Instruments evaluating child outcomes used in evidence-based family support programs

A scoping review

Dados Bibliográficos

ID14646384
AutoresAna Uka (0000-0002-9039-8504, University of Medicine Tirana, autor correspondente), Elisabeth Stefanek (0000-0001-5061-3516, Prostate Cancer Research), Daiva Skučienė (0000-0001-7572-6509, Vilnius University), Carmen Schneckenreiter (0000-0001-7203-1728, University of Vienna), Georg Spiel (0000-0002-7658-7966, Prostate Cancer Research)
Ano2024
Volume166
Páginas107903
Data de publicação2024-11-01
Peer ReviewedSim
Open AccessSim
TipoARTICLE
PeriódicoChildren and Youth Services Review (JOURNAL)
Identificadores do periódicoISSN: 0190-7409 • E-ISSN: 1873-7765
EditoraElsevier BV (PUBLISHER)
DOI10.1016/j.childyouth.2024.107903
OpenAlexW4402328212
IdiomaEN
Citações recebidas2
Referências citadas43

This scoping review aims to identify instruments that measure child outcomes assessed in evidence-based family support programs and to investigate reported differences in the magnitude of Cronbach’s alpha by type of study participant (i.e., community, clinical, at-risk samples). We analyzed publications extracted from three databases, which were then narrowed down to 77 articles. The most used interventions were Triple P (23 studies), Incredible Years (13), and Parent Management Training (13) conducted mainly in Europe (35) and (North) America (25). A total of 30 studies were conducted with clinical, 22 with at-risk, and 22 with community samples. The most used instruments with parents as the respondents were the Eyberg Child Behavior Inventory (32), the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (25), and the Child Behavior Checklist (19). The most used instrument with children/adolescents as the respondents was the Child Depression Inventory (5), and for teachers or other professionals it was the Teacher Report Form (9). Regarding Cronbach’s alpha, one-third of the studies did not report any information, one-third yielded mixed findings, and one-third reported good values. Furthermore, it became evident that information regarding Cronbach’s alpha was often incomplete or missing, especially in studies conducted with clinical and at-risk samples. Further research is needed to investigate why there is a bias in reporting Cronbach’s alpha. This work recommends that future studies emphasize the importance of reporting the psychometric properties of the instruments used to be able to properly compare different studies across different populations, especially when used to measure children’s outcomes

Child and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional Development · Family and Disability Support Research · Infant Development and Preterm Care · Psychology