Suchergebnisse

Objectives: The purpose of this study was to evaluate Parent-Child Interaction Therapy (PCIT) deployed in a community setting comparing in-home with the standard office-based intervention. Child behavior, parent stress, parent functioning, and attrition were examined. Methods: Using a quasi-experimental design, standardized measures at three time points were collected from parent-child dyads (n=120) with thirty-seven families completing treatment. Results: Growth modeling analyses indicate significant improvements in child and parent outcomes in both treatment settings with more rapid improvements in parent outcomes within office-based treatment. Attrition was predicted by income and parent functioning. Conclusion: PCIT delivered in the community can produce measureable improvements. In-home PCIT is a feasible option but future research should consider benefits and costs. Treatment completion remains a challenge.

This article reviews several decades of the author's meta-analytic and experimental research on the conditions under which nonrandomized experiments can approximate the results from randomized experiments (REs). Several studies make clear that we can expect accurate effect estimates from the regression discontinuity design, though its statistical power is lower, it estimates a different parameter than the RE, and its analysis is considerably more complex. For other nonrandomized designs, the picture is more complex. They may yield accurate estimates if they are prospectively designed to include comprehensive and reliable measurement of the process by which participants selected into conditions, if they use large sample sizes, and if they carefully select control groups that are from the same location and with the same substantive characteristics. By contrast, we have little good reason to think that nonrandomized experiments using archival data without comprehensive selection measures are likely to yield accurate effect estimates.

This study aimed to develop a scale which could be used as a valid way to show the evidence of recovery-oriented services. A 51-item scale was developed to assess both the component processes and outcomes of recovery. A sample of 471 participants administered the questionnaire. The factor analysis yielded a 45-item scale with six subscales, including three components of process and three outcomes. The construct validity was confirmed. Each subscale has very good internal consistency (α = .80—.95), and the 3—5 weeks test—retest reliability was .72. The scale could significantly differentiate the rehabilitation sample and the better functioning sample. The results indicated four stages of recovery. The external construct validity was also ensured. The results supported the psychometric property of the Stages of Recovery Scale (SRS). It could be utilized for both assessment and evaluation to document the evidence of a recovery-oriented program, collectively or individually.

Objectives: The purpose of this study is to review the current empirical research regarding the financial effects of participation in Individual Development Account (IDA) programs. Methods: Peer-reviewed outcome studies identified through electronic bibliographic databases and manual searches of article reference lists are reviewed. A total of 1 randomized controlled trial, 1 quasi-experimental study involving a comparison group, and 13 preexperimental 1-group pretest—posttest studies, were found. Results: Findings suggest IDA participants are capable of saving; however, total amount of savings is limited and may simply represent a reallocation of assets. Additionally, there is little evidence that the poor are enabled to achieve one of the three primary purposes of IDA programs (e.g., home ownership, postsecondary education, and microenterprise). Conclusion: It is premature to conclude that IDAs are an effective means of assisting low-income individuals in the development of assets. A stronger evidentiary foundation is needed, consisting of randomized controlled trials and cost-effectiveness and cost—benefit studies.