Diseño e implementación de la herramienta DAP 360º para la evaluación del riesgo y desprotección en la infancia y adolescencia

  1. Carbonell, Ángela
  2. Georgieva, Sylvia
  3. Fernández, Irene
  4. Navarro-Pérez, José-Javier
  5. Samper, Paula
  6. Tomás Miguel, Jose Manuel
Aldizkaria:
Alternativas: Cuadernos de Trabajo Social

ISSN: 1133-0473,  1989-9971

Argitalpen urtea: 2023

Zenbakia: 30

Orrialdeak: 53-80

Mota: Artikulua

DOI: 10.14198/ALTERN.21964 DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openRUA editor

Beste argitalpen batzuk: Alternativas: Cuadernos de Trabajo Social

Laburpena

Introduction. Child maltreatment is a worldwide prob- lem with serious consequences that can last a lifetime. It is essential to efficiently detect and assess child maltreatment to optimise professional decision-mak- ing processes. Nonetheless, the decentralisation of services, a lack of scientific and objective rigour in diagnoses together with partial and disrupted assess- ments can hinder the adoption of effective protection measures. Aim. The objective of this study was to present the design and content validation process of the DAP 360º, a tool designed to complement profes- sional assessment and declaration of risk/vulnerability in childhood and adolescence. Methodology. The study applied scale development design and included three main steps: item construction, theoretical anal- ysis, and psychometric assessment. We combined qualitative and quantitative techniques. More than 300 professionals and experts working in different child and adolescent care services in the Valencian Community participated in this process. Results. DAP 360º is a modular tool structured into two main sections, 15 dimensions, and 97 risk and protection indicators. This tool allows professionals to establish a complete diagnosis of all risk and protection areas of children and adolescents. It is a rigorous, consist- ent, and reliable instrument for the assessment of risk situations in childhood and adolescence. It allows the identification of the severity ranges of the situations faced by the child/adolescent and the unification of the different areas ranging from risk to vulnerability. Additionally, the tool contemplates protective fac- tors that could compensate risks. DAP 360º brings together, via a software tool, the assessment of risk and/or vulnerability in childhood and adolescence, the real-time coordination of professionals and insti- tutions, the establishment of ranges of severity – as it balances protective and risk factors in the diagnosis –, and links intervention objectives with the responsible services and resources. Conclusions. The construction of valid and reliable assessment instruments promotes faster diagnostic processes, allows to invest in preven- tion, and warrants more objective decision making, fostering a better coordination among professionals, resources and intervention levels. Moreover, efficient risk and vulnerability detection and assessment in childhood and adolescence permits better structuring of interventions, case reassessments, and the devel- opment of successful action plans according to each specific case. The assessment by different profession- als in real time is a determinant factor, given that it allows designing interventions in line with manifested capabilities and shortfalls. The effects on the quality of life and well-being of children and adolescents, as well as of their families will be significant.

Erreferentzia bibliografikoak

  • Abad, F. J., Olea, J., Ponsoda, V. y García, C. (2011). Medición en ciencias sociales y de la salud. Madrid: Síntesis.
  • Albuquerque, J., Aguiar, C. & Magalhães, E. (2020). The collaboration between early childhood intervention and child protection systems: The perspectives of professionals. Children and Youth Services Review, 111, 1-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2020.104873
  • Alfandari, R. & Taylor, B. J. (2021). Processes of multiprofessional child protection decision making in hospital settings: systematic narrative review. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 2021, 1-18. https://doi.org/10.1177/15248380211029404
  • Arruabarrena, I. y Hurtado, M. A. (2018). Instrumento BALORA para la valoración de la gravedad de las situaciones de riesgo y desamparo infantil: elaboración, implantación, fundamentos conceptuales y contenido. Zerbitzuan: Gizarte Zerbitzuetarako Aldizkaria, (66), 5-19. https://doi.org/10.5569/1134-7147.66.01
  • Austin, A. E., Lesak, A. M. & Shanahan, M. E. (2020). Risk and protective factors for child maltreatment: A review. Current Epidemiology Reports, 7(4), 334-342. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40471-020-00252-3
  • Barbero, J. M. (2006). La autogestión del Trabajo Social y la perspectiva del investigador. Cuadernos de Trabajo Social, 19, 43-54. Recuperado de https://revistas.ucm.es/index.php/CUTS/article/view/CUTS0606110043A
  • Bartelink, C., Van Yperen, T. A. & Ten Berge, I. J. (2015). Deciding on child maltreatment: A literature review on methods that improve decision-making. Child Abuse & Neglect, 49, 142-153. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2015.07.002
  • Bartelink, C., Van Yperen, T. A., Ten Berge, I. J., De Kwaadsteniet, L. & Witteman, C. L. M. (2014). Agreement on child maltreatment decisions: A nonrandomized study on the effects of structured decision-making. Child & Youth Care Forum, 43(5), 639-654. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10566-014-9259-9
  • Bernstein, D. P., Stein, J. A., Newcomb, M. D., Walker, E., Pogge, D., Ahluvalia, T., … Zule, W. (2003). Development and validation of a brief screening version of the Childhood Trauma Questionnaire. Child Abuse & Neglect, 27(2), 169-190. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0145-2134(02)00541-0
  • Boateng, G. O., Neilands, T. B., Frongillo, E. A., Melgar-Quiñonez, H. R. & Young, S. L. (2018). Best practices for developing and validating scales for health, social, and behavioral research: a primer. Frontiers in Public Health, 6. 149. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2018.00149
  • Bolton, A., Gandevia, S. & Newell, B. R. (2021). Appropriate responses to potential child abuse: the importance of information quality. Child Abuse & Neglect, 117, 105062. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2021.105062
  • Cabero, J. y Lorente-Cejudo, M. C. (2013). La aplicación del juicio de experto como técnica de evaluación de las tecnologías de la información y comunicación (TIC). Revista Eduweb, 7(2), 11-22. Recuperado de https://revistaeduweb.org/index.php/eduweb/article/view/206
  • Church, A. H., Bracken, D. W., Fleenor, J. W. & Rose, D. S. (2019). Handbook of strategic 360 feedback. New York: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780190879860.001.0001
  • Cleek, E. A., Johnson, N. L. y Sheets, L. K. (2019). Interdisciplinary collaboration needed in obtaining high-quality medical information in child abuse investigations. Child Abuse & Neglect, 92, 167-178. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2019.02.012
  • Correa, D. P. y González, C. (2020). Uso de la evaluación en 360 grados para medir competencias en residentes de programas de postítulo de especialidades médicas: revision de la literatura. ARS Revista de Ciencias Médicas, 45(1), 26-31. https://doi.org/10.11565/arsmed.v45i1.1562
  • Crescenza, G., Fiorucci, M., Rossiello, M. C. & Stillo, L. (2021). Education and the pandemic: distance learning and the school-family relationship. Research in Education and Learning Innovation Archives, 26, 73-85. https://doi.org/10.7203/realia.26.18078
  • Cury, S. P., Arias, A., & Palacios, J. L. (2019). Design of ISD-1: an instrument for social diagnosis in care homes for older persons. European Journal of Social Work, 22(3), 511-525. https://doi.org/10.1080/13691457.2017.1364704
  • Cury, S. y Arias, A. (2016). Hacia una definición actual del concepto de «diagnóstico social». Breve revisión bibliográfica de su evolución. Alternativas. Cuadernos de Trabajo Social, 23, 9-24. https://doi.org/10.14198/ALTERN2016.23.01
  • Davidson, M. L. (2007). The 360° Evaluation. Clinics in Podiatric Medicine and Surgery, 24(1), 65-94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpm.2006.09.003
  • Dias, A., Mooren, T. & Kleber, R. J. (2018). Public health actions to mitigate long-term consequences of child maltreatment. Journal of Public Health Policy, 39(3), 294-303. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41271-018-0129-9
  • Ezzo, F. & Young, K. (2012). Child maltreatment risk inventory: Pilot data for the Cleveland child abuse potential scale. Journal of Family Violence, 27(2), 145-155. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-012-9412-x
  • Fluke, J. D., Tonmyr, L., Gray, J., Rodrigues, L. B., Bolter, F., Cash, S., … Weaver, L. (2021). Child maltreatment data: A summary of progress, prospects and challenges. Child Abuse & Neglect, 119, 104650. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2020.104650
  • Georgieva, S., Tomás, J. M., Navarro-Pérez, J. J. & Samper-García, P. (2022). Systematic review and critical appraisal of five of the most recurrently validated child maltreatment assessment instruments from 2010 to 2020. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 0(0). https://doi.org/10.1177/15248380221097694
  • Gillingham, P. (2016). Predictive risk modelling to prevent child maltreatment and other adverse outcomes for service users: Inside the ‘black box’of machine learning. The British Journal of Social Work, 46(4), 1044-1058. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjsw/bcv031
  • Hunsley, J. & Mash, E. J. (2008). A guide to assessments that work. New York: Oxford University Press.
  • Hunter, A. A. & Flores, G. (2021). Social determinants of health and child maltreatment: a systematic review. Pediatric Research, 89(2), 269-274. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41390-020-01175-x
  • Lotspeich, S. C., Jarrett, R. T., Epstein, R. A., Shaffer, A. M., Gracey, K., Cull, M. J. & Raman, R. (2020). Incidence and neighborhood-level determinants of child welfare involvement. Child Abuse & Neglect, 109, 104767. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2020.104767
  • Macalli, M., Orri, M., Tzourio, C. & Côté, S. M. (2021). Contributions of childhood peer victimization and/or maltreatment to young adult anxiety, depression, and suicidality: a cross-sectional study. BMC Psychiatry, 21(1), 354. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12888-021-03354-4
  • Manzano, M. A., Pages, E. y Solé, M. (2019). La DS-DIBA: Experiencia de la elaboración de una herramienta de valoración social y segmentación para los servicios sociales. Cuadernos de Trabajo Social, 32(1), 177-189. https://doi.org/10.5209/CUTS.58061
  • Martín, E. y Suárez, H. (2018). La investigación en desprotección infantil. Cuadernos de Trabajo Social, 31(1), 189-198. https://doi.org/10.5209/CUTS.52753
  • Mathews, B., Pacella, R., Dunne, M., Scott, J., Finkelhor, D., Meinck, F., … Lawrence, D. (2021). The Australian Child Maltreatment Study (ACMS): protocol for a national survey of the prevalence of child abuse and neglect, associated mental disorders and physical health problems, and burden of disease. BMJ Open, 11(5), e047074. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2020-047074
  • Meng, X., Fleury, M. J., Xiang, Y. T., Li, M. & D’arcy, C. (2018). Resilience and protective factors among people with a history of child maltreatment: A systematic review. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology, 53(5), 453-475. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00127-018-1485-2
  • Morales, A. y Agrela, B. (2018). Trabajo Social e investigación: estrategias empoderadoras y de género en la universidad española. Trabajo Social, 20(1), 71-101. https://doi.org/10.15446/ts.v20n1.71575
  • Morgado, F. F. R., Meireles, J. F. F., Neves, C. M., Amaral, A. C. S. & Ferreira, M. E. C. (2018). Scale development: Ten main limitations and recommendations to improve future research practices. Psicologia: Reflexão e Crítica, 30(1), 3. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41155-016-0057-1
  • Morris, M. C., Marco, M., Maguire-Jack, K., Kouros, C. D., Im, W., White, C., … Garber, J. (2019). County-level socioeconomic and crime risk factors for substantiated child abuse and neglect. Child Abuse & Neglect, 90, 127-138. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2019.02.004
  • Muñiz, J. y Fonseca-Pedrero, E. (2019). Diez pasos para la construcción de un test. Psicothema, 31(1), 7-16. https://doi.org/10.7334/psicothema2018.291
  • Nouman, H. & Alfandari, R. (2020). Identifying children suspected for maltreatment: The assessment process taken by healthcare professionals working in community healthcare services. Children and Youth Services Review, 113, 104964. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2020.104964
  • Okato, A., Hashimoto, T., Tanaka, M., Saito, N., Endo, M., Okayama, J., … Iyo, M. (2020). Inter-agency collaboration factors affecting multidisciplinary workers’ ability to identify child maltreatment. BMC Research Notes, 13(1), 323. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13104-020-05162-7
  • Oosterveld, P., Vorst, H. & Smits, N. (2019). Methods for questionnaire design: a taxonomy linking procedures to test goals. Quality of Life Research, 28(9), 2501-2512. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-019-02209-6
  • Organización Mundial de la Salud. (2020a). Readiness Assessment for the Prevention of Child Maltreatment (RAP-CM). Recuperado de https://cdn.who.int/media/docs/default-source/documents/child-maltreatment/rap-cm-handbook.pdf?sfvrsn=9282691e_2
  • Organización Mundial de la Salud. (2020b). Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19). Recuperado de https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019 (01 de febrero de 2022).
  • Organización Mundial de la Salud. (2021). Child maltreatment. Recuperado de https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/child-maltreatment (01 de febrero de 2022).
  • Przeperski, J. & Taylor, B. (2022). Cooperation in child welfare decision making: Qualitative vignette study. Child Care in Practice, 28(2), 137-152. https://doi.org/10.1080/13575279.2019.1701412
  • Raya, E. y Caparrós, N. (2014). Del objeto de estudio para la intervención en Trabajo Social. AZARBE, Revista Internacional de Trabajo Social y Bienestar, (3). 173-179. Recuperado de https://revistas.um.es/azarbe/article/view/198521
  • Raya, E. & Lascorz, A. (2021). Tools for social policy management: the SiSo Scale for measuring situations of social difficulty. Journal of Social Policy, 1-20. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047279421000684
  • Raya, E. y Real, M. J. (2020). Diseño e implementación de la Escala SiSo de medición de las situaciones de dificultad social. Herramienta para el diagnóstico en Trabajo Social. Alternativas. Cuadernos de Trabajo Social, 27, 45-69. https://doi.org/10.14198/ALTERN2020.27.03
  • Reid, M. & Snyder, C. (2021). Feasibility of using child maltreatment measurement instruments in the primary care setting: a systematic review. Journal of Pediatric Nursing, 61, 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pedn.2021.04.002
  • Rogers, N. T., Power, C. y Pereira, S. M. P. (2021). Child maltreatment, early life socioeconomic disadvantage and all-cause mortality in mid-adulthood: findings from a prospective British birth cohort. BMJ Open, 11(9), e050914. https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/11/9/e050914
  • Rosanbalm, K. D., Dodge, K. A., Murphy, R., O’Donnell, K., Christopoulos, C., Gibbs, … & Daro, D. (2010). Evaluation of a collaborative community-based child maltreatment prevention initiative. Protecting Children, 25(4), 8-23. Recuperado de https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4192719/
  • Rudnicki, A. A. (2012). The development of Russia's child protection and welfare system. Demokratizatsiya, 20(1), 29-44. Recuperado de https://demokratizatsiya.pub/archives/20_1_0M68882RR3WM363J.pdf
  • Saini, S. M., Hoffmann, C. R., Pantelis, C., Everall, I. P. & Bousman, C. A. (2019). Systematic review and critical appraisal of child abuse measurement instruments. Psychiatry Research, 272, 106-113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychres.2018.12.068
  • Sprague-Jones, J., Singh, P., Rousseau, M., Counts, J. & Firman, C. (2020). The Protective Factors Survey: Establishing validity and reliability of a self-report measure of protective factors against child maltreatment. Children and Youth Services Review, 111, 104868. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2020.104868
  • Terwee, C. B., Prinsen, C. A., Chiarotto, A., Westerman, M. J., Patrick, D. L., Alonso, J., … Mokkink, L. B. (2018). COSMIN methodology for evaluating the content validity of patient-reported outcome measures: a Delphi study. Quality of Life Research, 27(5), 1159-1170. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-018-1829-0
  • Tufford, L., Lee, B., Bogo, M., Wenghofer, E., Etherington, C., Thieu, V. & Zhao, R. (2021). Decision-making and relationship competence when reporting suspected physical abuse and child neglect: an objective structured clinical evaluation. Clinical Social Work Journal, 49(2), 256-270. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10615-020-00785-6
  • UNICEF (1989). Convention on the Rights of the Child. United Nations International Children's Emergency Fund. Recuperado de https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/crc.pdf
  • Van der Put, C. E., Assink, M., Gubbels, J. & Van Solinge, N. F. B. (2018). Identifying effective components of child maltreatment interventions: A meta-analysis. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 21(2), 171-202. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10567-017-0250-5
  • Van Heel, M., Vu, B. T., Bosmans, G., Petry, K., Hoang, D. T. y Van Leeuwen, K. (2019). Parenting practices in Vietnam: An investigation of the psychometric properties of the PBS-S and PCS. Child & Youth Care Forum, 48(1), 111-125. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10566-018-9469-7
  • Viladrich, C., Angulo-Brunet, A. y Doval, E. (2017). Un viaje alrededor de alfa y omega para estimar la fiabilidad de consistencia interna. Anales de Psicología, 33(3), 755-782. https://doi.org/10.6018/analesps.33.3.268401
  • Weitkämper, A., Kellner, M., Iffland, J. R., Driessen, M., Kley, H., Neuner, F. & Iffland, B. (2021). Childhood maltreatment in individuals with schizophrenia spectrum disorders: the impact of cut-off scores on prevalence rates. Frontiers in Psychiatry, 12, 692492. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2021.692492
  • Yoon, S., Speyer, R., Cordier, R., Aunio, P. & Hakkarainen, A. (2021). A systematic review evaluating psychometric properties of parent or caregiver report instruments on child maltreatment: Part 1: Content validity. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 22(5), 1013-1031. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524838019898456
  • Zhou, Y. (2019). A mixed methods model of scale development and validation analysis. Measurement: Interdisciplinary Research and Perspectives, 17(1), 38-47. https://doi.org/10.1080/15366367.2018.1479088
Datuen iturria: Dialnet