Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACEs) are negative childhood events occurring in a child’s family or social environment, that may cause harm or distress. Children with intellectual disabilities (ID) and their families are underrepresented in international ACEs research, while current insights can also contribute to the improvement of their health and well-being. Deficiencies in intellectual and adaptive functioning and living circumstances can increase their vulnerability to adversities. In the present exploratory study 69 case-files of children referred to a Dutch national center for residential youth care for children with ID were analyzed to assess the prevalence and associations of ACEs. It was found that almost half (49.3%) of the children experienced 2 ACEs from the original ACEs framework or more (M (mean) = 2.1; SD (standard deviation) = 1.8) and that the number of ACEs in children was related to the presence of ACEs in parents. Both child and parental ACEs were also related to attachment- and trauma- and stressor-related disorders. Finally, living circumstances and multiple ACEs from the expanded ACEs framework, especially related to parental characteristics, were found to be related to ACEs in children with ID. This implicates the importance of a transgenerational approach when further investigating the impact of ACEs on mental and physical health in children with ID (intellectual disabilities).

Background Little is known about the nature and reactions to sexual abuse of children with intellectual disability (ID). The aim was to fill this gap. Method Official reports of sexual abuse of children with ID in state care were examined (N = 128) and compared with children without ID (N = 48). Results Clear signs of penetration or genital touching by male (adolescent) peers or (step/foster)fathers were found in most ID reports. Victims often received residential care and disclosed themselves. Type of perpetrator seemed to affect the nature and reaction to the abuse. Cases of children with and without ID seemed to differ in location and reports to police. Conclusions Screening of (foster)homes seems crucial. Residential facilities should find a balance between independence of children and protection. Care providers should be trained in addressing sexual issues and sexual education, accounting for different types of perpetrators (peers/adults). Uniform reporting guidelines are needed.

The Attachment Insecurity Screening Inventory (AISI) 2–5 years is a parent-report questionnaire for assessing attachment insecurity in preschoolers. Validity and reliability of the AISI 2–5 years were examined in a general sample (n = 429) and in a clinical sample (n = 71). Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) confirmed a three-factor model of avoidant, ambivalent/resistant and disorganized attachment, and one higher-order factor of total attachment insecurity. Multi-group CFA indicated measurement invariance across mothers and fathers, and across the general and clinical population sample. Reliability coefficients were generally found to be good. We found partial support for convergent validity in associations between AISI-scores and observed attachment (AQS). Concurrent validity was supported by associations between AISI-scores and observed parental sensitivity (MBQS) and parent-reported psychopathology (SDQ). Finally, the AISI discriminated well between children from the general and from the clinical sample. We argue that both research and practice could benefit from the AISI as there is now a prospect of quickly, reliably and validly screening for attachment insecurity in pre-school aged children. Based on this information, help can be offered timely and, subsequently, the prevention of attachment related problems of children can be strengthened.

The aim of the present study was to examine the internal structure and reliability of the Attachment Insecurity Screening Inventory (AISI) 6–12. The AISI 6–12 years is a parent-report questionnaire for assessing the parents’ perspective on the quality of the attachment relationship with their child aged between 6 and 12 years. The sample consisted of 681 mothers and fathers reporting on 372 children (72.3% adoption parents, 14.9% non-biological primary care takers including foster parents, and 12.8% biological parents). The internal structure was assessed with multilevel confirmatory factor analyses (CFA) and the reliability of the scores with Cronbach’s and ordinal alphas. Multilevel CFA confirmed a three-factor model of avoidant, ambivalent/resistant and disorganized attachment. Multi-group CFA indicated full configural and metric measurement invariance, and partial scalar and strict measurement invariance across mothers and fathers. Reliability coefficients were found to be sufficient. This study showed the potential of using parental reports in the initial screening of attachment related problems, especially considering the practical approach of parental reports. However, further development of the AISI 6–12 years seems important to increase the validity of the AISI 6–12 years. In addition, future studies are necessary to replicate the current findings, and to strengthen the evidence that the AISI 6–12 years is appropriate for the use in middle childhood and validly assesses the parents’ perspective on attachment insecurities in their child.

This multilevel study examined the relationships between moral climate factors and prosocial as well as antisocial behaviors inside and outside the school (school misconduct, delinquent behavior, and vandalism). The moral climate factors were punishment- and victim-based moral orientation, relationships among students, and teacher–student relationships. The analyses of data from 670 students in 69 classes showed that the classroom-level variables only had a significant impact on misconduct at school of students aged 12 to 20. For the other outcome variables, the student-level variables (student and teacher–student relationships, but especially students’ moral orientation) were significant. A novel finding was that a positive teacher–student relationship not only proved to be related to less misconduct inside the school but also to less delinquent behavior and vandalism outside the school. This indicates that the teacher is an important socializing agent for adolescent behavior in general.