Comparing fidelity monitoring methods in an evidence-based parenting intervention

IF 1.4 Q2 SOCIAL WORK Journal of Childrens Services Pub Date : 2021-02-11 DOI:10.1108/JCS-01-2020-0005
Ashwini Tiwari, D. Whitaker, S. Self-Brown
{"title":"Comparing fidelity monitoring methods in an evidence-based parenting intervention","authors":"Ashwini Tiwari, D. Whitaker, S. Self-Brown","doi":"10.1108/JCS-01-2020-0005","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\nPurpose\nTwo common methods in community settings of assessing program fidelity, a critical implementation component for program effectiveness, are video and audio recordings of sessions. This paper aims to examine how these two methods compared when used for a home-based behavioral parenting-training model (SafeCare®).\n\n\nDesign/methodology/approach\nTwenty-five SafeCare video-recorded sessions between home visitors and parents were scored by trained raters either using the video or audio-only portions of recordings. Sessions were coded using fidelity checklists, with items (n = 33) classified as one of two fidelity aspects, content [delivery of program components (n = 15)], or process [communication and rapport building (n = 11)]. Seven items were considered to overlap between constructs. Items were coded as having been done or not done appropriately. Coders rated items as “technological limitation” when scoring methods hindered coding. Analyses compared percent agreement and disagreement between audio and video coders.\n\n\nFindings\nOverall agreement between coders was 72.12%. Levels of agreement were higher for content items (M = 80.89%, SD = 19.68) than process items (58.54%, SD = 34.41). Disagreements due to technology limitations among audio coders were noted among 15 items; particularly, higher levels of disagreement were seen among process items (42.42%) than content items (9.64%).\n\n\nOriginality/value\nCompared to video, fidelity monitoring via audio recordings was associated with some loss of process-related fidelity. However, audio recordings could be sufficient with supplements such as participant surveys, to better capture process items. Research should also examine how content and process fidelity relate to changes in family behavior to further inform optimal fidelity monitoring methods for program use.\n","PeriodicalId":45244,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Childrens Services","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2021-02-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Childrens Services","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1108/JCS-01-2020-0005","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: 1

Abstract

Purpose Two common methods in community settings of assessing program fidelity, a critical implementation component for program effectiveness, are video and audio recordings of sessions. This paper aims to examine how these two methods compared when used for a home-based behavioral parenting-training model (SafeCare®). Design/methodology/approach Twenty-five SafeCare video-recorded sessions between home visitors and parents were scored by trained raters either using the video or audio-only portions of recordings. Sessions were coded using fidelity checklists, with items (n = 33) classified as one of two fidelity aspects, content [delivery of program components (n = 15)], or process [communication and rapport building (n = 11)]. Seven items were considered to overlap between constructs. Items were coded as having been done or not done appropriately. Coders rated items as “technological limitation” when scoring methods hindered coding. Analyses compared percent agreement and disagreement between audio and video coders. Findings Overall agreement between coders was 72.12%. Levels of agreement were higher for content items (M = 80.89%, SD = 19.68) than process items (58.54%, SD = 34.41). Disagreements due to technology limitations among audio coders were noted among 15 items; particularly, higher levels of disagreement were seen among process items (42.42%) than content items (9.64%). Originality/value Compared to video, fidelity monitoring via audio recordings was associated with some loss of process-related fidelity. However, audio recordings could be sufficient with supplements such as participant surveys, to better capture process items. Research should also examine how content and process fidelity relate to changes in family behavior to further inform optimal fidelity monitoring methods for program use.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
在循证育儿干预中比较忠诚监测方法
目的在社区环境中,评估项目保真度的两种常用方法是视频和音频记录,这是项目有效性的关键实施组成部分。本文旨在研究这两种方法在用于家庭行为父母培训模型(SafeCare®)时的比较。设计/方法/方法家访者和家长之间的25段安全护理录像由训练有素的评分员使用录像或录音部分进行评分。会议使用保真度检查表进行编码,其中项目(n = 33)被分类为两个保真度方面之一,内容[程序组件的交付(n = 15)]或过程[沟通和建立融洽关系(n = 11)]。七个项目被认为在构念之间有重叠。项目被编码为已完成或未适当完成。当评分方法阻碍编码时,编码人员将项目评为“技术限制”。分析比较了音频和视频编码器之间同意和不同意的百分比。编码员之间的总体一致性为72.12%。内容项的认同程度(M = 80.89%, SD = 19.68)高于过程项(58.54%,SD = 34.41)。在15个项目中,音频编码器之间由于技术限制而存在分歧;特别是,过程项目(42.42%)的分歧程度高于内容项目(9.64%)。独创性/价值与视频相比,通过录音进行的保真度监控与过程相关保真度的损失有关。但是,音频记录可以与诸如参与者调查之类的补充一起使用,以更好地捕获过程项。研究还应检查内容和过程保真度与家庭行为变化的关系,以进一步为程序使用的最佳保真度监测方法提供信息。
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 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
14
期刊最新文献
“Friendly, local and welcoming” – evaluation of a community mental health early intervention service From “intimate-insider” to “relative-outsider”: an autoethnographic account of undertaking social work research in one’s own “backyard” Effective child well-being practices, barriers and priority actions: survey findings from service providers and policymakers in 22 countries during COVID-19 Child First and the end of ‘bifurcation’ in youth justice? Why are there higher rates of children looked after in Wales?
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1