Search results

1 – 2 of 2
Article
Publication date: 9 September 2013

Ruth Marlow, William T. Hunt, Marie-Claire Reville, Andrena Lynes, Jade Lowe and Tamsin Ford

Community-based randomised control trials (RCTs) rely heavily on the involvement and collaboration of statutory and third-sector services and their employees. This paper seeks to…

Abstract

Purpose

Community-based randomised control trials (RCTs) rely heavily on the involvement and collaboration of statutory and third-sector services and their employees. This paper seeks to explore the experiences of practitioners working within a statutory children and family service setting that delivered additional parenting programmes evaluated by an RCT.

Design/methodology/approach

Practitioners completed a semi-structured interview about their experiences of the research trial based on a topic guide. Interviews were recorded, transcribed and analysed using thematic analysis.

Findings

Results suggest that the experience of being involved in research was mostly positive for practitioners, but also produced additional stress. The research brought them the experience of being involved with national and international teams; and they valued the additional supervision and training that they received. They spoke about the skills that they developed and how they were able to continue to use these after the research trial had ended.

Originality/value

Little is known about how services working alongside major research projects experience their involvement and what impact, if any, this has on them. This may be important as it could influence successful recruitment and retention of practitioners during RCTs, and the successful design and execution of other types of evaluation.

Details

Journal of Children's Services, vol. 8 no. 3
Type: Research Article
ISSN: 1746-6660

Keywords

Article
Publication date: 12 March 2014

Hannah L. Thompson, Marie-Claire Reville, Anna Price, Laura Reynolds, Lauren Rodgers and Tamsin Ford

There is a lack of valid and reliable generic measures of Health-Related Quality of Life (HRQoL) for children under eight. The purpose of this paper is to assess the psychometric…

Abstract

Purpose

There is a lack of valid and reliable generic measures of Health-Related Quality of Life (HRQoL) for children under eight. The purpose of this paper is to assess the psychometric properties of the newly formulated Quality of Life Scale for Children (QoL-C), which uses a pictorial response format.

Design/methodology/approach

In total, 335 primary school children completed the QoL-C on two occasions, two weeks apart. Children aged four to seven were interviewed one-to-one while children aged eight to nine completed the measure as a class activity. Test-re-test reliability, convergent validity and child-parent concordance were assessed.

Findings

Only one child refused to complete the QoL-C, which suggests the measure is user-friendly. Test-re-test reliability was moderate for the measure's total score (intraclass correlation coefficient =0.48, 95 percent CI 0.39, 0.57) but low to fair for individual items (K from 0.13 to 0.37). Internal consistency was moderate (α=0.42 time one, 0.53 time two). A small significant correlation was found between the QoL-C and Child Health Meter in the expected direction (r=−0.32), suggesting convergent validity. There was low concordance between the children's QoL-C responses and parent's responses (r=0.19) to a parallel measure.

Research limitations/implications

The results suggest that further development of this measure is needed. However, the findings indicate that one-to-one support increases the reliability of very young children's responses. The use of pictures, emoticons and minimal text used in the QoL-C should be investigated further.

Originality/value

Low parent-child concordance underscores the importance of younger children getting the opportunity to share their views about their HRQoL.

Details

Journal of Children's Services, vol. 9 no. 1
Type: Research Article
ISSN: 1746-6660

Keywords

Access

Year

All dates (2)

Content type

1 – 2 of 2