循证家庭支持计划中使用的儿童成果评估工具:范围审查

IF 2.4 2区 社会学 Q1 FAMILY STUDIES
Ana Uka , Elisabeth Stefanek , Daiva Skučienė , Carmen Schneckenreiter , Georg Spiel
{"title":"循证家庭支持计划中使用的儿童成果评估工具:范围审查","authors":"Ana Uka ,&nbsp;Elisabeth Stefanek ,&nbsp;Daiva Skučienė ,&nbsp;Carmen Schneckenreiter ,&nbsp;Georg Spiel","doi":"10.1016/j.childyouth.2024.107903","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>This scoping review aims to identify instruments that measure child outcomes assessed in evidence-based family support programs and to investigate reported differences in the magnitude of Cronbach’s alpha by type of study participant (i.e., community, clinical, at-risk samples). We analyzed publications extracted from three databases, which were then narrowed down to 77 articles. The most used interventions were Triple P (23 studies), Incredible Years (13), and Parent Management Training (13) conducted mainly in Europe (35) and (North) America (25). A total of 30 studies were conducted with clinical, 22 with at-risk, and 22 with community samples. The most used instruments with parents as the respondents were the Eyberg Child Behavior Inventory (32), the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (25), and the Child Behavior Checklist (19). The most used instrument with children/adolescents as the respondents was the Child Depression Inventory (5), and for teachers or other professionals it was the Teacher Report Form (9). Regarding Cronbach’s alpha, one-third of the studies did not report any information, one-third yielded mixed findings, and one-third reported good values. Furthermore, it became evident that information regarding Cronbach’s alpha was often incomplete or missing, especially in studies conducted with clinical and at-risk samples. Further research is needed to investigate why there is a bias in reporting Cronbach’s alpha. This work recommends that future studies emphasize the importance of reporting the psychometric properties of the instruments used to be able to properly compare different studies across different populations, especially when used to measure children’s outcomes.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":48428,"journal":{"name":"Children and Youth Services Review","volume":"166 ","pages":"Article 107903"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0190740924004754/pdfft?md5=cfeae7c6766b874db2dc307f1f4674cc&pid=1-s2.0-S0190740924004754-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Instruments evaluating child outcomes used in evidence-based family support programs: A scoping review\",\"authors\":\"Ana Uka ,&nbsp;Elisabeth Stefanek ,&nbsp;Daiva Skučienė ,&nbsp;Carmen Schneckenreiter ,&nbsp;Georg Spiel\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.childyouth.2024.107903\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>This scoping review aims to identify instruments that measure child outcomes assessed in evidence-based family support programs and to investigate reported differences in the magnitude of Cronbach’s alpha by type of study participant (i.e., community, clinical, at-risk samples). We analyzed publications extracted from three databases, which were then narrowed down to 77 articles. The most used interventions were Triple P (23 studies), Incredible Years (13), and Parent Management Training (13) conducted mainly in Europe (35) and (North) America (25). A total of 30 studies were conducted with clinical, 22 with at-risk, and 22 with community samples. The most used instruments with parents as the respondents were the Eyberg Child Behavior Inventory (32), the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (25), and the Child Behavior Checklist (19). The most used instrument with children/adolescents as the respondents was the Child Depression Inventory (5), and for teachers or other professionals it was the Teacher Report Form (9). Regarding Cronbach’s alpha, one-third of the studies did not report any information, one-third yielded mixed findings, and one-third reported good values. Furthermore, it became evident that information regarding Cronbach’s alpha was often incomplete or missing, especially in studies conducted with clinical and at-risk samples. Further research is needed to investigate why there is a bias in reporting Cronbach’s alpha. This work recommends that future studies emphasize the importance of reporting the psychometric properties of the instruments used to be able to properly compare different studies across different populations, especially when used to measure children’s outcomes.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48428,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Children and Youth Services Review\",\"volume\":\"166 \",\"pages\":\"Article 107903\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-07\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0190740924004754/pdfft?md5=cfeae7c6766b874db2dc307f1f4674cc&pid=1-s2.0-S0190740924004754-main.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Children and Youth Services Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0190740924004754\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"FAMILY STUDIES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Children and Youth Services Review","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0190740924004754","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"FAMILY STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本范围综述旨在确定循证家庭支持计划中评估儿童结果的测量工具,并调查研究参与者类型(即社区、临床、高危样本)在 Cronbach's alpha 值大小上的差异。我们分析了从三个数据库中提取的出版物,然后筛选出 77 篇文章。使用最多的干预措施是 "三重 P"(23 项研究)、"不可思议的岁月"(13 项研究)和 "家长管理培训"(13 项研究),这些研究主要在欧洲(35 项研究)和(北)美洲(25 项研究)进行。共有 30 项研究针对临床样本,22 项针对高危样本,22 项针对社区样本。以家长为调查对象的研究中使用最多的工具是艾伯格儿童行为量表(32)、优势与困难问卷(25)和儿童行为检查表(19)。对儿童/青少年使用最多的工具是儿童抑郁量表(5),对教师或其他专业人员使用最多的工具是教师报告表(9)。关于 Cronbach's alpha,三分之一的研究没有报告任何信息,三分之一的研究结果参差不齐,三分之一的研究报告了良好值。此外,很明显,有关 Cronbach's alpha 的信息往往不完整或缺失,特别是在对临床样本和高危样本进行的研究中。需要进一步研究为什么在报告 Cronbach's alpha 时会出现偏差。这项工作建议,未来的研究应强调报告所用工具心理测量特性的重要性,以便能够正确比较不同人群的不同研究,尤其是用于测量儿童结果的研究。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Instruments evaluating child outcomes used in evidence-based family support programs: A scoping review

This scoping review aims to identify instruments that measure child outcomes assessed in evidence-based family support programs and to investigate reported differences in the magnitude of Cronbach’s alpha by type of study participant (i.e., community, clinical, at-risk samples). We analyzed publications extracted from three databases, which were then narrowed down to 77 articles. The most used interventions were Triple P (23 studies), Incredible Years (13), and Parent Management Training (13) conducted mainly in Europe (35) and (North) America (25). A total of 30 studies were conducted with clinical, 22 with at-risk, and 22 with community samples. The most used instruments with parents as the respondents were the Eyberg Child Behavior Inventory (32), the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (25), and the Child Behavior Checklist (19). The most used instrument with children/adolescents as the respondents was the Child Depression Inventory (5), and for teachers or other professionals it was the Teacher Report Form (9). Regarding Cronbach’s alpha, one-third of the studies did not report any information, one-third yielded mixed findings, and one-third reported good values. Furthermore, it became evident that information regarding Cronbach’s alpha was often incomplete or missing, especially in studies conducted with clinical and at-risk samples. Further research is needed to investigate why there is a bias in reporting Cronbach’s alpha. This work recommends that future studies emphasize the importance of reporting the psychometric properties of the instruments used to be able to properly compare different studies across different populations, especially when used to measure children’s outcomes.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.30
自引率
6.10%
发文量
303
期刊介绍: Children and Youth Services Review is an interdisciplinary forum for critical scholarship regarding service programs for children and youth. The journal will publish full-length articles, current research and policy notes, and book reviews.
×
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