Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
https://doi.org/10.21256/zhaw-23609Full metadata record
| DC Field | Value | Language |
|---|---|---|
| dc.contributor.author | Lätsch, David Cyrill | - |
| dc.contributor.author | Voll, Peter | - |
| dc.contributor.author | Jung, Rebecca | - |
| dc.contributor.author | Jud, Andreas | - |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2021-11-29T14:31:46Z | - |
| dc.date.available | 2021-11-29T14:31:46Z | - |
| dc.date.issued | 2021 | - |
| dc.identifier.issn | 0952-9136 | de_CH |
| dc.identifier.issn | 1099-0852 | de_CH |
| dc.identifier.uri | https://digitalcollection.zhaw.ch/handle/11475/23609 | - |
| dc.description.abstract | Despite substantial evidence on the higher predictive validity of empirically-derived instruments compared to clinical judgement, the controversy on the best direction in child protection assessment is far from over. We introduce a conceptual framework that may help explain why this controversy continues. The framework distinguishes between internal and ecological requirements of assessment tools. First, existing frameworks have primarily focused on internal requirements that refer to the psychometric qualities of a tool, which are theoretically independent of the organisational context. For these internal requirements, we suggest a distinction between three types of validity: construct validity, predictive validity, and indicative validity. Second, the degree of fit with the ecological requirements determines how well the tool works in a specific organisation: for example, whether a tool makes sense to practitioners, whether they readily adopt or tacitly adapt it, or how well it fits with the objectives of the organisation and the goals of individual workers. We define four such requirements: adequacy, organisational suitability, practicality, and utility. The framework is illustrated with data from an ethnographic study in Switzerland. The framework leads to questions that may guide managers and frontline workers in developing, implementing, and evaluating standardised risk assessment in child protection. | de_CH |
| dc.language.iso | en | de_CH |
| dc.publisher | Wiley | de_CH |
| dc.relation.ispartof | Child Abuse Review | de_CH |
| dc.rights | https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ | de_CH |
| dc.subject | Kindesschutz | de_CH |
| dc.subject | Kindesmisshandlung | de_CH |
| dc.subject.ddc | 362.7: Jugendhilfe | de_CH |
| dc.title | Evaluating assessment tools in child protection : a conceptual framework of internal and ecological requirements | de_CH |
| dc.type | Beitrag in wissenschaftlicher Zeitschrift | de_CH |
| dcterms.type | Text | de_CH |
| zhaw.departement | Soziale Arbeit | de_CH |
| zhaw.organisationalunit | Institut für Kindheit, Jugend und Familie (IKJF) | de_CH |
| dc.identifier.doi | 10.1002/car.2728 | de_CH |
| dc.identifier.doi | 10.21256/zhaw-23609 | - |
| zhaw.funding.eu | No | de_CH |
| zhaw.issue | 6 | de_CH |
| zhaw.originated.zhaw | Yes | de_CH |
| zhaw.pages.end | 519 | de_CH |
| zhaw.pages.start | 508 | de_CH |
| zhaw.publication.status | publishedVersion | de_CH |
| zhaw.volume | 30 | de_CH |
| zhaw.publication.review | Peer review (Publikation) | de_CH |
| zhaw.funding.snf | 169445 | de_CH |
| zhaw.webfeed | Kinder- und Jugendhilfe | de_CH |
| zhaw.funding.zhaw | Standardisierte Abklärung im Kindesschutz: Effekte auf Prozesse und Entscheidungen | de_CH |
| zhaw.author.additional | No | de_CH |
| zhaw.display.portrait | Yes | de_CH |
| Appears in collections: | Publikationen Soziale Arbeit | |
Files in This Item:
| File | Description | Size | Format | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2021_Laetsch-etal_Assessment-tools-child-protection.pdf | 275.47 kB | Adobe PDF |  View/Open |
Show simple item record
Lätsch, D. C., Voll, P., Jung, R., & Jud, A. (2021). Evaluating assessment tools in child protection : a conceptual framework of internal and ecological requirements. Child Abuse Review, 30(6), 508–519. https://doi.org/10.1002/car.2728
Lätsch, D.C. et al. (2021) ‘Evaluating assessment tools in child protection : a conceptual framework of internal and ecological requirements’, Child Abuse Review, 30(6), pp. 508–519. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1002/car.2728.
D. C. Lätsch, P. Voll, R. Jung, and A. Jud, “Evaluating assessment tools in child protection : a conceptual framework of internal and ecological requirements,” Child Abuse Review, vol. 30, no. 6, pp. 508–519, 2021, doi: 10.1002/car.2728.
LÄTSCH, David Cyrill, Peter VOLL, Rebecca JUNG und Andreas JUD, 2021. Evaluating assessment tools in child protection : a conceptual framework of internal and ecological requirements. Child Abuse Review. 2021. Bd. 30, Nr. 6, S. 508–519. DOI 10.1002/car.2728
Lätsch, David Cyrill, Peter Voll, Rebecca Jung, and Andreas Jud. 2021. “Evaluating Assessment Tools in Child Protection : A Conceptual Framework of Internal and Ecological Requirements.” Child Abuse Review 30 (6): 508–19. https://doi.org/10.1002/car.2728.
Lätsch, David Cyrill, et al. “Evaluating Assessment Tools in Child Protection : A Conceptual Framework of Internal and Ecological Requirements.” Child Abuse Review, vol. 30, no. 6, 2021, pp. 508–19, https://doi.org/10.1002/car.2728.
Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.