 1429 --- M: 100% In e iew --- In e iew --- Ze o-o de co ela ion
Li ings on (1986) Communi y 44 --- --- Ad hoc ques ionnai e --- Ad hoc ques ionnai e --- P opo ions
Me edi h, Abbo , and
Adams (1986) Communi y 304 --- F: 61%
M: 39%
CTS
Pa en Sa is ac ion Scale
Ma i al Sa is a ion Scale
.75
.81
.84
CTS --- Co ela ional
Bonnie E. and Ca sl-
son (1990)
Communi y/
clinical 66 Range: 13-18
M
=15.41
M: 55%
F: 45%
Ad hoc ques ionnai e --- Ad hoc ques ionnai e --- P opo ions
B owne and
Hamil on (1998) Communi y 178 --- --- Childhood His o y Ques ionnai e --- CTS --- P opo ions
Langhin ichsen-Ro-
hinling and Neiding
(1995)
Judicial 474
M
= 18 M: 71%
F: 29% CTS .87 Modi ica ion o he CTS --- Pa ial co ela ions
Ulman and S aus
(2003) Communi y 289
414 --- --- CTS --- CTS --- P opo ions
Ibabe, Jau eguiza ,
and Díaz (2009) Judicial 33 --- --- Judicial ile analysis --- Judicial ile analysis --- P opo ions
Kennedy, Edmons,
Dann, and Bu ne
(2010)
Judicial 100
100
M
= 14.55
SD
= 1.55
M: 74.9%
F: 25.1% Judicial ile analysis/In e iew --- Judicial ile analysis/
in e iew --- P opo ions
Rechea and Cue o
(2010) Judicial 14
M
= 15.58 M: 58.8%
F: 41.2%
Ad hoc ques ionnai e --- Ad hoc ques ionnai e --- P opo ions
Cal e e, O ue, and
Samped o (2011) Communi y 1427 Range: 12-17 M: 47.8%
F: 52.2%
Di ec ic imiza ion: DDI
Vica ious ic imiza ion: EEVF
.87
.85
CTS-CP: Physical
CTS-CP: Ve bal
CTS-CP: Global
.88
.61
.69
Co ela ional
Gámez-Guadix and
Cal e e (2012) Communi y 1681
M
= 20.75 M: 22.5%
F: 76.9%
Di ec ic imiza ion: CTS-PC/DDI
Vica ious ic imiza ion: CTS2 .82/.83
.73
Child- o-pa en Violence
Scale: Ve bal
Child- o-pa en Violence
Scale: Physical
.79
.74
Co ela ional
Ibabe (2014) Communi y 485
M
= 15
SD
= 1.69
M: 55%
F: 45% EVI .79 Escala de iolencia in a-
amilia .80 Co ela ional
Ma golin and Baucom
(2014) Communi y 75 --- --- CTS .72 Adolescen s’ pa en -di ec -
ed agg ession .75 Co ela ional
Con e as and Cano
(2014) Judicial 48
42 --- --- Judicial ile analysis --- Judicial ile analysis --- P opo ions
Cal e e, O ue,
Gámez-Guadix, Ho-
yo-Bilbao, and López
de A oyabe (2015)
Judicial 15
M
= 16
SD
= 1.33
M: 66.6%
F: 33.4%
S uc u ed in e iews o young-
s e s and pa en s --- S uc u ed in e iews o
youngs e s and pa en s --- P opo ions
Cal e e, O ue,
Gámez-Guadix, and
Bushman (2015)
Communi y 591
M
= 14.7
SD
= 1.11
M: 49.6%
F: 50.4% Exposu e o Violence Scale .80 Child- o-pa en Agg ession
Ques ionnai e .83 Co ela ional
Lyon, Bell, F eche e,
and Romano (2015) Communi y 365 Range: 18-24 M: 24.2%
F: 75.8%
Di ec ic imiza ion: spanking,
psychological agg ession, physical
abuse.
Vica ious ic imiza ion: CTS2
.75
.88
CTSPC-Child- o-pa en .64 Co ela ional
Ibabe (2015) Communi y 585 Range: 12-18 M: 48%
F: 52%
Di ec ic imiza ion: physical/
psychological punishmen
Vica ious ic imiza ion: CTS2
.86
.85
CTS1: Physical
CTS1: Psychological
.78
.85 Co ela ional
Izagui e and Cal e e
(2017) Communi y 606
M
= 15.89
SD
= 0.84
M: 48.5%
F: 47.1%
Missing 4.4%
Exposu e o Violence Ques ion-
nai e (di ec & ica ious)
.76
.82 Child- o-pa en Agg ession
Ques ionnai e .635 Co ela ional
Con e as and Cano
(2016) Judicial 30
M
= 16.30
SD
= 1.34
M: 66.7%
F: 33.3% Exposu e o Violence Scale .88
.86 Judicial ile analysis --- P opo ions