A DELPHI analysis of the definition of, and actions relating to, a childhood verbal abuse responsive approach.
Reilly Bugden, Elizabeth Li, Kumayl Khamisa, Nikki Singh, Jennifer McGowan
Background: ‘Verbal abuse’ has been loosely defined as “language intended to cause distress to the target”, however there is no clear definition of verbal abuse currently available in the literature. Without clearly defined parameters it is impossible to confirm whether or not verbal abuse has taken place, or to understand the outcomes specific to verbal abuse, as opposed to abuse in general. As well as understanding the existing literature, it is important to be clear on how experts who interact with children understand verbal abuse - as well as how people who have experienced verbal abuse define it themselves.
​
Aims: The current study aimed to utilise a combination of existing literature (see review) and a DELPHI analysis to develop an actionable definitions of adult-to-child verbal abuse, as well as identify partners and actions for developing a responsive childhood verbal abuse charity. Our research questions were: 1) How should childhood verbal abuse be defined?, 2) What behaviours are commonly recognised as constituting childhood verbal abuse?, 3) What outcomes are commonly recognised as resulting from childhood verbal abuse?, 4) Which stakeholders should be engaged in an evidence-based response to childhood verbal abuse?, and 5) What actions, in what priority, should be taken in order to respond to childhood verbal abuse?
​
Methods: Item refinement was processed through the DELPHI analysis in up to six iterations aimed at developing an unbiased consensus (defined here as 70% agreement)13. All data was collected online and anonymously. Participating experts (N=21) were defined as ‘people with lived experience of childhood verbal abuse, or experience working in the field of child health and social care’.
​
Results: A list of 27 items were identified as relevant to a definition of childhood verbal abuse, including 43 behaviours which could constitute verbal abuse, and 46 recognised impacts of verbal abuse. Agreement was reached that 29 stakeholders should be involved in decision-making. Nine actions were identified as key to developing a childhood verbal abuse charity.
​
Conclusion: We have provided a clear, evidence-based definition of childhood verbal abuse for use by academics and practising experts. We also provided a short-list of the partners and actions to consider when developing a response to childhood verbal abuse. We recommend that these outputs are taken into consideration when directing the focus and development of the Words Matter charity.