儿童保护实务中评估移情之结构化专业判断之初步评估

Lillian De Bortoli, J. Ogloff, J. Coles, M. Dolan
{"title":"儿童保护实务中评估移情之结构化专业判断之初步评估","authors":"Lillian De Bortoli, J. Ogloff, J. Coles, M. Dolan","doi":"10.1080/1936928X.2015.1093572","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This study is a pilot validation of a newly devised evidence-based clinical instrument that assists professional judgment for decisions relating to child removal. The Child Protection Removal Assessment (ChiPRA) instrument adopts a structured professional judgement (SPJ) approach to decision-making and was developed from a literature review of studies identifying factors associated with severe child abuse. A study comparing the predictive validity of ChiPRA and an actuarial instrument was conducted using court file data from 298 child protection cases. A logistic function from all ChiPRA items, χ2(11) = 147.546, p < 0.000, correctly classified 86.3% of cases (Area Under the Curve [AUC] = 0.799, p < 0.000, 95% confidence interval: 0.738–0.859). The abuse subscale of the actuarial instrument yielded a modest but significant AUC (0.595, 95% CI: 0.530–0.660). Results indicate an increased reliance upon dynamic factors by magistrates when determining child removal. SPJ instruments warrant further research including prospective studies measuring reliability and validity studies.","PeriodicalId":89974,"journal":{"name":"Journal of forensic social work","volume":"5 1","pages":"29 - 48"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2015-09-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/1936928X.2015.1093572","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Preliminary Evaluation of Structured Professional Judgment to Assess Removal in Child Protection Practice\",\"authors\":\"Lillian De Bortoli, J. Ogloff, J. Coles, M. Dolan\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/1936928X.2015.1093572\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This study is a pilot validation of a newly devised evidence-based clinical instrument that assists professional judgment for decisions relating to child removal. The Child Protection Removal Assessment (ChiPRA) instrument adopts a structured professional judgement (SPJ) approach to decision-making and was developed from a literature review of studies identifying factors associated with severe child abuse. A study comparing the predictive validity of ChiPRA and an actuarial instrument was conducted using court file data from 298 child protection cases. A logistic function from all ChiPRA items, χ2(11) = 147.546, p < 0.000, correctly classified 86.3% of cases (Area Under the Curve [AUC] = 0.799, p < 0.000, 95% confidence interval: 0.738–0.859). The abuse subscale of the actuarial instrument yielded a modest but significant AUC (0.595, 95% CI: 0.530–0.660). Results indicate an increased reliance upon dynamic factors by magistrates when determining child removal. SPJ instruments warrant further research including prospective studies measuring reliability and validity studies.\",\"PeriodicalId\":89974,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of forensic social work\",\"volume\":\"5 1\",\"pages\":\"29 - 48\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2015-09-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/1936928X.2015.1093572\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of forensic social work\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/1936928X.2015.1093572\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of forensic social work","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/1936928X.2015.1093572","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

这项研究是一项新设计的基于证据的临床仪器的试点验证,该仪器有助于对有关儿童移除的决定进行专业判断。儿童保护移除评估(ChiPRA)工具采用结构化专业判断(SPJ)方法进行决策,并根据对确定与严重儿童虐待相关因素的研究的文献综述而开发。本研究利用298起儿童保护案件的法庭档案数据,比较了ChiPRA和精算工具的预测有效性。对所有ChiPRA项目进行logistic函数分析,χ2(11) = 147.546, p < 0.000,正确率为86.3%(曲线下面积[AUC] = 0.799, p < 0.000, 95%置信区间:0.738 ~ 0.859)。精算工具的滥用子量表产生了适度但显著的AUC (0.595, 95% CI: 0.530-0.660)。结果表明,在决定儿童移除时,治安法官对动态因素的依赖程度有所增加。SPJ仪器需要进一步的研究,包括测量信度和效度的前瞻性研究。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Preliminary Evaluation of Structured Professional Judgment to Assess Removal in Child Protection Practice
This study is a pilot validation of a newly devised evidence-based clinical instrument that assists professional judgment for decisions relating to child removal. The Child Protection Removal Assessment (ChiPRA) instrument adopts a structured professional judgement (SPJ) approach to decision-making and was developed from a literature review of studies identifying factors associated with severe child abuse. A study comparing the predictive validity of ChiPRA and an actuarial instrument was conducted using court file data from 298 child protection cases. A logistic function from all ChiPRA items, χ2(11) = 147.546, p < 0.000, correctly classified 86.3% of cases (Area Under the Curve [AUC] = 0.799, p < 0.000, 95% confidence interval: 0.738–0.859). The abuse subscale of the actuarial instrument yielded a modest but significant AUC (0.595, 95% CI: 0.530–0.660). Results indicate an increased reliance upon dynamic factors by magistrates when determining child removal. SPJ instruments warrant further research including prospective studies measuring reliability and validity studies.
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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