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":"122 1","pages":""},"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.