评估结果之星的信度和效度

IF 1.4 Q2 SOCIAL WORK Journal of Childrens Services Pub Date : 2020-08-10 DOI:10.1108/jcs-03-2020-0009
Daryl Sweet, K. Winter, Laura Neeson, P. Connolly
{"title":"评估结果之星的信度和效度","authors":"Daryl Sweet, K. Winter, Laura Neeson, P. Connolly","doi":"10.1108/jcs-03-2020-0009","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Purpose: This paper aims to assess the reliability, validity and use of the Family Star Plus, one of several Outcomes Stars increasingly used as part of outcomes-based accountability approaches in the delivery of family support services. The Family Star Plus measures progress towards effective parenting but a lack of evidence exists on its psychometric properties and suitability for use as an outcomes tool. Design/methodology/approach: Based on data from 1,255 families receiving a pilot support service, Cronbach’s alpha was used to assess the internal reliability of the 10-item scale, while principal component analysis (PCA) examined the number of constructs in the tool. Using matched data from evaluation of 80 families, correlations between the Family Star Plus and psychometrically validated tools were used to assess concurrent validity. Findings from a process evaluation explore practical issues around use of the tool. Findings: Cronbach’s alpha indicated sufficient internal reliability of the Family Star Plus; however, the PCA raised questions concerning the internal validity the Star. Correlations between the Star and validated tools were not strong enough to support concurrent validity of the Star. Process evaluation findings highlight inconsistencies in Family Star Plus data capture, which may explain these differences. Practical implications: Further work is required before the Family Star Plus can be considered for use as an outcome measure. Originality/value: To the best of authors’ knowledge, this is the first peer-reviewed analysis of the psychometric qualities of the Family Star Plus.","PeriodicalId":45244,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Childrens Services","volume":"15 1","pages":"109-122"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2020-08-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1108/jcs-03-2020-0009","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Assessing the reliability and validity of an outcomes star\",\"authors\":\"Daryl Sweet, K. Winter, Laura Neeson, P. Connolly\",\"doi\":\"10.1108/jcs-03-2020-0009\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Purpose: This paper aims to assess the reliability, validity and use of the Family Star Plus, one of several Outcomes Stars increasingly used as part of outcomes-based accountability approaches in the delivery of family support services. The Family Star Plus measures progress towards effective parenting but a lack of evidence exists on its psychometric properties and suitability for use as an outcomes tool. Design/methodology/approach: Based on data from 1,255 families receiving a pilot support service, Cronbach’s alpha was used to assess the internal reliability of the 10-item scale, while principal component analysis (PCA) examined the number of constructs in the tool. Using matched data from evaluation of 80 families, correlations between the Family Star Plus and psychometrically validated tools were used to assess concurrent validity. Findings from a process evaluation explore practical issues around use of the tool. Findings: Cronbach’s alpha indicated sufficient internal reliability of the Family Star Plus; however, the PCA raised questions concerning the internal validity the Star. Correlations between the Star and validated tools were not strong enough to support concurrent validity of the Star. Process evaluation findings highlight inconsistencies in Family Star Plus data capture, which may explain these differences. Practical implications: Further work is required before the Family Star Plus can be considered for use as an outcome measure. Originality/value: To the best of authors’ knowledge, this is the first peer-reviewed analysis of the psychometric qualities of the Family Star Plus.\",\"PeriodicalId\":45244,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Childrens Services\",\"volume\":\"15 1\",\"pages\":\"109-122\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-08-10\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1108/jcs-03-2020-0009\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Childrens Services\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1108/jcs-03-2020-0009\",\"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-03-2020-0009","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: 2

摘要

目的:本文旨在评估Family Star Plus的可靠性、有效性和使用情况,这是在提供家庭支持服务时越来越多地作为基于结果的问责方法的一部分使用的几种结果之星之一。Family Star Plus衡量了有效育儿的进展,但缺乏证据表明其心理测量特性和作为结果工具的适用性。设计/方法/方法:基于1255个接受试点支持服务的家庭的数据,Cronbach’s alpha用于评估10项量表的内部可靠性,而主成分分析(PCA)则检查了该工具中的结构数量。使用来自80个家庭评估的匹配数据,使用Family Star Plus和心理测量学验证工具之间的相关性来评估并发有效性。过程评估的结果探讨了使用该工具的实际问题。研究结果:Cronbachα表明Family Star Plus具有足够的内部可靠性;然而,PCA提出了关于Star内部有效性的问题。Star和已验证工具之间的相关性不足以支持Star的并发有效性。过程评估结果突出了Family Star Plus数据采集中的不一致性,这可能解释了这些差异。实际意义:在考虑将Family Star Plus用作成果衡量标准之前,还需要进一步的工作。独创性/价值:据作者所知,这是第一次对Family Star Plus的心理测量质量进行同行评审分析。
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
Assessing the reliability and validity of an outcomes star
Purpose: This paper aims to assess the reliability, validity and use of the Family Star Plus, one of several Outcomes Stars increasingly used as part of outcomes-based accountability approaches in the delivery of family support services. The Family Star Plus measures progress towards effective parenting but a lack of evidence exists on its psychometric properties and suitability for use as an outcomes tool. Design/methodology/approach: Based on data from 1,255 families receiving a pilot support service, Cronbach’s alpha was used to assess the internal reliability of the 10-item scale, while principal component analysis (PCA) examined the number of constructs in the tool. Using matched data from evaluation of 80 families, correlations between the Family Star Plus and psychometrically validated tools were used to assess concurrent validity. Findings from a process evaluation explore practical issues around use of the tool. Findings: Cronbach’s alpha indicated sufficient internal reliability of the Family Star Plus; however, the PCA raised questions concerning the internal validity the Star. Correlations between the Star and validated tools were not strong enough to support concurrent validity of the Star. Process evaluation findings highlight inconsistencies in Family Star Plus data capture, which may explain these differences. Practical implications: Further work is required before the Family Star Plus can be considered for use as an outcome measure. Originality/value: To the best of authors’ knowledge, this is the first peer-reviewed analysis of the psychometric qualities of the Family Star Plus.
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