Is the Incredible Years parenting programme predictive of case closure in child protection services for neglect? A quasi‐experimental study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This study, conducted in a real‐world setting, evaluated the effect of a parenting programme offered to families receiving child protection services (CPS) for child neglect. With a retrospective quasi‐experimental design, the study used administrative data to examine the association between participation in the Incredible Years® (IY) parenting programme and the likelihood that the family's CPS case file would be closed. The intervention group included all children involved with CPS for neglect who had at least one parent who participated in the IY between 2007 and 2015 (n = 299) whereas the comparison group consisted of 299 children with substantiated neglect but who received care as usual in CPS, during the same time period. The children were matched by a propensity score calculated using several variables. A Cox regression comparing intervention and comparison groups revealed that the participation in the programme increased the probability of case closure by 43%. Thus, participation in the programme can contribute to restoring the family's ability to care for the child, thus reducing the time spent in CPS.
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 | 0.011 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".