Inter-rater reliability of the Illinois Structured Decision Support Protocol

Child Abuse and Neglect

Volumn 30, Issue 6, 2006, Pages 679-689

  Kang, Hyun Ah ^a   Poertner, John ^b  

^a Sookmyung Women's University   (South Korea)

^b UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT URBANA CHAMPAIGN   (United States)

Author keywords

Decision making; Inter rater reliability; Risk assessment; Workers' agreement

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CLINICAL PROTOCOL; CONTROLLED STUDY; HEALTH CARE QUALITY; HUMAN; ILLINOIS STRUCTURED DECISION SUPPORT PROTOCOL; INTERRATER RELIABILITY; KAPPA STATISTICS; MEDICAL DECISION MAKING; RISK ASSESSMENT; RISK FACTOR; WORKER;

CASE MANAGEMENT; CHILD; CHILD ABUSE; CHILD ADVOCACY; DECISION MAKING; FEMALE; HUMANS; ILLINOIS; MALE; MODELS, STATISTICAL; OBSERVER VARIATION; RISK ASSESSMENT; SOCIAL SUPPORT;

EID: 33745206320     PISSN: 01452134     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.chiabu.2005.12.004     Document Type: Article

References (23)

1. Baird C., and Wagner D. The relative validity of actuarial- and consensus-based risk assessment systems. Children and Youth Services Review 22 (2000) 839-871
2. Baird C., Wagner D., Healy T., and Johnson K. Risk assessment in child protective services: Consensus and actuarial model reliability. Child Welfare 26 (1999) 723-748
3. Camasso M.J., and Jagannathan R. Modeling the reliability and predictive validity of risk assessment in child protective services. Children and Youth Services Review 22 (2000) 873-896
4. Cash S.J. Risk assessment in child welfare: The art and science. Children and Youth Services Review 23 (2001) 811-830
5. Children's Bureau. (2004). Data and information systems: Statewide automated child welfare information system (SACWIS). http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/dis/sacwis/index.htm
6. Dawes R.M., Faust D., and Meehl P.E. Clinical versus actuarial judgment. Science 243 4899 (1989) 1668-1674
7. DePanfilis D., and Scannapieco M. Assessing the safety of children at risk of maltreatment: Decision-making models. Child Welfare 73 (1994) 229-247
8. Fleiss J.L. Measuring nominal scale agreement among many raters. Psychological Bulletin 76 (1971) 378-382
9. Gambrill E., and Shlonsky A. Risk assessment in context. Children and Youth Services Review 22 (2000) 813-837
10. Glisson C., and Hemmelgarn A. The effects of organizational climate and interorganizational cooperation on the quality and outcomes of children's service system. Child Abuse & Neglect 22 (1998) 401-421
11. Illinois Department of Children and Family Services. (1996). Illinois Child Endangerment Risk Assessment Protocol: A report to the General Assembly concerning the development and testing of the protocol. Springfield, IL: DCFS.
12. Landis J.R., and Koch G.G. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 22 (1977) 159-174
13. Lindsey D. Factors affecting the foster care placement decision: An analysis of national survey data. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry 61 (1991) 272-281
14. Lindsey D. Reliability of the foster care placement decision: A review. Research on Social Work Practice 2 1 (1992) 65-80
15. Lyons P., Doueck H.J., and Wodarski J.S. Risk assessment for child protective services: A review of the empirical literature on instrument performance. Social Work Research 20 3 (1996) 143-155
16. Munro E. Common errors of reasoning in child protection work. Child Abuse & Neglect 23 (1999) 745-758
17. Nasuti J.P. Risk assessment in child protective services: Challenges in measuring child well-being. Journal of Family Social Work 3 1 (1998) 55-70
18. Nasuti J.P., and Pecora P.J. Risk assessment scales in child protection: A test of the internal consistency and interrater reliability of one statewide system. Social Work Research & Abstract 29 2 (1993) 28-33
19. Rosen A. Knowledge use in direct practice. Social Service Review 68 (1994) 561-577
20. Rossi P.H., Schuerman J., and Budde S. Understanding decisions about child maltreatment. Evaluation Review 23 (1999) 579-598
21. Saleebey D. Introduction: Power in the people. In: Saleebey D. (Ed). The strengths perspectives in social work practice. 2nd ed. (1997), Longman, New York 3-18
22. Schuerman J., Rossi P.H., and Budde S. Decisions on placement and family preservation. Evaluation Review 23 (1999) 599-618
23. Weedon J., Torti T.W., and Zunder P. Vermont division of social services Family Risk Assessment matrix: Research and evaluation. In: Tatara T. (Ed). Validation research in CPS risk assessment: Three recent studies (1988), American Public Welfare Association, Washington, DC 3-43