MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W7133091731

Development and Evaluation of a Child Welfare Trauma-Informed Care Beliefs Scale

2023· dissertation· en· W7133091731 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Nathan Beehag

Notice bibliographique

RevueCharles Sturt University Research Output (CRO) · 2023
Typedissertation
Langueen
DomainePsychology
ThématiqueChild Abuse and Trauma
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésRasch modelScale (ratio)PsychometricsWelfareItem response theoryPolytomous Rasch model
DOInon disponible

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

This dissertation includes four manuscripts that detail the development and evaluation of the Trauma-Informed Care Beliefs Scale-Comprehensive (TIBS-C). A scale that measures child welfare carer beliefs about trauma-informed care (TIC) practices. The TIC literature lacks psychometric scales that measure TIC beliefs for carers, who play an integral role in supporting young people. Existing TIC literature indicates that favourable TIC beliefs in carers are associated with improved outcomes for young people, carers, and agencies. Furthermore, implementation science indicates that beliefs may be a predictor of behaviour. However, research showing this in child welfare tends to use scales with unknown psychometric properties. The study reported in the first manuscript, the Trauma-Informed Care Beliefs Scale-Brief (TIBS-B) presented in Chapter 2, reanalysed data from a previous study, using Rasch methodology to develop a brief tool, from which a later and more comprehensive scale could be developed. This study identified several limitations, including bias responses related to item wording and response format. The subsequent process of scale development aimed to address these limitations. The results of the Rasch analyses, however, indicated a good fit and sound psychometric properties for the final 13-item scale of the TIBS-B. The TIBS-B can be used in research and practice when time prevents the TIBS-C from being completed. <br/>Chapter 3 presents a comprehensive scoping review on 32 published TIC studies. The aim of this review was to address the theoretical limitations of the study presented in Chapter 2 and help in the development of a more comprehensive scale measuring TIC beliefs. The review indicated that better TIC practices resulted in reduced psychopathology of young people, more stable placements, fewer reports of maltreatment in care, improved carer confidence, and reduced carer stress. The review provided further evidence to support the relationship between favourable TIC beliefs and positive outcomes for young people. The review was used to identify the three main carer-related TIC constructs to be included in the TIBS-C. The constructs were trauma-informed strategies for carers to use with their young person, knowledge of the impact of trauma on young people, and carer self-care and self-reflection strategies to prevent burnout and compassion fatigue.<br/>The manuscript presented in Chapter 4, used the studies presented in Chapters 2 and 3 to create 61 candidate items. These were presented to 719 participants who were active carers from Australia, the United States of America (US), Canada, the United Kingdom (UK), and the Republic of Ireland. The resulting data was analysed with Rasch analyses and identified a final scale of 35 items with sound psychometric properties, good internal reliability consistency, unidimensionality, and no differential item functioning (e.g., age or gender).<br/>Chapter 5 presents the manuscript that evaluated the construct validity of the TIBS-C. Participants (N = 255) from Australia, the US, Canada, the UK, and the Republic of Ireland completed the TIBS-C carer functioning, carer experience, and psychopathology measures (in relation to the young person they were caring for). The results demonstrated good construct validity, with high TIBS-C scores being associated with carer compassion, TIC knowledge, reduced carer stress, and high psychopathology in young people. Chapter 6 summarises the results of each chapter, the strengths, limitations, future directions, and clinical and practice utility of the TIBS-C.

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 distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,001
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesMéta-épidémiologie (sens strict), Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Qualitatif · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,502
Score d'incertitude au seuil1,000

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0010,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0010,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0010,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0010,000

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.

Tête enseignante Opus0,094
Tête enseignante GPT0,374
Écart entre enseignants0,281 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_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 découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Devis d'étudeQualitatif
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2023
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueCharles Sturt University Research Output (CRO)Même sujetChild Abuse and TraumaTravaux en français237 207