关于Family Star Plus作为一种结果衡量标准的未经证实的结论:对Sweet、Winter、Neeson和Connolly(2020)的反驳

IF 1.4 Q2 SOCIAL WORK Journal of Childrens Services Pub Date : 2021-06-14 DOI:10.1108/JCS-10-2020-0064
A. Good, Joy Mackeith
{"title":"关于Family Star Plus作为一种结果衡量标准的未经证实的结论:对Sweet、Winter、Neeson和Connolly(2020)的反驳","authors":"A. Good, Joy Mackeith","doi":"10.1108/JCS-10-2020-0064","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Purpose – The purpose of this article is to explain why Sweet et al.’s assertions are not well founded and raise unsubstantiated doubt over the use of the Family star Plus and the Outcomes Star suite of tools as outcomesmeasures. Design/methodology/approach – Evidence is presented of flaws in the analysis, reporting and conclusions of an article published in this journal (Sweet et al., 2020). Findings – Sweet et al. failed to mention a body of Outcomes Star validation work, including over 20 online reports and a manuscript they had seen of a now published article supporting the reliability and validity of the Family Star Plus (Good and MacKeith, 2020). There are significant issues with their methodology, presentation of results and conclusions including: reliance on statistical significance with a small sample size; use of statistics not intended for ordinal data and; and inappropriate conclusions from convergence withmeasures conceptually different to the Family Star Plus. Originality/value – Evidence is presented that the Family Star Plus is a useful and valid outcome measure and that Sweet et al.’s conclusions can be attributed to issues with their methodology and interpretation.","PeriodicalId":45244,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Childrens Services","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2021-06-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Unsubstantiated conclusions about the Family Star Plus as an outcome measure: a rebuttal to Sweet, Winter, Neeson and Connolly (2020)\",\"authors\":\"A. Good, Joy Mackeith\",\"doi\":\"10.1108/JCS-10-2020-0064\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Purpose – The purpose of this article is to explain why Sweet et al.’s assertions are not well founded and raise unsubstantiated doubt over the use of the Family star Plus and the Outcomes Star suite of tools as outcomesmeasures. Design/methodology/approach – Evidence is presented of flaws in the analysis, reporting and conclusions of an article published in this journal (Sweet et al., 2020). Findings – Sweet et al. failed to mention a body of Outcomes Star validation work, including over 20 online reports and a manuscript they had seen of a now published article supporting the reliability and validity of the Family Star Plus (Good and MacKeith, 2020). There are significant issues with their methodology, presentation of results and conclusions including: reliance on statistical significance with a small sample size; use of statistics not intended for ordinal data and; and inappropriate conclusions from convergence withmeasures conceptually different to the Family Star Plus. Originality/value – Evidence is presented that the Family Star Plus is a useful and valid outcome measure and that Sweet et al.’s conclusions can be attributed to issues with their methodology and interpretation.\",\"PeriodicalId\":45244,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Childrens Services\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-06-14\",\"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-10-2020-0064\",\"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-10-2020-0064","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-本文的目的是解释为什么Sweet等人的断言没有充分的依据,并对使用Family star Plus和Outcomes star工具套件作为结果度量提出了未经证实的怀疑。设计/方法/方法-本期刊上发表的一篇文章的分析、报告和结论中存在缺陷的证据(Sweet et al., 2020)。Sweet等人没有提到一系列结果之星验证工作,包括20多份在线报告和他们看到的一篇现已发表的文章的手稿,该文章支持Family Star Plus的可靠性和有效性(Good and MacKeith, 2020)。他们的方法、结果和结论的呈现存在重大问题,包括:依赖于小样本量的统计显著性;使用非序数数据的统计数据;以及从与Family Star Plus概念不同的措施中得出的不恰当结论。原创性/价值——有证据表明,家庭之星Plus是一种有用且有效的结果测量方法,Sweet等人的结论可以归因于他们的方法和解释问题。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Unsubstantiated conclusions about the Family Star Plus as an outcome measure: a rebuttal to Sweet, Winter, Neeson and Connolly (2020)
Purpose – The purpose of this article is to explain why Sweet et al.’s assertions are not well founded and raise unsubstantiated doubt over the use of the Family star Plus and the Outcomes Star suite of tools as outcomesmeasures. Design/methodology/approach – Evidence is presented of flaws in the analysis, reporting and conclusions of an article published in this journal (Sweet et al., 2020). Findings – Sweet et al. failed to mention a body of Outcomes Star validation work, including over 20 online reports and a manuscript they had seen of a now published article supporting the reliability and validity of the Family Star Plus (Good and MacKeith, 2020). There are significant issues with their methodology, presentation of results and conclusions including: reliance on statistical significance with a small sample size; use of statistics not intended for ordinal data and; and inappropriate conclusions from convergence withmeasures conceptually different to the Family Star Plus. Originality/value – Evidence is presented that the Family Star Plus is a useful and valid outcome measure and that Sweet et al.’s conclusions can be attributed to issues with their methodology and interpretation.
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
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