UvA-DARE (Digital Academic Repository) The outcome of institutional youth care compared to non-institutional youth care for children of primary school age and early adolescence A multi-level meta-analysis

This study examines the external validity of a nationwide dataset, considering the fact that clients can refuse the extraction of their clinical information to aggregate datasets. Data of 949 youths (56% boys, mean age 15.6 years, SD = 1.49) from six Dutch residential institutions were included. An individual-variables and a person-oriented approach were applied to examine the extent to which the group giving permission to the use of their data for aggregate purposes (66%) is representative for the total population in secure residential youth care. Both static, nonchangeable client information as well as dynamic, changeable client information were gathered. Youths who assented to the use of their information were overrepresented amongst the population of some of the participating institutions, and were more often Caucasian. Three start profiles based on the dynamic variables were distinguished. Youths who assent were overrepresented in the most problematic profile, whereas youth who did not assent were overrepresented in the least problematic profile. To improve the external validity and the value of the monitor, it is important to achieve more uniformity between institutions as far as the procedures are concerned, and to find creative ways to increase the assent levels, particularly among ethnic minorities.

It is widely recognized that young children in group care can benefit from a positive group climate. This is usually monitored from the caregiver's perspective. This study describes the development and validation of the Group Climate Instrument for Children aged 4 to 8 years (GCIC 4-8), which aims to measure the quality of group climate, based on the views of the young children themselves. A confirmatory factor analysis of the GCIC 4-8 was performed on data of 116 children in Dutch (semi) residential youth care, followed by an analysis of the internal consistency reliability of the scales. An adequate fit of a two-factor model (positive and negative climate) indicated construct validity of the GCIC 4-8. Reliability coefficients were sufficient. The GCIC 4-8 can be used to measure positive and negative aspects of group climate in (specialized) group care. Using this instrument on a regular basis can help group workers to better understand the dynamics in their group, enabling them to make continuous improvements as a team, thereby helping the children in their personal and social development.

This study describes the development and validation of the Group Climate Instrument for Children aged 8 to 15 years , which purports to measure the quality of group climate in residential care. Methods: A confirmatory factor analysis was performed on data of 117 children in Dutch residential youth care. Reliability analysis was performed and concurrent validity was tested. Results: An adequate fit of a two-factor model indicated construct validity of the GCIC 8-15. Reliability coefficients were good, and a significant correlation between perceived group climate and treatment motivation supported concurrent validity. Discussion: The GCIC 8-15 can be used to identify positive and negative aspects of group climate in residential youth care and enables further group climate research with children.

Purpose: This study examined the construct validity and reliability of a therapeutic alliance measure (Children's Alliance Questionnaire [CAQ]) for children with psychosocial and/or behavioral problems, receiving therapeutic residential care or day care in the Netherlands. Methods: Confirmatory factor analysis of a one-factor model ''therapeutic alliance'' was conducted on two samples of 115 and 116 children, aged 4-14 years. Reliability analysis and concurrent validity were examined. Results: Results showed a good fit to the data, indicating construct validity of the measures. Cronbach's a reliability coefficients were good for both alliance measures. Concurrent validity was supported by significant relations between the alliance scale and positive group climate (Group Climate Instrument for Children [GCIC]) and treatment motivation (Adolescent Treatment Motivation Questionnaire). No correlations with negative group climate (GCIC) were found. Discussion: The CAQ can be used as an assessment tool for therapeutic alliance within both residential treatment and therapeutic day care settings for children.