IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/epplan/v61y2017icp160-168.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Evaluation in the field of social services for minors: Measuring the efficacy of interventions in the Italian service for health protection and promotion

Author

Listed:
  • Iudici, Antonio
  • Gagliardo Corsi, Agnese

Abstract

This article presents the availment of a new Methodology for the efficacy evaluation of interventions in the field of social science: the Method of Computerized Textual Data Analysis (M.A.D.I.T.). In the beginning, we present some elements of the international and Italian legislation referred to the efficacy evaluation and about the child protection. Subsequently this work describes the process of efficacy evaluation of an intervention of minor protection delivered by a public Italian Service, the Minor and Family Service, MiFa. The MADIT Methodology is applied to the efficacy evaluation and it is interested in discursive repertoires, defined as “a linguistically intended mode of construction of finite reality”. The aim of the research is to show, through the description of every step of the implementation of the Methodology based on text analysis, how is possible to notice if there are progress in the direction of the objective of intervention of child protection. The results describes how from a starting situation of “first appearance of psychiatric career” referred to the minor, the work of the psychologist of the Service MiFa has enabled to produce a shifting in the direction of objective of the intervention, that was “developing the competence of the minor to identify objectives". Through this work, we show how a rigorous methodology for assessing effectiveness may contribute to improve the quality of service of Minor Protection and may also be suitable for new fields of social science.

Suggested Citation

  • Iudici, Antonio & Gagliardo Corsi, Agnese, 2017. "Evaluation in the field of social services for minors: Measuring the efficacy of interventions in the Italian service for health protection and promotion," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 160-168.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:epplan:v:61:y:2017:i:c:p:160-168
    DOI: 10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2016.11.016
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0149718915300112
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2016.11.016?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Grimmer, Justin & Stewart, Brandon M., 2013. "Text as Data: The Promise and Pitfalls of Automatic Content Analysis Methods for Political Texts," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 21(3), pages 267-297, July.
    2. Means, Stephanie N. & Magura, Stephen & Burkhardt, Jason T. & Schröter, Daniela C. & Coryn, Chris L.S., 2015. "Comparing rating paradigms for evidence-based program registers in behavioral health: Evidentiary criteria and implications for assessing programs," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 48(C), pages 100-116.
    3. Burkhardt, Jason T. & Schröter, Daniela C. & Magura, Stephen & Means, Stephanie N. & Coryn, Chris L.S., 2015. "An overview of evidence-based program registers (EBPRs) for behavioral health," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 48(C), pages 92-99.
    4. Cynthia Chew & Gunther Eysenbach, 2010. "Pandemics in the Age of Twitter: Content Analysis of Tweets during the 2009 H1N1 Outbreak," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 5(11), pages 1-13, November.
    5. Claes, Claudia & van Loon, Jos & Vandevelde, Stijn & Schalock, Robert, 2015. "An integrative approach to evidence based practices," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 48(C), pages 132-136.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Zack, Melissa K. & Karre, Jennifer K. & Olson, Jonathan & Perkins, Daniel F., 2019. "Similarities and differences in program registers: A case study," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 76(C), pages 1-1.
    2. Wen Shi & Diyi Liu & Jing Yang & Jing Zhang & Sanmei Wen & Jing Su, 2020. "Social Bots’ Sentiment Engagement in Health Emergencies: A Topic-Based Analysis of the COVID-19 Pandemic Discussions on Twitter," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(22), pages 1-18, November.
    3. Pamela R. Buckley & Abigail A. Fagan & Fred C. Pampel & Karl G. Hill, 2020. "Making Evidence-Based Interventions Relevant for Users: A Comparison of Requirements for Dissemination Readiness Across Program Registries," Evaluation Review, , vol. 44(1), pages 51-83, February.
    4. Magura, Stephen & Lee-Easton, Miranda J. & Abu-Obaid, Ruqayyah N. & Landsverk, John & DeCamp, Whitney & Rolls-Reutz, Jennifer & Moore, Kristin & Firpo-Triplett, Regina & Buckley, Pamela R. & Stout, El, 2023. "The influence of evidence-based program registry websites for dissemination of evidence-based interventions in behavioral healthcare," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 97(C).
    5. Axford, Nick & Morpeth, Louise & Bjornstad, Gretchen & Hobbs, Tim & Berry, Vashti, 2022. "“What works” registries of interventions to improve child and youth psychosocial outcomes: A critical appraisal," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 137(C).
    6. T’Pring R. Westbrook & Sarah A. Avellar & Neil Seftor, 2017. "Reviewing the Reviews: Examining Similarities and Differences Between Federally Funded Evidence Reviews," Evaluation Review, , vol. 41(3), pages 183-211, June.
    7. Carr, E. Summerson & Obertino-Norwood, Hannah, 2022. "Legitimizing evidence: The trans-institutional life of evidence-based practice," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 310(C).
    8. Maranda, Michael J. & Magura, Stephen & Gugerty, Ryan & Lee, Miranda J. & Landsverk, John A. & Rolls-Reutz, Jennifer & Green, Brandn, 2021. "State behavioral health agency website references to evidence-based program registers," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 85(C).
    9. Vydra Simon & Kantorowicz Jaroslaw, 2021. "Tracing Policy-relevant Information in Social Media: The Case of Twitter before and during the COVID-19 Crisis," Statistics, Politics and Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 12(1), pages 87-127, June.
    10. Bernhardt, Lea & Dewenter, Ralf & Thomas, Tobias, 2023. "Measuring partisan media bias in US newscasts from 2001 to 2012," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 78(C).
    11. Rauh, Christian, 2015. "Communicating supranational governance? The salience of EU affairs in the German Bundestag, 1991–2013," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 16(1), pages 116-138.
    12. Julia Seiermann, 2018. "Only Words? How Power in Trade Agreement Texts Affects International Trade Flows," UNCTAD Blue Series Papers 80, United Nations Conference on Trade and Development.
    13. Luis-Millán González & José Devís-Devís & Maite Pellicer-Chenoll & Miquel Pans & Alberto Pardo-Ibañez & Xavier García-Massó & Fernanda Peset & Fernanda Garzón-Farinós & Víctor Pérez-Samaniego, 2021. "The Impact of COVID-19 on Sport in Twitter: A Quantitative and Qualitative Content Analysis," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(9), pages 1-20, April.
    14. Arthur Dyevre & Nicolas Lampach, 2021. "Issue attention on international courts: Evidence from the European Court of Justice," The Review of International Organizations, Springer, vol. 16(4), pages 793-815, October.
    15. Dewenter, Ralf & Dulleck, Uwe & Thomas, Tobias, 2018. "The political coverage index and its application to government capture," Research Papers 6, EcoAustria – Institute for Economic Research.
    16. Pastwa, Anna M. & Shrestha, Prabal & Thewissen, James & Torsin, Wouter, 2021. "Unpacking the black box of ICO white papers: a topic modeling approach," LIDAM Discussion Papers LFIN 2021018, Université catholique de Louvain, Louvain Finance (LFIN).
    17. Maksym Polyakov & Morteza Chalak & Md. Sayed Iftekhar & Ram Pandit & Sorada Tapsuwan & Fan Zhang & Chunbo Ma, 2018. "Authorship, Collaboration, Topics, and Research Gaps in Environmental and Resource Economics 1991–2015," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 71(1), pages 217-239, September.
    18. Milena Djourelova & Ruben Durante, 2019. "Media attention and strategic timing in politics: Evidence from U.S. presidential executive orders," Economics Working Papers 1675, Department of Economics and Business, Universitat Pompeu Fabra.
    19. Mohamed M. Mostafa, 2023. "A one-hundred-year structural topic modeling analysis of the knowledge structure of international management research," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 57(4), pages 3905-3935, August.
    20. Erkan Işığıçok & Sadullah Çelik & Dilek Özdemir Yılmaz, 2023. "Analysis of Skills and Qualifications Required in Data Scientist Job Postings Based on the Pareto Analysis Perspective Using Text Mining," EKOIST Journal of Econometrics and Statistics, Istanbul University, Faculty of Economics, vol. 0(39), pages 10-25, December.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:epplan:v:61:y:2017:i:c:p:160-168. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/evalprogplan .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.