Does Family Intervention Work for Delinquents? Results of a Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Previous meta-analyses of the correctional treatment literature have demonstrated that family intervention programs for delinquents represent some of the strongest treatment modalities available for this population. However, a recent meta-analysis by Latimer (2001) argued that, although family intervention appears to be effective at first glance, when controls are introduced for the methodological quality of the evaluation, the sizes of the effects decrease substantially, and under the strictest methodological conditions, they ultimately disappear. The present meta-analysis explored the impact of methodological rigour on the findings of evaluations of family intervention programs for young offenders, but attention was paid to the appropriateness of the programs (e.g., whether they adhered to the principles of risk, need, and general responsivity). Although the effects of the program decreased mildly under the strictest methodological conditions, appropriate treatment continued to yield significant mean reductions in reoffending. The implications of these findings for the broader literature are discussed.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.014 | 0.037 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.011 | 0.021 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".