Swipe om te navigeren naar een ander artikel
Wraparound approaches are being implemented with children in many mental health systems around the country. Evidence for the effectiveness of the wraparound approach, however, is limited. In addition, the degree to which wraparound interventions adhere to the principles of wraparound has rarely been assessed. We examined the influence of adherence to wraparound principles and outcome feedback within the wraparound approach. Children participating in family team meetings were enrolled in a feedback or no feedback condition. Teams receiving feedback were given a brief report regarding outcome progress four times over a three-month period. In addition, adherence to wraparound principles was assessed in the initial team meeting and examined in relationship to outcome at three months and nine months. Although youth in both feedback and non-feedback groups improved with intervention, there were few differences between the groups based on outcome feedback. Similarly, adherence was uniformly high and did not influence the outcome for individual cases. Although the wraparound approach was helpful for youth in our sample, outcome feedback and adherence to wraparound principles had limited influence on these effects.
Log in om toegang te krijgen
Met onderstaand(e) abonnement(en) heeft u direct toegang:
Battle, C. C., Imber, S. D., Hoehn-Saric, R., Stone, A. R., Nash, E. H., & Frank, J. D. (1966). Target complaints as a criteria of improvement. American Journal of Psychotherapy, 20, 184–192.
Bickman, L., Smith, D. M., Lambert, E. W., & Andrade, M. R. (2003). Evaluation of a congressionally mandated wraparound demonstration. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 12, 135–157. CrossRef
Brown, R. A., & Hill, B. A. (1996). Opportunity for change: Exploring an alternative to residential treatment. Child Welfare, 75, 35–57.
Burchard, J. D., & Clark, R. T. (1990). The role of individualized care in a service delivery system for children and adolescents with severely maladjusted behavior. The Journal of Mental Health Administration, 17, 48–60. CrossRef
Burns, E. J., Burchard, J. D., & Yoe, J. T. (1995). Evaluating the Vermont system of care: Outcomes associated with community-based wraparound services. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 4, 321–339. CrossRef
Burns, B. J., Schoenwald, S. K., Burchard, J. D., Faw, L., & Santos, A. B. (2000). Comprehensive community-based interventions for youth with severe emotional disorders: Multisystemic therapy and the wraparound approach. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 9, 283–315. CrossRef
Clark, H. B., Lee, B., Prange, M. E., & McDonald, B. A. (1996). Children lost within the foster care system: Can wraparound service strategies improve placement outcomes? Journal of Child and Family Studies, 5, 39–54. CrossRef
Eber, L., Osuch, R., & Redditt, C. A. (1996). School-based applications of the wraparound process: Early results on service provision and student outcomes. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 5, 83–99. CrossRef
Epstein, M. H., Jayanthi, M., McKelvey, J., Frankenberry, E., Hardy, R., & Dennis, K. (1998). Reliability of the Wraparound Observation Form: An instrument to measure the wraparound process. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 7, 161–170. CrossRef
Hart, R. R. (1978). Therapeutic effectiveness of setting and monitoring goals. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 46, 1242–1245. CrossRef
Kanfer, F. H., & Gaelick-Buys, L. (1991). Self-management methods. In F. H. Kanfer & A. P. Goldstein (Eds.). Helping people change (4th ed.; pp. 305–360). New York: Pergamon.
Kiresuk, T. J., Smith, A., & Cardillo, J. E. (Eds.). (1994). Goal attainment scaling: Applications, theory, and measurement. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Lambert, M. J., Whipple, J. L., Smart, D. W., Vermeersch, D. A., Nielsen, S. L., & Hawkins, E. J. (2001). The effects of providing therapists with feedback on patient progress during psychotherapy: Are outcomes enhanced? Psychotherapy Research, 11, 49–68. CrossRef
Lueger, R. J. (1998). Using feedback on patient progress to predict the outcome of psychotherapy. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 54, 383–393. CrossRef
Myaard, M. J. (2000). Applying behavior analysis within the wraparound process: A multiple baseline study. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 8, 216–229. CrossRef
Ogles, B. M., Hatfield, D., Carlston, D., Fields, S. A., Dowell, K., & Melendez, G. (2002). The role of fidelity and feedback in the wraparound approach: initial data. New Research in Mental Health: 2000-2001 Biennium, 15, 240–245.
Ogles, B. M., Melendez, G., Davis, D. C., & Lunnen, K. M. (2001). The Ohio Scales: Practical outcome assessment. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 10, 199–212. CrossRef
Olson, D. H., Portner, J., & Lavee, Y. (1985). FACES-III. St. Paul, MN: University of Minnesota.
Rosenblatt, A. (1996). Bows and ribbons, tape and twine: Wrapping the wraparound process for children with multi-system needs. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 5, 101–116. CrossRef
Stroul, B. A., & Friedman, R. M. (1986). A system of care for children and youth with severe emotionally disturbances (Rev. Ed.). Washington, D. C.: Georgetown University Child Development Center.
Toffalo, D. A. D. (2000). An investigation of treatment integrity and outcomes in wraparound services. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 9, 351–361. CrossRef
VanDenBerg, J. E., & Grealish, E. M. (1996). Individualized services and supports through the wraparound process: Philosophies and procedures. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 5, 7–21. CrossRef
- The Role of Fidelity and Feedback in the Wraparound Approach
Ph.D. Benjamin M. Ogles
Ph.D. David Carlston
M.S. Derek Hatfield
Ph.D. Gregorio Melendez
Ph.D. Kathy Dowell
Ph.D. Scott A. Fields
- Springer US