IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jscscx/v10y2021i5p167-d552090.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Child Safety Assessment: Do Instrument-Based Decisions Concur with Decisions of Expert Panels?

Author

Listed:
  • Annemiek Vial

    (Research Institute of Child Development and Education, University of Amsterdam, Nieuwe Achtergracht 127, 1018 WS Amsterdam, The Netherlands)

  • Mark Assink

    (Research Institute of Child Development and Education, University of Amsterdam, Nieuwe Achtergracht 127, 1018 WS Amsterdam, The Netherlands)

  • Geert Jan Stams

    (Research Institute of Child Development and Education, University of Amsterdam, Nieuwe Achtergracht 127, 1018 WS Amsterdam, The Netherlands)

  • Claudia Van der Put

    (Research Institute of Child Development and Education, University of Amsterdam, Nieuwe Achtergracht 127, 1018 WS Amsterdam, The Netherlands)

Abstract

To make decisions on children’s immediate safety, child welfare agencies have been using safety assessment instruments for decades. However, very little research on the quality of these instruments has been conducted. This study is the first to inspect the concurrent validity of a child safety assessment instrument by comparing its outcomes to a different measure of immediate child safety. It was examined to what extent decisions of practitioners using a safety assessment instrument concur with decisions of child maltreatment expert panels. A total of 26 experts on immediate child safety participated in 7 expert panels, in which the safety of children as described in 24 vignettes was discussed. Additionally, 74 practitioners rated the same vignettes using the ARIJ safety assessment instrument. The instrument-based safety decisions of practitioners concurred for a small majority with the safety decisions reached by the expert panels (58% agreement). Expert panels often identified more types of immediate safety threats than practitioners using the instrument; however, the latter group more often deemed the child to be in immediate danger than the first group. These findings provide indications on how the instrument can be improved and give insight into how immediate safety decisions are made.

Suggested Citation

  • Annemiek Vial & Mark Assink & Geert Jan Stams & Claudia Van der Put, 2021. "Child Safety Assessment: Do Instrument-Based Decisions Concur with Decisions of Expert Panels?," Social Sciences, MDPI, vol. 10(5), pages 1-22, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jscscx:v:10:y:2021:i:5:p:167-:d:552090
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2076-0760/10/5/167/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2076-0760/10/5/167/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Fuller, Tamara L. & Wells, Susan J., 2003. "Predicting Maltreatment Recurrence among CPS Cases with Alcohol and Other Drug Involvement," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 25(7), pages 553-569, July.
    2. Fuller, Tamara L. & Wells, Susan J. & Cotton, Edward E., 2001. "Predictors of maltreatment recurrence at two milestones in the life of a case," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 23(1), pages 49-78, January.
    3. Vial, Annemiek & Assink, Mark & Stams, Geert Jan J.M. & van der Put, Claudia, 2020. "Safety assessment in child welfare: A comparison of instruments," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 108(C).
    4. van der Put, Claudia E. & Assink, Mark & Stams, Geert Jan J.M., 2016. "Predicting relapse of problematic child-rearing situations," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 288-295.
    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. Vial, Annemiek & Assink, Mark & Stams, Geert Jan J.M. & van der Put, Claudia, 2020. "Safety assessment in child welfare: A comparison of instruments," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 108(C).
    2. Vial, Annemiek & van der Put, Claudia & Stams, Geert Jan J.M. & Assink, Mark, 2019. "The content validity and usability of a child safety assessment instrument," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 107(C).
    3. Fuller, Tamara L., 2005. "Child safety at reunification: A case-control study of maltreatment recurrence following return home from substitute care," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 27(12), pages 1293-1306, December.
    4. Kahn, Jessica M. & Schwalbe, Craig, 2010. "The timing to and risk factors associated with child welfare system recidivism at two decision-making points," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 32(7), pages 1035-1044, July.
    5. Brook, Jody & McDonald, Tom, 2009. "The impact of parental substance abuse on the stability of family reunifications from foster care," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 31(2), pages 193-198, February.
    6. Ben-David, Vered, 2016. "Substance-abusing parents and their children in termination of parental rights cases in Israel," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 66(C), pages 94-100.
    7. Slayter, Elspeth M. & Jensen, Jordan, 2019. "Parents with intellectual disabilities in the child protection system," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 98(C), pages 297-304.
    8. Dauber, Sarah & Neighbors, Charles & Dasaro, Chris & Riordan, Annette & Morgenstern, Jon, 2012. "Impact of intensive case management on child welfare system involvement for substance-dependent parenting women on public assistance," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 34(7), pages 1359-1366.
    9. Palusci, Vincent J. & Smith, Elliott G. & Paneth, Nigel, 2005. "Predicting and responding to physical abuse in young children using NCANDS," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 27(6), pages 667-682, June.
    10. Duindam, Hanne M. & Vial, Annemiek & Bouwmeester-Landweer, Merian B.R. & van der Put, Claudia E., 2023. "Differences and similarities between mothers’ and fathers’ risk factors for child maltreatment," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 150(C).
    11. Debra A. Strong & Russell Cole & Angela V. D'Angelo & Juliette Henke, "undated". "2012 and 2014 Regional Partnership Grants to Increase the Well-Being of and to Improve the Permanency Outcomes for Children Affected by Substance Abuse: Third Annual Report to Congress," Mathematica Policy Research Reports 25fb6c26bc6a435fbfa9abfd8, Mathematica Policy Research.
    12. Delfabbro, Paul & Borgas, Mignon & Rogers, Nancy & Jeffreys, Helen & Wilson, Ros, 2009. "The social and family backgrounds of infants in South Australian out-of-home care 2000-2005: Predictors of subsequent abuse notifications," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 31(2), pages 219-226, February.
    13. Bae, Hwa-ok & Kindler, Heinz, 2017. "Child maltreatment re-notifications in Germany: Analysis of local case files," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 75(C), pages 42-49.
    14. Palusci, Vincent J., 2011. "Risk factors and services for child maltreatment among infants and young children," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 33(8), pages 1374-1382, August.
    15. Hélie, Sonia & Bouchard, Camil, 2010. "Recurrent reporting of child maltreatment: State of knowledge and avenues for research," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 32(3), pages 416-422, March.
    16. Jonson-Reid, Melissa & Chung, Sulki & Way, Ineke & Jolley, Jennifer, 2010. "Understanding service use and victim patterns associated with re-reports of alleged maltreatment perpetrators," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 32(6), pages 790-797, June.
    17. Casanueva, Cecilia & Tueller, Stephen & Dolan, Melissa & Testa, Mark & Smith, Keith & Day, Orin, 2015. "Examining predictors of re-reports and recurrence of child maltreatment using two national data sources," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 48(C), pages 1-13.
    18. Ryan, Scott & Wiles, Debra & Cash, Scottye & Siebert, Carl, 2005. "Risk assessments: empirically supported or values driven?," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 27(2), pages 213-225, February.
    19. Reekers, Sari E. & Dijkstra, Sharon & Stams, Geert Jan J.M. & Asscher, Jessica J. & Creemers, Hanneke E., 2018. "Signs of effectiveness of signs of safety? – A pilot study," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 91(C), pages 177-184.
    20. Raghavan, Ramesh, 2010. "Using risk adjustment approaches in child welfare performance measurement: Applications and insights from health and mental health settings," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 32(1), pages 103-112, January.

    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:gam:jscscx:v:10:y:2021:i:5:p:167-:d:552090. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.