Identifying elder mistreatment is a relatively new process. Therefore,
identification measures may range from unsystematic and unwritten
protocols to highly uniform, written methodologies. One person doing
the evaluation may use strategies that are spontaneous and intuitive.
Another's approach may be more systematic, using a written protocol.
While no one can argue with the benefits of both ( Blanton 1989; Kane
and Kane 1981), for our purposes we will focus on written assessments
that may be replicated and then used to compare cases.

Although we are not where we would like to be in risk assessment
development, Kane and Kane remind us that "At this stage in the prac-
tice of geriatrics, more harm is done by failure to measure than by
measuring with inadequate instruments" ( 1981: 2 47)). Knowing our lim-
itations in effective identification, we must, nevertheless, recognize our
instruments even though these products may be imperfect.

Elder mistreatment identification instruments may range from needs
identification to care plans. Exhibit 4.1 shows the essential characteristics
of these types of data-gathering tools--their purpose, the level of ex-
pertise needed to administer the instrument and how the information
is used.

-71-