MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W306613244

Understanding Runaway Behaviour in Group Homes: What Are Runaways Trying to Tell Us?

2013· article· en· W306613244 on OpenAlexaff
Rana Karam, Marie Robert

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Community Positive Practices · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHomelessness and Social Issues
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec en OutaouaisUniversité du Québec à Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFoster carePsychologyCoping (psychology)Thematic analysisTransactional leadershipSocial psychologyTransactional analysisDevelopmental psychologyQualitative researchIntervention (counseling)Context (archaeology)Clinical psychologySociologyPsychiatryMedicineNursing
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract. This paper explores runaway behaviour in foster care through the lens of Lazarus and Folkman's (1984) transactional model of stress and coping. To better understand the context and meaning of this behaviour in these troubled youth, semi-structured interviews were conducted with 10 runaway adolescents in foster can. Thematic and conceptual analyses were used. The foster can system's response to runaway behaviour was also examined by constructing foster trajectories for evey youth in the study. The results show that running away can be understood as a coping mechanism that displays adolescents'1 need for connection, enpowerment, and emotion regulation, factors not addressed in foster placement. The trajectories suggest that foster can system intervention plays a role in placement disruption and runaway behaviour. In light of these findings, changes in foster care structure and polities seem essential in order to provide stability and continuity of care, as well as an environment where connections, enpowerment, and emotion expression and regulation are possible to achieve.Keywords: Rjinaway Behaviour, Coping Conduct Disorder, Child Protection Services, Youth Intervention, Qualitative ResearchIntroductionA large number of studies have shown the many risks associated with runaway behaviour in adolescents, such as the development of mental health problems and the risk of exploitation, abuse, prostitution, and gang affiliation (c.f. Hoyt, Ryan, & Cauce, 1999; Kaufman & Widom, 1999; Molnar, Shade, Krai, Booth, & Watters, 1998; Whitbeck, Hoyt, & Bao, 2000). Over the long run, running away seems to be one of the main risk factors for homelessness as an adult (Biehal & Wade, 1999; Poirier, 2006; Simons & Whitbeck, 1991). While researchers across the board agree on the negative effects, few studies have examined this risky behaviour in adolescents placed in an alternative living situation (e.g. foster care residential units or group homesj. An estimated 24% to 42% of these adolescents run away at one time or another during their stay (Biehal & Wade, 2000; Fasulo, Cross, Mosley & Leavy, 2002; Robert, Therien & Jette, 2009). Runaway behaviour is not new; it is acknowledged by specialized institutions working with troubled youth (in the U.S., Canada, England, etc.) and by researchers working on the problems affecting these adolescents. From a scientific point of view, runaway behaviour is part of a large spectrum of behavioural problems that manifest in these adolescents (other problems include substance use, impulsive or aggressive behaviour, delinquency, etc.) and that generally lead to diagnosis of a conduct disorder (CD). Based on this perspective, runaway behaviour can be a symptom or indicator of a more complex psychological problem. Researchers and clinicians are therefore more interested in the nosological category that this behaviour is associated with (i.e. CD) than they are in the behaviour itself. Because runaway behaviour is a recurring and lasting behaviour in residential units for teens in every state and country, institution staff have become accustomed to dealing with this type of behavioural problem. Researchers and intervention centres alike tend to associate running away with the other characteristics of the client (relationship problems, authority defiance, substance abuse, etc.) and this association is how they explain runaway behaviour.We consulted a modest number of studies that have, over the past two decades, focus sed on runaway behaviour in adolescents housed by Child Protection Services (CPS). Given the long- and short-term harmful consequences of running away, these studies have attempted to shed light on the explanations for these behaviours. There are two predominant types of explanations presented by the researchers: the first focuses on the structural characteristics of the institutional living situations, whereas the second focuses on the unique clinical challenges involved in working with these youth. …

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.028

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0040.008
Scholarly communication0.0050.010
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.268
GPT teacher head0.468
Teacher spread0.200 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations15
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Community Positive PracticesSame topicHomelessness and Social IssuesFrench-language works237,207