Identifying practice and program elements of interventions for families with multiple problems: The development of a taxonomy

13Citations
Citations of this article
24Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.
Get full text

Abstract

Information is scarce on the distinct techniques delivered by the practitioner to promote positive outcomes (practice elements) and aspects of the intervention design and service delivery system (program elements) that make part of interventions for families with multiple problems (FMP). The aim of this study was to (1) develop a taxonomy to identify practice and program elements of interventions targeting FMP and (2) examine the interrater reliability of this taxonomy. The development procedure of the taxonomy consisted of five steps, in which different data sources were used (e.g., existing taxonomies, national guidelines for FMP, intervention manuals and field experts) to ensure the comprehensiveness of the taxonomy. The taxonomy of interventions for families with multiple problems (TIFMP) was developed and tested on eight FMP interventions that had at least moderate effect sizes (>0.5) in the Dutch context. It consisted of 53 practice elements in eight main categories (e.g., working on behavioral change and relieve tasks) and six program elements (e.g., duration and intensity). Raters had an average agreement for practice elements of 84.9%, ranging from 73.6% to 90.6% for the eight FMP interventions. A wide range of FMP interventions can be described reliably with the TIFMP that comprises practice and program elements of interventions. Using this taxonomy can provide more insight into the actual content of interventions and enables optimisation of care for FMP.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Visscher, L., Evenboer, K. E., Jansen, D. E. M. C., Scholte, R. H. J., Knot-Dickscheit, J., Veerman, J. W., … van Yperen, T. A. (2018). Identifying practice and program elements of interventions for families with multiple problems: The development of a taxonomy. Children and Youth Services Review, 95, 64–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2018.10.030

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free