Assessing Fidelity to a Community-Based Treatment for Youth

Bruns, Eric J.; Burchard, John D.; Suter, Jesse C.; Leverentz-Brady, Kristen M.; Force, Michelle M.

doi:10.1177/10634266040120020201

Cited by 66 publications

(79 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The WFI 4.0 and earlier versions of the tool are both reliable and valid (Bruns et al 2004(Bruns et al , 2007. WFI interviewers complete a comprehensive training protocol that includes certification to insure that WFI ratings are made reliably.…”

Section: Dependent Variables and Proceduresmentioning

confidence: 99%

Connecting the Dots: Stages of Implementation, Wraparound Fidelity and Youth Outcomes

Effland¹,

Walton

McIntyre³

2011

J Child Fam Stud

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Wraparound is a family-driven, youth guided, team-based process for planning and implementing services and supports (Miles et al. 2006). The National Wraparound Initiative (NWI) has identified ten elements of wraparound (i.e., family voice and choice, team based, natural supports, collaborative, community based, culturally competent, individualized, strengths based, persistence and outcomes based) and four phases through which teams consisting of the identified youth, his/her parents or caregivers, family members, community members, mental health professionals, and others are expected to move as they develop and implement a single plan of care. The plan of care includes the services and supports necessary to build on the strengths of the youth and his/her family and addresses the complex needs of the youth involved in the wraparound process.Emerging evidence supports the effectiveness of wraparound for youth who have needs in multiple life domains (e.g., home, school and community). Nine controlled studies of wraparound (see Bruns and Suter 2010;Suter and Bruns 2009) found improved outcomes for youth in wraparound compared to similar youth in other programs, with effect sizes similar to those found in studies of other evidence based interventions implemented in real world practice (Suter and Bruns 2009). However, only one of the nine studies considered the relationship between wraparound fidelity and outcomes (Bruns et al. 2006). Research on other evidencebased practices has repeatedly found that fidelity to the practice model is vital to outcomes (e.g., Henggeler et al. 1997;McGrew et al. 1994;Walton 2006). Additional research on wraparound that includes a measure of fidelity as well as further research on the factors that predict successful outcomes for youth involved in the wraparound process are needed Cox et al. 2010

show abstract

Section: Dependent Variables and Proceduresmentioning

confidence: 99%

Connecting the Dots: Stages of Implementation, Wraparound Fidelity and Youth Outcomes

Effland¹,

Walton

McIntyre³

2011

J Child Fam Stud

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The growing emphasis on the wraparound approach as a prescribed practice model within federally-funded SOCs has led to efforts to increase the specificity of the approach (e.g. see National Wraparound Initiative), and research has increasingly focused on the degree to which implementation is consistent with the tenets of wraparound (Bruns et al 2007;Bruns et al 2004;Bruns et al 2005). Examining wraparound fidelity is particularly salient for efforts to advance wraparound practice, because regular feedback about practice is essential for quality improvement efforts.…”

Section: Wraparound Implementation and Fidelitymentioning

confidence: 99%

The Impact of Child and Family Team Composition on Wraparound Fidelity: Examining Links Between Team Attendance Consistency and Functioning

et al. 2011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Wraparound, the process by which families and professionals work in collaboration to help plan and implement services, has become the dominant practice model for providing services for children with severe emotional disturbances and their families (Faw 1999), particularly within Systems of Care (SOCs;Hernandez 2003;Stroul and Friedman 1986). The wraparound model consists of ten principles, including a team-based model for planning and implementation of services (Suter and Bruns 2009). These child and family teams (CFTs) are a central component of wraparound implementation. However, growing evidence suggests that the complex set of processes that define wraparound (Burns and Goldman 1999;VanDenBerg and Grealish 1996) are not implemented consistently, even in SOCs where the model is most supported. In fact, research suggests that many CFTs do not engage in many of the practices and processes considered central to wraparound implementation (Bruns et al. 2007;Cook et al. 2008;Walker and Schutte 2005). Although a growing body of literature has examined fidelity of wraparound implementation, factors that contribute to fidelity, and the relationship between fidelity and child and family outcomes, the importance of such factors as the level and stability of team members' participation over time have not been systematically examined.In a monograph produced by The National Implementation Research Network (NIRN; Fixsen et al. 2005), the authors synthesize the implementation literature across disciplines and describe core intervention components, stages of implementation, and outcomes for implementation or intervention. They also detail the multiple levels of influences on successful implementation, i.e.,

show abstract

“…According to Schoenwald's (2011) definition, the fidelity measures were perhaps inefficient. For example, the Wraparound Fidelity Index (version 2) average completion time per team was 20 min for each of three reportersthe staff coordinator, caregiver, and the youth (Bruns et al, 2004). Additional time was necessary for arranging interviews and entering the data, further increasing the cost of employing this tool.…”

Section: The Relationship Between Fidelity and Program Effectivenessmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For the Wraparound process, the Wraparound Fidelity Index was developed to capture adherence to the 11 core program principles (family voice and choice, teamdriven, individualized, natural supports, community-based, culturally competent, strengths-based, unconditional care, collaboration, flexible resources, outcomes) (Bruns, Burchard, Suter, Leverentz-Brady, & Force, 2004;Bruns et al, 2005). Data for this measure were collected through structured interviews with multiple informants including the caregiver, the youth, and the care coordinator.…”

Section: The Relationship Between Fidelity and Program Effectivenessmentioning

confidence: 99%

Is implementation fidelity associated with improved access to care in a School-based Child and Family Team model?

Gifford

Wells

Malone

2015

Evaluation and Program Planning

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Assessing Fidelity to a Community-Based Treatment for Youth

Cited by 66 publications

References 10 publications

Connecting the Dots: Stages of Implementation, Wraparound Fidelity and Youth Outcomes

Connecting the Dots: Stages of Implementation, Wraparound Fidelity and Youth Outcomes

The Impact of Child and Family Team Composition on Wraparound Fidelity: Examining Links Between Team Attendance Consistency and Functioning

Is implementation fidelity associated with improved access to care in a School-based Child and Family Team model?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About