Turner et. al. (2011) had a wide sample of over 4,000 participants thus making their findings reliable. They also gave possible explanations as to why certain ability types attracted certain forms of victimizations. It was laudable that they used a comprehensive definition of disability types and did not ignore other less-visible types of disability like anxiety and post traumatic disorder. One key problem with the research is that it relied on children’s or parent’s self-reported diagnosis of a disability (Babbie, 2007). It is likely that some individuals may be suffering from a disability and do not even know it. Additionally, participants with more than one disability could have confounded the outcomes. If a form of victimization caused a disability earlier on in the participant’s life, then a cycle of victimization may result, yet the researchers were not concerned with this past.
Their findings were different from others because they can assist in understanding how child abuse arises among disabled children. This can cause stakeholders to work towards eliminating those risks (Finkelhon et. al., 2005). Also, because the research looked at the rate of victimization among disability types, it would be possible to determine which groups are highly at risk and work on protecting them.
Hill et. al. (2011) sought to find out the prevalence of children with disabilities in the welfare system. They did so by collecting data from Minnesota’s welfare system and noting the quantity of individuals in this group. They also looked at the relationship between being identified as disabled and having a substantiated maltreatment or possessing certain demographic traits. The association between out-of-home placement and child disability in the welfare system is studied; the hypotheses were proved.
This research is impressive because it considered an unlikely and often ignored category of children ...Show more