Cross-State Validation of a Tool Supporting Implementation of Rural Kinship Navigator Programs

IF 1.7 Q2 SOCIOLOGY
Societies Pub Date : 2024-09-11 DOI:10.3390/soc14090178
Brianna Routh, Christine McKibbin, David Wihry, Jennifer A. Crittenden, Ayomide Foluso, Jennifer Jain
{"title":"Cross-State Validation of a Tool Supporting Implementation of Rural Kinship Navigator Programs","authors":"Brianna Routh, Christine McKibbin, David Wihry, Jennifer A. Crittenden, Ayomide Foluso, Jennifer Jain","doi":"10.3390/soc14090178","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"While kinship care is prevalent and preferred over out-of-family care, there are relatively few measurement tools validated for use with this audience. The Title IV-E Clearinghouse, used to rate Families First Prevention Services such as Kinship Navigator Programs, requires valid tools. Such families face a myriad of needs in supporting children in their care. Previous research has established the significant challenges faced by rural families. Accurate assessment of these needs, particularly for rural families, is an essential component of kinship navigation services. In this study, we examined the face validity of the Family Needs Scale for use with kinship caregivers in rural programs. Methods: The evaluation teams with each respective kinship program conducted four virtual focus groups comprising kinship caregivers (n = 18) in three rural states. Participants were recruited from outside an ongoing Kinship Navigator Program Evaluation sample but had previously received program support as kinship caregivers. All states received IRB approval from their respective universities. Verbal consent was obtained at the time of the focus group. Focus groups lasted approximately 60–90 min and participants received a gift card incentive. Data were transcribed and qualitatively coded by question set and individual questions to identify phenomenological trends. Findings: Across four focus groups, we found four themes: (1) Broad agreement regarding the face validity of most assessment items; (2) Lack of clarity and shared understanding of several terms used within the tool, (3) Responses change with Ages and Stages of kinship family, and (4) Perspective considerations varying when completing the assessment. Discussion: Findings indicate that most assessment items had strong face validity, where there are a few opportunities to clarify key concepts relevant to rural kinship families and assess additional needs to understand the situational scope of the kinship experience. Overall, the needs assessment tool appears to have validity in assessing current kinship needs and outcomes within Kinship Navigator program evaluation.","PeriodicalId":21795,"journal":{"name":"Societies","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Societies","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/soc14090178","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SOCIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

While kinship care is prevalent and preferred over out-of-family care, there are relatively few measurement tools validated for use with this audience. The Title IV-E Clearinghouse, used to rate Families First Prevention Services such as Kinship Navigator Programs, requires valid tools. Such families face a myriad of needs in supporting children in their care. Previous research has established the significant challenges faced by rural families. Accurate assessment of these needs, particularly for rural families, is an essential component of kinship navigation services. In this study, we examined the face validity of the Family Needs Scale for use with kinship caregivers in rural programs. Methods: The evaluation teams with each respective kinship program conducted four virtual focus groups comprising kinship caregivers (n = 18) in three rural states. Participants were recruited from outside an ongoing Kinship Navigator Program Evaluation sample but had previously received program support as kinship caregivers. All states received IRB approval from their respective universities. Verbal consent was obtained at the time of the focus group. Focus groups lasted approximately 60–90 min and participants received a gift card incentive. Data were transcribed and qualitatively coded by question set and individual questions to identify phenomenological trends. Findings: Across four focus groups, we found four themes: (1) Broad agreement regarding the face validity of most assessment items; (2) Lack of clarity and shared understanding of several terms used within the tool, (3) Responses change with Ages and Stages of kinship family, and (4) Perspective considerations varying when completing the assessment. Discussion: Findings indicate that most assessment items had strong face validity, where there are a few opportunities to clarify key concepts relevant to rural kinship families and assess additional needs to understand the situational scope of the kinship experience. Overall, the needs assessment tool appears to have validity in assessing current kinship needs and outcomes within Kinship Navigator program evaluation.
跨州验证支持实施农村亲情导航计划的工具
雖然親屬照護很普遍,而且比家庭外照護更受歡迎,但用於這類受眾的有效測量工具相對較少。用于评定家庭第一预防服务(如亲属领航计划)的 Title IV-E Clearinghouse 需要有效的工具。这类家庭在支持其照看的儿童时面临着大量需求。先前的研究已经确定了农村家庭面临的重大挑战。准确评估这些需求,尤其是农村家庭的需求,是亲情导航服务的重要组成部分。在本研究中,我们检验了 "家庭需求量表 "在农村项目中用于亲属照顾者时的表面效度。方法:每个亲属项目的评估小组都在三个农村州开展了四个由亲属照顾者(n = 18)组成的虚拟焦点小组。参与者是从正在进行的亲属领航员项目评估样本之外招募的,但他们之前作为亲属照顾者接受过项目支持。所有州都获得了各自大学的 IRB 批准。焦点小组讨论时获得了口头同意。焦点小组持续约 60-90 分钟,参与者可获得礼品卡奖励。对数据进行了转录,并按照问题集和单个问题进行了定性编码,以确定现象学趋势。研究结果在四个焦点小组中,我们发现了四个主题:(1)对大多数评估项目的表面有效性达成了广泛共识;(2)对工具中使用的几个术语缺乏清晰度和共同理解;(3)随着亲属家庭年龄和阶段的变化,回答也会发生变化;以及(4)在完成评估时,考虑问题的角度各不相同。讨论:研究结果表明,大多数评估项目都具有很强的表面效度,但仍有一些机会可以澄清与农村亲属家庭相关的关键概念,并评估其他需求,以了解亲属经历的情景范围。总体而言,在 "亲属领航员 "计划评估中,需求评估工具在评估当前亲属需求和结果方面似乎是有效的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Societies
Societies SOCIOLOGY-
CiteScore
3.10
自引率
9.50%
发文量
150
审稿时长
11 weeks
文献相关原料
公司名称 产品信息 采购帮参考价格
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信