Research on violence against children (VAC) requires meaningful, valid, and reliable self-report by children. Many instruments have been used globally and decisions to select suitable measures are complex. This review identifies child and adolescent self-report measures that are most likely to yield valid, reliable, and comparable data in this field. A systematic review (PROSPERO: CRD4201706) was conducted using the 2018 Consensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement Instrument (COSMIN) criteria. Six electronic databases and gray literature were searched. Manuscripts published in English and describing the development and psychometric qualities of child/adolescent self-report instruments were included. Thirty-nine original instruments and 13 adaptations were identified in 124 studies. The quality of evidence ranged from “very low” to “high” depending on the measure and the psychometric properties assessed. Most measures were not widely used, and some have been applied in many settings despite limited evidence of their psychometric rigor. Few studies assessed content validity, particularly with children. The ACE, CTQ, CTS-PC, CECA, ICAST, and JVQ have the best psychometric properties. An overview of items measuring frequency, onset, duration, perpetrators, and locations is provided as well as an assessment of the practicalities for administration to help researchers select the instrument best suited for their research questions. This comprehensive review shows the strengths and weaknesses of VAC research instruments. Six measures that have sufficient psychometric properties are recommended for use in research, with the caveat that extensive piloting is carried out to ensure sufficient content validity for the local context and population.

对儿童暴力 (VAC) 的研究需要儿童进行有意义、有效和可靠的自我报告。许多工具已在全球范围内使用，选择合适措施的决定很复杂。本综述确定了最有可能在该领域产生有效、可靠和可比数据的儿童和青少年自我报告措施。使用 2018 年基于共识的健康测量仪器选择标准 (COSMIN) 标准进行了系统评价 (PROSPERO: CRD4201706)。检索了六个电子数据库和灰色文献。包括以英文出版并描述儿童/青少年自我报告工具的发展和心理测量质量的手稿。在 124 项研究中确定了 39 种原始工具和 13 种改编工具。证据的质量从“非常低”到“高”不等，具体取决于测量和评估的心理测量特性。大多数措施没有被广泛使用，有些措施已在许多环境中应用，尽管其心理测量严谨性的证据有限。很少有研究评估内容有效性，尤其是儿童。ACE、CTQ、CTS-PC、CECA、ICAST 和 JVQ 具有最佳的心理测量特性。概述了测量频率、发病、持续时间、肇事者和地点的项目，并评估了管理的实用性，以帮助研究人员选择最适合他们研究问题的工具。这篇综合评论显示了 VAC 研究工具的优缺点。建议在研究中使用具有足够心理测量特性的六种测量方法，