反思性培养计划保真度评定量表:发展与评分者间信度

IF 1.4 Q2 SOCIAL WORK
N. Midgley, Antonella Cirasola, Eva A. Sprecher, S. Redfern, Hannah Wright, Beth Rider, Peter Martin
{"title":"反思性培养计划保真度评定量表:发展与评分者间信度","authors":"N. Midgley, Antonella Cirasola, Eva A. Sprecher, S. Redfern, Hannah Wright, Beth Rider, Peter Martin","doi":"10.1108/jcs-01-2022-0002","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\nPurpose\nThe purpose of this study is to describe the development of the 14-item reflective fostering fidelity rating (RFFR), an observational rating system to evaluate model fidelity of group facilitators in the Reflective Fostering Programme (RFP), a mentalisation-based psychoeducation programme to support foster carers. The authors assess usability, dimensionality, inter-rater reliability and discriminative ability of the RFFR.\n\n\nDesign/methodology/approach\nEighty video clip extracts documenting 20 RFP sessions were independently rated by four raters using the RFFR. The dimensionality of the RFFR was assessed using principal components analysis. Inter-rater agreement was assessed using the intra-class correlation coefficient.\n\n\nFindings\nThe proportion of missing ratings was low at 2.8%. A single principal component summarised over 90% of the variation in ratings for each rater. The inter-rater reliability of individual item ratings was poor-to-moderate, but a summary score had acceptable inter-rater reliability. The authors present evidence that the RFFR can distinguish RFP sessions that differ in treatment fidelity.\n\n\nOriginality/value\nTo the best of the authors’ knowledge, this is the first investigation and report of the RFFR’s validity in assessing the programme fidelity of the RFP. The paper concludes that the RFFR is an appropriate rating measure for treatment fidelity of the RFP and useful for the purposes of both quality control and supervision.\n","PeriodicalId":45244,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Childrens Services","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2023-02-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Reflective Fostering Programme fidelity rating scale: development and inter-rater reliability\",\"authors\":\"N. Midgley, Antonella Cirasola, Eva A. Sprecher, S. Redfern, Hannah Wright, Beth Rider, Peter Martin\",\"doi\":\"10.1108/jcs-01-2022-0002\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\nPurpose\\nThe purpose of this study is to describe the development of the 14-item reflective fostering fidelity rating (RFFR), an observational rating system to evaluate model fidelity of group facilitators in the Reflective Fostering Programme (RFP), a mentalisation-based psychoeducation programme to support foster carers. The authors assess usability, dimensionality, inter-rater reliability and discriminative ability of the RFFR.\\n\\n\\nDesign/methodology/approach\\nEighty video clip extracts documenting 20 RFP sessions were independently rated by four raters using the RFFR. The dimensionality of the RFFR was assessed using principal components analysis. Inter-rater agreement was assessed using the intra-class correlation coefficient.\\n\\n\\nFindings\\nThe proportion of missing ratings was low at 2.8%. A single principal component summarised over 90% of the variation in ratings for each rater. The inter-rater reliability of individual item ratings was poor-to-moderate, but a summary score had acceptable inter-rater reliability. The authors present evidence that the RFFR can distinguish RFP sessions that differ in treatment fidelity.\\n\\n\\nOriginality/value\\nTo the best of the authors’ knowledge, this is the first investigation and report of the RFFR’s validity in assessing the programme fidelity of the RFP. The paper concludes that the RFFR is an appropriate rating measure for treatment fidelity of the RFP and useful for the purposes of both quality control and supervision.\\n\",\"PeriodicalId\":45244,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Childrens Services\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-02-13\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Childrens Services\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1108/jcs-01-2022-0002\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"SOCIAL WORK\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Childrens Services","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1108/jcs-01-2022-0002","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SOCIAL WORK","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的本研究的目的是描述14项反思性寄养保真度评级(RFFR)的发展,这是一个观察性评级系统,用于评估反思性寄养计划(RFP)中小组辅导员的模型保真度,这是基于心理的心理教育计划,旨在支持寄养照顾者。作者评估了RFFR的可用性、维度、评分者间的可靠性和辨别能力。设计/方法/方法由四名评分者使用RFFR对记录20次RFP会议的80段视频片段进行了独立评分。RFFR的维度使用主成分分析进行评估。使用类内相关系数评估评分者之间的一致性。发现缺失评级的比例较低,为2.8%。单个主要成分概括了每个评级者90%以上的评级变化。单项评分的评分者间可靠性为差到中等,但汇总得分具有可接受的评分者之间可靠性。作者提出的证据表明,RFFR可以区分治疗保真度不同的RFP会话。独创性/价值据作者所知,这是第一份关于RFFR在评估RFP计划保真度方面的有效性的调查和报告。本文得出的结论是,RFFR是衡量RFP治疗保真度的适当评级措施,对质量控制和监督都很有用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The Reflective Fostering Programme fidelity rating scale: development and inter-rater reliability
Purpose The purpose of this study is to describe the development of the 14-item reflective fostering fidelity rating (RFFR), an observational rating system to evaluate model fidelity of group facilitators in the Reflective Fostering Programme (RFP), a mentalisation-based psychoeducation programme to support foster carers. The authors assess usability, dimensionality, inter-rater reliability and discriminative ability of the RFFR. Design/methodology/approach Eighty video clip extracts documenting 20 RFP sessions were independently rated by four raters using the RFFR. The dimensionality of the RFFR was assessed using principal components analysis. Inter-rater agreement was assessed using the intra-class correlation coefficient. Findings The proportion of missing ratings was low at 2.8%. A single principal component summarised over 90% of the variation in ratings for each rater. The inter-rater reliability of individual item ratings was poor-to-moderate, but a summary score had acceptable inter-rater reliability. The authors present evidence that the RFFR can distinguish RFP sessions that differ in treatment fidelity. Originality/value To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this is the first investigation and report of the RFFR’s validity in assessing the programme fidelity of the RFP. The paper concludes that the RFFR is an appropriate rating measure for treatment fidelity of the RFP and useful for the purposes of both quality control and supervision.
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
2.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
14
×
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