| Title |
Out-of-Home Placement Decision-Making and Outcomes in Child Welfare: A Longitudinal Study
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research, March 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10488-014-0545-5 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Ka Ho Brian Chor, Gary M. McClelland, Dana A. Weiner, Neil Jordan, John S. Lyons |
| Abstract |
After children enter the child welfare system, subsequent out-of-home placement decisions and their impact on children's well-being are complex and under-researched. This study examined two placement decision-making models: a multidisciplinary team approach, and a decision support algorithm using a standardized assessment. Based on 3,911 placement records in the Illinois child welfare system over 4 years, concordant (agreement) and discordant (disagreement) decisions between the two models were compared. Concordant decisions consistently predicted improvement in children's well-being regardless of placement type. Discordant decisions showed greater variability. In general, placing children in settings less restrictive than the algorithm suggested ("under-placing") was associated with less severe baseline functioning but also less improvement over time than placing children according to the algorithm. "Over-placing" children in settings more restrictive than the algorithm recommended was associated with more severe baseline functioning but fewer significant results in rate of improvement than predicted by concordant decisions. The importance of placement decision-making on policy, restrictiveness of placement, and delivery of treatments and services in child welfare are discussed. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 3 | 60% |
| Switzerland | 1 | 20% |
| Unknown | 1 | 20% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 5 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 75 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 1% |
| Canada | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 73 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 14 | 19% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 10 | 13% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 9 | 12% |
| Student > Master | 6 | 8% |
| Professor | 5 | 7% |
| Other | 15 | 20% |
| Unknown | 16 | 21% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Social Sciences | 22 | 29% |
| Psychology | 20 | 27% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 8 | 11% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 4% |
| Computer Science | 3 | 4% |
| Other | 3 | 4% |
| Unknown | 16 | 21% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 12 November 2021.
All research outputs
#4,669,100
of 24,917,903 outputs
Outputs from Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research
#159
of 688 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#43,101
of 230,599 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research
#5
of 11 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,917,903 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 81st percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 688 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 230,599 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 11 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% of its contemporaries.