Open access peer-reviewed chapter - ONLINE FIRST

The Impact of Second Step Child Protection Unit Teacher Training: Latent Moderated Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) Approach

Written By

Sunha Kim, Amanda B. Nickerson and Tia E. Kim

Submitted: January 1st, 2022 Reviewed: January 26th, 2022 Published: March 2nd, 2022

DOI: 10.5772/intechopen.102877

Child Abuse and Neglect Edited by Michael Fitzgerald

From the Edited Volume

Child Abuse and Neglect [Working Title]

Dr. Michael Fitzgerald

Chapter metrics overview

33 Chapter Downloads

View Full Metrics


Given the high prevalence and harmful consequences of child sexual abuse (CSA), we need to empower teachers to play a critical role in prevention/intervention efforts. We therefore explored the potential of CSA teacher training to improve preventive outcomes based on teachers’ CSA knowledge. Analyzing the data from the implementation of a CSA prevention program using structural equation modeling (SEM) revealed a significant effect of CSA teacher training on improving teachers’ CSA knowledge, particularly in teachers with lower prior knowledge.


  • child sexual abuse
  • prevention
  • intervention
  • teachers
  • SEM

1. Introduction

Child sexual abuse (CSA) has traumatized millions of boys and girls worldwide [1]. In the United States alone, more than 57,000 child victims were reported during 2015 and it has been suggested that as many as 28% of youths aged from 14 to 17 are exposed to CSA [2, 3, 4]. The actual CSA occurrence rate may be even higher, given that only around one-third of child abuse cases are reported to authorities and CSA is considered to be greatly underreported [3, 5, 6].

These shocking statistics should be driving urgent action by administrators and policy-makers given the highly detrimental short- and long-term consequences of CSA, which include re-victimization, substance abuse, poor mental and physical health, lower academic achievement, higher school dropout levels, and suicidal ideation/attempts [3, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12].

As part of our effort to prevent/intervene the occurrence of CSA and address both its high prevalence rate and serious adverse consequences, we explored the possible contribution of the teachers and other school staff members who play a critical role in educating children about sexual abuse and self-protection, and who are in an excellent position to notice sudden changes in children’s behavior that may indicate abuse [13, 14]. Despite their critical role and their mandatory requirement to report suspected abuse, research has shown that most teachers lack sufficient knowledge to identify potential cases of CSA and are unfamiliar with their schools’ procedures for reporting their suspicions [15, 16, 17]. Furthermore, one-third of teachers underreport child abuse [18, 19].

To address any issues that teachers might have in spite of their important roles, we investigated the effect of relevant teacher training based on the findings reported in several prior studies. Previous studies of the impact of providing CSA prevention programs for teachers have shown that they result in significant increases in knowledge, opinions, and anticipated behaviors when dealing with children who have been or are being sexually abused [15, 20]. Teachers were found to have high satisfaction levels related to this specialized training, increasing both their awareness of the problem and their readiness/inclination to develop prevention/intervention plans in the future [21].

In view of the potential role of teacher training in making teachers better prepared to execute CSA prevention/intervention plans, in this study we sought to investigate whether/how teacher training can increase important teacher outcomes, represented here by teachers’ CSA knowledge [22, 23, 24]. At the same time, we looked at the moderating role of teachers’ preexisting knowledge, by examining the effect of teacher training on those teachers who had lower initial levels of knowledge.

For this empirical investigation, we analyzed the data from teachers who participated in the Second StepChildren Protection Unit (CPU). CPU is a comprehensive CSA prevention program developed by the Committee for Children (CfC) ( to offer specialized teacher training on this difficult subject. We applied a series of structural equation modeling (SEM) analyses to investigate the effect of this widely accepted teacher training intervention as well as any interaction effect between the baseline (teachers’ preexisting knowledge) and the intervention [25, 26]. We also investigated the association between teachers’ acceptance of the CSA interventions and their CSA knowledge after the CPU teacher training.

The following research questions guided our study.

  1. Does the CPU teacher training result in any improvement in teacher knowledge of CSA?

  2. Does the CPU teacher training interact with teachers’ prior knowledge to improve their CSA knowledge?


2. Methods

2.1 Sample and intervention

The participants consisted of 161 teachers from a randomized control study designed to evaluate CPU. These participating teachers taught students in grades PreK-5 in elementary schools in New York State and their teaching experience ranged from 1 year to more than 30 years. Participating teachers were assigned to either the intervention group or the control group. The teachers in the intervention group received the treatment by taking the CPU online teacher training, which consisted of two modules: Policies and Procedures(75–90 min) and Recognize, Respond, and Report Abuse(45–75 min). The intervention teachers also implemented the CPU 6-week lessons with children in their classrooms. Teachers in the intervention group completed pretest/posttest measure assessing their knowledge of CSA prior to receiving the training and afterwards. The same pretest/posttest measure was administered to the teachers in the control group who did not receive the training.

2.2 Measures

Participating teachers were asked to complete the measures described below. Teachers in both the intervention and control groups completed the measure on teachers’ preventive outcome in terms of knowledge.

Educators and Child Abuse Questionnaire(ECAQ;23): The ECAQwas used to assess knowledge of both CSA and policy components (e.g., reporting procedures). Out of the total of four subscales of ECAQ, this study examined one subscale of awareness of signs and symptoms of child abuse featuring good psychometric quality in our study settings. It has been used in several studies [16, 23, 27] to assess educators’ knowledge and competence with regard to CSA and policies. The measure includes 12 items on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from strongly agree (1) to strongly disagree (5)(Some items are reverse-coded so that higher scores represent more knowledge) (Table 1).

ECAQ (Pretest)ECAQ (Posttest)
Reliability (α)0.770.86

Table 1.

Reliability of measures.

2.3 Analysis

We analyzed the data by building a series of SEM models utilizing Mplus 8.1 [28]. Particularly, we took a latent variable moderated SEM approach to test how teachers’ baseline knowledge measured at the pretest moderated the effect of the teacher training intervention on teacher knowledge at the posttest, in addition to the effect of the teacher training intervention on teacher knowledge at the posttest [29, 30, 31, 32].

Figure 1 shows a conceptual diagram of our SEM model (Intervention Model) with our teacher training intervention (train: coded 0 for the control group; 1 for the intervention group), as well as the indicator variables (awar1_1, awar1_2, and awar1_3) for the latent teacher knowledge at the pretest (awar1) and those (awar2_1, awar2_2, and awar2_3) for the latent teacher knowledge at the posttest (awar2). The latent moderation (aka, interaction) model included the interaction term (awar1tr) by adopting the latent moderator variable (awar1) and the teacher training intervention (train).

Figure 1.

Conceptual diagram of SEM model.

In addition, we calculated simple slopes in order to investigate further the latent moderation effect with focused attention on the intervention effect on teachers with lower initial knowledge. Specifically, the simple slopes were assessed at three values of the moderator (teacher knowledge construct at pretest: awar1) below, at, and above the baseline average (MODLO, MOD0, and MODHI, respectively). Moreover, we explored the latent interaction effect across the value range of the latent moderator (awar1) beyond its three specific values by producing a series of LOOP plots.


3. Results

As the results presented in Table 2 indicate, our Intervention Model had acceptable fit statistics: Χ2(10) = 15.48, p > 0.05; RMSEA = 0.06 (<0.08); CFI = 0.99 (>0.95); and TLI = 0.97 (>0.95) [31, 33, 34, 35, 36].

Fit indices
Chi-square (df)15.48 (10), p = 0.12

Table 2.

Fit statistics.

RMSEA, root mean square error of approximation; CFI, comparative fit index; TLI, Tucker-Lewis index.

Figure 2 presents the conceptual model for the Intervention Model with parameter estimates from the Mplusoutputs. The CPU teacher training (train) was effective in improving teacher knowledge (awar2) (β = 0.51, p < 0.01). There was a significant positive effect of teacher prior knowledge (awar1) on teacher knowledge at the posttest (awar2) (β = 0.54, p < 0.05).

Figure 2.

Parameter estimates for SEM model.

On the other hand, we detected insignificant interaction/moderation effect (awar1tr) with β = −0.20, p = 0.40. To understand more detailed implications of the moderation/interaction effect, we reviewed simple slope results, which were estimated in the sections of the New/Additional Parameters in Table 3. We identified significant effects of the teacher training on improving teachers’ CSA knowledge at three specific values: below, at, and above the mean (β = 0.59, p = 0.00, β = 0.51, p = 0.00, β = 0.44, p = 0.00, respectively). Among these three estimates for simple slopes, we found a greater magnitude at the lower moderator value (MODLO) compared with two other values (MOD0and MODHI).

New/additional parameters

Table 3.

Parameter estimates for SEM model.

To visually represent how the teacher training effect was moderated by teacher knowledge at the pretest, we produced LOOP Plots. Figure 3 shows the range of the moderator values (awar1) along the x-axis for which the effect of teacher training (train) is significant. The straight line shown in red represents the estimated moderator function and the blue curves represent the confidence intervals. As the graph shows, the intervention effect has a greater positive value with decreasing values of baseline teacher knowledge. This suggests that the effect of the teacher training tended to be more pronounced among teachers with lower baseline scores, as would be expected.

Figure 3.

Estimated moderator function and confidence interval.

In Figure 4, the bold blue line (TX1) displays the estimate for preventive knowledge average at the posttest among the intervention group teachers, with the bold red line (TX0) representing that among the control group teachers. The effect of the teacher training denotes the gap between TX1 and TX0. The gap widens at the lower baseline scores, while narrowing at the higher baseline scores. Corresponding to those estimates for the above mentioned simple slopes, LOOP Plot results revealed that the CPU teacher training was more effective among teachers with lower CSA awareness at pretest.

Figure 4.

The posttest (teacher knowledge) means as a function of baseline for the intervention and the control groups.


4. Significance

Given the prevalence and serious adverse outcomes of CSA persistently observed despite international efforts such as the declaration of the Rights of the Child by the United Nations [37], we sought to evaluate the effectiveness of efforts to prevent and intervene to ameliorate the effects of CSA by focusing on teachers as they not only have great accessibility to children but also expertise in child education/development [13, 20]. To help teachers, who unfortunately have felt unprepared and unsure of how to intervene/protect their students from those who might be abusing them [17, 38], we explored the potential role of teacher training for improving teachers’ preventive outcomes of knowledge.

By analyzing empirical data from an implementation of the CPU, we found a significant effect of CPU teacher training on improving teachers’ preventive knowledge. These results are in accordance with those reported in prior studies of the positive association between teacher training and teacher outcomes such as CSA knowledge, attitudes, and confidence [15, 21]. Crucially, we found the effect of CPU teacher training was more pronounced for teachers with the lower baseline scores in terms of teacher knowledge. Our findings based on empirical data for elementary school teachers from the years 2017–2018 contribute to the field of CSA prevention programs by addressing concerns that existing evaluation studies of CSA prevention programs in this fast-moving field have become outdated [39, 40, 41].

Given these findings, we urge administrators and policy-makers to devote more funding to efforts to develop and/or offer more teacher training opportunities, including investing in CPU teacher training. Our results show that these teacher training programs would possibly help teachers confront this uncomfortable issue and deal with the consequences, particularly those who started with relatively low levels of CSA knowledge. This is important as it may empower teachers to respond and intervene more effectively.

To respond to the concerns teachers expressed regarding their lack of knowledge and competency, despite their critical role for CSA prevention/intervention efforts [15, 17], we sought to strengthen teachers’ individual preventive outcomes via teacher training. Also, our other studies showed the potential effects of teacher training on other preventive outcomes for teachers as well as students’ preventive outcomes [42, 43]. However, one limitation of our approach is that we only included educators working in schools. Given CSA occurrence in various organizations, such as sporting institutes and religious organizations, importantly, professionals, who are responsible for child-care and build rapport with the children across varying institutions, need to be equipped with an awareness of CSA signals and symptoms and knowledge to report suspected CSA cases [44, 45, 46]. Future studies should extend the findings of this study to develop and/or improve training that will empower child-care professionals across all such organizations with preventative knowledge to protect children from the threat of CSA. Providing networking opportunities via the training sessions for these child-care professionals could also contribute by building a community of child-care professionals where these professionals work together to develop more comprehensive prevention solutions.



This work was supported by the Committee for Children, Seattle, WA.


Conflict of interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest. Dr. Tia Kim is employed by the Committee for Children.


  1. 1. Barth J, Bermetz L, Heim E, Trelle S, Tonia T. The current prevalence of child sexual abuse worldwide: A systematic review and meta-analysis. International Journal of Public Health. 2013;58(3):469-483
  2. 2. Crea TM, Easton SD, Florio J, Barth RP. Externalizing behaviors among adopted children: A longitudinal comparison of preadoptive childhood sexual abuse and other forms of maltreatment. Child Abuse & Neglect. 2018;82:192-200
  3. 3. Finkelhor D, Turner H, Hamby SL, Ormrod R. Polyvictimization: Children’s Exposure to Multiple Types of Violence, Crime, and Abuse. National Survey of Children’s Exposure to Violence. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office; 2011
  4. 4. U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Administration on Children, Youth and Families, Children’s Bureau. Child Maltreatment 2015. 2015. Available from:
  5. 5. Kellogg N. The evaluation of sexual abuse in children. Pediatrics. 2005;116(2):506-512
  6. 6. Sedlak AJ, Mettenburg J, Basena M, Petta I, McPherson K, Greene A, et al. Fourth National Incidence Study of Child Abuse and Neglect (NIS-4): Report to Congress. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families; 2010
  7. 7. Badmaeva VD. Consequences of sexual abuse in children and adolescents. Neuroscience and Behavioral Physiology. 2011;41(3):259-262. DOI: 10.1007/s11055-011-9409-6
  8. 8. Boden JM, Horwood LJ, Fergusson DM. Exposure to childhood sexual and physical abuse and subsequent educational achievement outcomes. Child Abuse & Neglect. 2007;31(10):1101-1114
  9. 9. Frothingham TE, Hobbs CJ, Wynne JM, Yee L, Goyal A, Wadsworth DJ. Follow up study eight years after diagnosis of sexual abuse. Archives of Disease in Childhood. 2000;83(2):132-134
  10. 10. Lown EA, Nayak MB, Korcha RA, Greenfield TK. Child physical and sexual abuse: A comprehensive look at alcohol consumption patterns, consequences, and dependence from the National Alcohol Survey. Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research. 2011;35(2):317-325. DOI: 10.1111/j.1530-0277.2010.01347.x
  11. 11. Messman-Moore TL, Long PJ. The role of childhood sexual abuse sequelae in the sexual revictimization of women: An empirical review and theoretical reformulation. Clinical Psychology Review. 2003;23(4):537-571. DOI: 10.1016/S0272-7358(02)00203-9
  12. 12. Morrow AS, Villodas MT. Direct and indirect pathways from adverse childhood experiences to high school dropout among high-risk adolescents. Journal of Research on Adolescence. 2018;28(2):327-341
  13. 13. Nickerson AB, Heath MA, Graves LA. School-based interventions for children impacted by sexual abuse. In: Paludi M, DenMark FL, editors. Victims of Sexual Assault and Abuse: Resources and Responses for Individuals and Families, Vol. 2: Cultural, Community, Educational and Advocacy Responses. Santa Barbara, CA: Praeger; 2010. pp. 77-99
  14. 14. Renk K, Liljequist L, Steinberg A, Bosco G, Phares V. Prevention of child sexual abuse: Are we doing enough? Trauma, Violence, & Abuse. 2002;3(1):68-84
  15. 15. Kleemeir C, Webb C, Hazzard A, Pohl J. Child sexual abuse prevention: Evaluation of a teacher training model. Child Abuse & Neglect. 1988;12:555-561
  16. 16. Kenny MC. Teachers’ attitudes toward and knowledge of child maltreatment. Child Abuse & Neglect. 2004;28:1311-1319
  17. 17. Marquez-Flores MM, Marquez-Hernandez VV, Granados-Gamez G. Teacher’s knowledge and beliefs about child sexual abuse. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse: Research Treatment and Program Innovations for Victims, Survivors, & Offenders. 2016;25:538-555
  18. 18. Walsh K, Bridgstock R, Farrell A, Rassafiani M, Schweitzer R. Case, teacher and school characteristics influencing teachers’ detection and reporting of child physical abuse and neglect: Results from an Australian survey. Child Abuse & Neglect. 2008;32:983-993
  19. 19. Webster SW, O’Toole RO, O’Toole AW, Lucal B. Overreporting and underreporting of child abuse: Teachers’ use of professional discretion. Child Abuse & Neglect. 2005;29:1281-1296. DOI: 10.1016/j.chiabu.2004.02.007
  20. 20. Rheingold AA, Zajac K, Chapman JE, Patton M, de Arellano M, Saunders B, et al. Child sexual abuse prevention training for childcare professionals: An independent multi-site randomized controlled trial of stewards of children. Prevention Science. 2015;16(3):374-385
  21. 21. Gushwa M, Bernier J, Robinson D. Advancing child sexual abuse prevention in schools: An exploration of the effectiveness of the Enough! online training program for K-12 teachers. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse. 2019;28(2):144-159. DOI: 10.1080/10538712.2018.1477000
  22. 22. Bear GG, Yang C, Pell M, Gaskins C. Validation of a brief measure of teachers’ perceptions of school climate: Relations to student achievement and suspensions. Learning Environment Research. 2014;17:339-354. DOI: 10.1007/s10984-014-9162-1
  23. 23. Kenny M. Child abuse reporting: Teachers’ perceived deterrents. Child Abuse & Neglect. 2001;25(1):81-92
  24. 24. Walsh K, Rassafiani M, Matthews B, Farrell A, Butler D. Teachers’ attitudes toward reporting child sexual abuse: Problems with existing research leading to new scale development. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse. 2010;19:310-336. DOI: 10.1080/10538711003781392
  25. 25. Brown C, Wang W, Kellam S, Petras H, Toyinbo P, Poduska J, et al. Methods for testing theory and evaluating impact in randomized field trials: Intent-to-treat analyses for integrating the perspectives of person, place, and time. Drug and Alcohol Dependence. 2008;95(Supplement 1):S74-S104
  26. 26. Kellam S, Brown C, Poduska J, Ialongo N, Petras H, Wang W, et al. Effects of a universal classroom behavior management program in first and second grades on young adult behavioral, psychiatric, and social outcomes. Drug and Alcohol Dependence. 2008;95(Supplement 1):S5-S28
  27. 27. Kenny M, McEachern A. Reporting of suspected child abuse: A pilot comparison of middle and high school counselors and principals. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse. 2002;11(2):59-75
  28. 28. Muthén LK, Muthén BO. Mplus User’s Guide. 8th ed. Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén; 1998-2017
  29. 29. Kline RB. Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling. 3rd ed. New York: Guilford; 2011
  30. 30. Muthén BO, Muthén LK, Asparouhov T. Regression and Mediation Analysis Using Mplus. Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén; 2017
  31. 31. Schumacker RE, Lomax RG. A Beginners’ Guide to Structural Equation Modeling. 4th ed. New York: Routledge; 2010
  32. 32. Maslowsky J, Jager J, Hemken D. Estimating and interpreting latent variable interactions: A tutorial for applying the latent moderated structural equations method. International Journal of Behavioral Development. 2015;39(1):87-96
  33. 33. Browne MW, Cudeck R. Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In: Bollen KA, Long JS, editors. Testing Structural Equation Models. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage; 1993. pp. 136-162
  34. 34. Hooper D, Coughlan J, Mullen MR. Structural equation modeling: Guidelines for determining model fit. Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods. 2008;6:53-60
  35. 35. Raykov T, Marcoulidies GA. A First Course in Structural Equation Modeling. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum; 2000
  36. 36. Yu CY, Muthén BO. Evaluation of Model Fit Indices for Latent Variable Models with Categorical and Continuous Outcomes (Technical Report). Los Angeles, CA: University of California at Los Angeles, Graduate School of Education and Information Studies; 2001
  37. 37. United Nations. Convention on the rights of the child. 1989. Retrieved from:
  38. 38. Hinkelman L, Bruno M. Identification and reporting of child sexual abuse: The role of elementary school professionals. The Elementary School Journal. 2008;108(5):376-391
  39. 39. Babatsikos G. Parents’ knowledge, attitudes and practices about preventing child sexual abuse: A literature review. Child Abuse Review: Journal of the British Association for the Study and Prevention of Child Abuse and Neglect. 2010;19(2):107-129
  40. 40. Tutty LM. Listen to the children: Kids’ impressions of who do you tell™. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse. 2014;23:17-37. DOI: 10.1080/10538712.2013.841790
  41. 41. Walsh K, Zwi K, Woolfenden S, Shlonsky A. School-based Education Programmes for the Prevention of Child Sexual Abuse. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons; 2015. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD00430.pub3
  42. 42. Manges ME, Nickerson AB. Student knowledge gain following the Second Step Child Protection Unit: The influence of treatment integrity. Prevention Science. 2020;21(8):1037-1047
  43. 43. Nickerson A, Kim S, Dudley M, Livingston JA, Manges M. Longitudinal impact of the Second Step Child Protection Unit on teacher knowledge, attitude, and climate. Children and Youth Services Review. 2021;123:105892
  44. 44. Finkelhor D, Shattuck A, Turner HA, Hamby SL. The lifetime prevalence of child sexual abuse and sexual assault assessed in late adolescence. Journal of Adolescent Health. 2014;55(3):329-333. DOI: 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2013.12.026
  45. 45. Nurse AM. Coaches and child sexual abuse prevention training: Impact on knowledge, confidence, and behavior. Children and Youth Services Review. 2018;88:395-400
  46. 46. Ratliff L, Watson J. A descriptive analysis of public school educators arrested for sex offenses. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse. 2014;23(2):217-228

Written By

Sunha Kim, Amanda B. Nickerson and Tia E. Kim

Submitted: January 1st, 2022 Reviewed: January 26th, 2022 Published: March 2nd, 2022