Exploring and comparing client perception of need and social worker perception of risk : a key to improved intervention in cases of child neglect
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Clients involved with child protection systems due to issues of neglect are known to have multiple needs. The issues that they confront are personal, situational, and social in nature. The emphasis on risk reduction in many jurisdictions within North America has meant that needs have been given less priority. The aim of the exploratory study was to gain a better understanding of both the nature of needs and risks in cases of child neglect in Ontario, as well as the similarities and differences in the views of clients and child protection workers. It is posited that through the acquisition of knowledge in those areas, that improvements can be made in assessing and planning, in creating agreed upon expectations about the objectives of intervention, and in developing a better balance between the addressing of needs and risks. For the study, an instrument was designed to measure client perceptions of their problems and needs. It was compared with workers' perceptions of risk as contained in the risk assessment instrument completed by all child protection workers in Ontario. The Client Perception of Problems and Needs Scale was administered to 77 parents receiving services from Family and Children's Services of Renfrew County due to concerns about child neglect. The finding that participants felt their needs were greatest in dealing with issues of stress, child behaviour and mental health issues, and in coping with socio-economic disadvantage was congruent with the few studies that have been conducted on the perceptions of child protection clients about their needs and problems. The analysis of the risk assessment data provided evidence that reliance on risk reduction at the expense of needs-based approaches, is not warranted. Few similarities were found in the perceptions of clients and workers about the issues of greatest concern. However, it was surprising that few concerns emerged about the clients' living conditions, or the affective interaction between clients and their children. Finally, the study demonstrated that the participants were able to recognize their problems, used various coping strategies for dealing with them, and were able to articulate strengths and resources on which they relied.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,007 | 0,018 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,004 | 0,002 |
| Communication savante | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,003 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,003 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».