Psychometric Properties of the North Carolina Family Assessment Scale (NCFAS) for Vulnerable Preschoolers from Ecuador

Journal of Child and Family Studies - Tập 33 Số 1 - Trang 103-113 - 2024
Karina Ramírez-Morales1, Marta Sadurní2, Iván Ramírez-Morales3
1Laboratory of Attachment and Human Development, University of Girona, Plaça Sant Domènec, 9 17004, Girona, Spain
2Laboratory of Attachment and Human Development, University of Girona, Girona, Spain
3Group for the Development and Implementation of New Technologies, Technical University of Machala, Machala, Ecuador

Tóm tắt

AbstractPositive parenting and appropriate interaction with children are globally recognized as pivotal in enhancing children’s quality of life. Evaluating family intervention programs is therefore vital, particularly in regions that lack reliable tools for assessment. This manuscript details a study conducted in Ecuador, a country noted for its scarcity of validated instruments to assess the impact of such interventions, especially for vulnerable preschool children. We focused on the application of the North Carolina Family Assessment Scale (NCFAS), a well-established measure to evaluate family functioning internationally, to Ecuadorian families with preschool children who are deemed vulnerable. The Spanish translation of the original scale was administered by trained evaluators to 470 preschool children in Machala, Ecuador. Our examination of the psychometric properties of the NCFAS in this context demonstrated high internal consistency. Additionally, factor analysis corroborated the reliability and validity of this adapted version of the NCFAS, albeit with a reduced item count. This research supports the effectiveness of the NCFAS in the Ecuadorian setting and underscores its potential utility in further studies involving varied demographic groups within the country. The results of this study have substantial implications for the enhancement of children’s quality of life in Ecuador through family intervention programs.

Từ khóa


Tài liệu tham khảo

Akin, B. A., & Gomi, S. (2017). Noncompletion of evidence-based parent training: An empirical examination among families of children in foster care. Journal of Social Service Research, 43(1), 52–68. https://doi.org/10.1080/01488376.2016.1226229.

Akin, B. A., Lang, K., Yan, Y., & McDonald, T. P. (2018). Randomized trial of PMTO in foster care: 12-month child well-being, parenting, and caregiver functioning outcomes. Children and Youth Services Review, 95, 49–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2018.10.018.

Bernal-Salazar, R., & Rico, D. (2010). La importancia de los programas para la primera infancia en Colombia. Universidad de los Andes, Facultad de Economía, CEDE.

Busso, G. (20 y 21 de junio del 2001). Vulnerabilidad social: nociones e implicancias de políticas para Latinoamérica a inicios del siglo XXI. Seminario Internacional “Las diferentes expresiones de la vulnerabilidad Social en América Latina y el Caribe”, Santiago de Chile. CEPAL.

Carmines, E. G., & Zeller, R. A. (1979). Reliability and validity assessment. SAGE Publications.

Cho, G., Hwang, H., Sarstedt, M., & Ringle, C. M. (2020). Cutoff criteria for overall model fit indexes in generalized structured component analysis. Journal of Marketing Analytics, 8(4), 189–202. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41270-020-00089-1.

Conner, N. W., & Fraser, M. W. (2011). Preschool social–emotional skills training: A controlled pilot test of the making choices and strong families programs. Research on Social Work Practice, 21(6), 699–711. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049731511408115.

Early, T. J., & GlenMaye, L. F. (2000). Valuing families: Social work practice with families from a strengths perspective. Social Work, 45(2), 118–130. https://doi.org/10.1093/sw/45.2.118.

Farrell, A. F., Britner, P. A., Guzzardo, M., & Goodrich, S. (2010). Supportive housing for families in child welfare: Client characteristics and their outcomes at discharge. Children and Youth Services Review, 32(2), 145–154. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2009.06.012.

Fernandez, E. (2007). Supporting children and responding to their families: Capturing the evidence on family support. Children and Youth Services Review, 29(10), 1368–1394. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2007.05.012.

Fernandez, E. (2013a). Assessment and intervention. In E. Fernandez (Ed.), Accomplishing permanency: Reunification pathways and outcomes for foster children (pp. 45–66). Springer Netherlands.

Fernandez, E. (2013b). Care patterns and outcomes of reunification. In E. Fernandez (Ed.), Accomplishing permanency: Reunification pathways and outcomes for foster children (pp. 79–86). Springer Netherlands.

Fernandez, E., & Atwool, N. (2013). Child protection and out of home care: Policy, practice, and research connections Australia and New Zealand. Psychosocial Intervention, 22(3), 175–184. https://doi.org/10.5093/in2013a21.

Fernandez, E., & Lee, J.-S. (2011). Returning children in care to their families: Factors associated with the speed of reunification. Child Indicators Research, 4(4), 749–765. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12187-011-9121-7.

Fernandez, E., & Lee, J.-S. (2013). Accomplishing family reunification for children in care: An Australian study. Children and Youth Services Review, 35(9), 1374–1384. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2013.05.006.

Giacometti, C., & Pautassi, L. C. (2014). Infancia y (des)protección social: Un análisis comparado en cinco países latinoamericanos. Naciones Unidas; CEPAL-UNICEF

Gómez, E. (2010). El desafío de evaluar familias desde un enfoque ecosistémico: Nuevos aportes a la confiabilidad y validez de las escalas NCFAS. In L. Lira (Ed.), Familia y diversidad (pp. 95–126). Fundación San José para la Adopción

Gómez, E., Cifuentes, B., & Ortún, C. (2012). Padres competentes, hijos protegidos: Evaluación de resultados del programa “viviendo en familia. Psychosocial Intervention, 21(3), 259–271. https://doi.org/10.5093/in2012a23.

Gómez, E. A., Cifuentes, B., & Ross, M. I. (2010). Previniendo el maltrato infantil: Descripción psicosocial de usuarios de programas de intervención breve en Chile. Universitas Psychologica, 9(3), 823–840. https://doi.org/10.11144/javeriana.upsy9-3.pmid.

Haefner, C. (2011). Fortalezas y debilidades del desarrollo regional y social: El caso de la región de los lagos. Revista MAD (2). https://doi.org/10.5354/0718-0527.2000.14858

Hurley, K. D., Griffith, A. K., Casey, K. J., Ingram, S., & Simpson, A. (2011). Behavioral and emotional outcomes of an in-home parent training intervention for young children. Journal of At-Risk. Issues, 16(2), 1–7.

INEC. (2010, October 1). Población y demografía. https://www.ecuadorencifras.gob.ec/censo-de-poblacion-y-vivienda/

Jamovi. (2021). The Jamovi Project (version 2.2) [computer software]. https://www.jamovi.org/

Johnson, M. A., Stone, S., Lou, C., Vu, C. M., Ling, J., Mizrahi, P., & Austin, M. J. (2008). Family assessment in child welfare services: Instrument comparisons. Journal of Evidence-Based Social Work, 5(1-2), 57–90. https://doi.org/10.1300/j394v05n01_04.

Katsikitis, M., Bignell, K., Rooskov, N., Elms, L., & Davidson, G. R. (2013). The family strengthening program: Influences on parental mood, parental sense of competence and family functioning. Advances in Mental Health, 11(2), 143–151. https://doi.org/10.5172/jamh.2013.11.2.143.

Kirk, R. S. (2012). Development, intent, and use of the North Carolina family assessment scales, and their relation to reliability and validity of the scales. https://www.nfpn.org/media/8d86bb8bc37491c/ncfas_scale_development.pdf

Kirk, R. S., Griffith, D. P., & Martens, P. (2007). An examination of intensive family preservation services. https://www.nfpn.org/media/8d86bb4d3205bc1/ifrs-research.pdf

Kirk, R. S., Kim, M. M., & Griffith, D. P. (2005). Advances in the reliability and validity of the North Carolina family assessment scale. Journal of Human Behavior in the Social Environment, 11(3–4), 157–176. https://doi.org/10.1300/j137v11n03_08.

Kirk, R. S., & Martens, P. (2006). Development and field testing of the North Carolina Family Assessment Scale for general services (NCFAS-G). https://www.nfpn.org/media/8d86bbcfea93b33/ncfasg_research_report.pdf

Kirk, R. S., & Martens, P. (2015). Field test and reliability analyses of trauma and post-trauma well-being domains of the North Carolina Family Assessment Scale for general and reunification services. https://www.nfpn.org/media/8d86b1d66c9613b/trauma-report.pdf

Kirk, R. S., & Reed-Ashcraft, K. (2007). Escala de evaluación familiar de carolina del norte - escala & definiciones (Version 2). National Family Preservation Network.

Kirk, R. S., & Reed-Ashcraft, K. B. (1998). User’s guide for the North Carolina Family Assessment Scale (NCFAS) version 2.0. http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.493.5929

Kirk, R. S., & Reed-Ashcraft, K. B. (2004). NCFAS research report. http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.493.5929

Lai, K. (2021). Fit difference between nonnested models given categorical data: Measures and estimation. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 28(1), 99–120. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2020.1763802.

Lee, B. R., & Lindsey, M. A. (2010). North Carolina family assessment scale: Measurement properties for youth mental health services. Research on Social Work Practice, 20(2), 202–211. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049731509334180.

Malvaso, C. G., & Delfabbro, P. H. (2020). Description and evaluation of a trial program aimed at reunifying adolescents in statutory long-term out-of-home care with their birth families: The adolescent reunification program. Children and Youth Services Review, 119, 105570 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2020.105570.

Matus, T., Haz, A. M., Razeto, A., Funk, R., Roa, K., & Canales, L. (2008). Innovar en calidad: Construcción de un modelo de certificación de calidad para programas sociales. Andros Impresores.

Mavrou, I. (2015). Análisis factorial exploratorio: Cuestiones conceptuales y metodológicas. Revista Nebrija de Lingüística Aplicada a la Enseñanza de Lenguas, 19, 71–80. https://doi.org/10.26378/rnlael019283.

Meadowcroft, P., Townsend, M. Z., & Maxwell, A. (2018). A sustainable alternative to the gold standard EBP: Validating existing programs. The Journal of Behavioral Health Services & Research, 45(3), 421–439. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11414-018-9599-6.

Ministerio de Turismo. (2008). Transportes en Ecuador. https://vivecuador.com/html2/esp/transporte.htm#:~:text=El%20servicio%20de%20taxi%20funciona%20eficazmente%20las%2024%20horas.&text=El%20bus%20es%20el%20medio,la%20distancia%20y%20al%20servicio.

Olsen, L. J., Laprade, V., & Holmes, W. M. (2015). Supports for families affected by substance abuse. Journal of Public Child Welfare, 9(5), 551–570. https://doi.org/10.1080/15548732.2015.1091761.

Ortiz-Ruiz, N., & Díaz-Grajales, C. (2018). Una mirada a la vulnerabilidad social desde las familias. Revista Mexicana de Sociología, 80(3), 611–638. https://doi.org/10.22201/iis.01882503p.2018.3.57739.

Osborne, J. W. (2015). What is rotating in exploratory factor analysis? Practical Assessment, Research, and Evaluation, 20, 2 https://doi.org/10.7275/hb2g-m060.

Oviedo, H. C., & Arias, A. C. (2005). Aproximación al uso del coeficiente alfa de Cronbach. Revista Colombiana de Psiquiatría, XXXIV(4), 572–580.

Pérez, F., & Santelices, A. M. P. (2016). Sintomatología depresiva, estrés parental y funcionamiento familiar. Revista Argentina de Clínica Psicológica, XXV(3), 235–244.

Python. (2022). Python software foundation (version 3) [computer software]. http://www.python.org

Reed-Ashcraft, K., Kirk, R. S., & Fraser, M. W. (2001). The reliability and validity of the North Carolina Family Assessment Scale. Research on Social Work Practice, 11(4), 503–520. https://doi.org/10.1177/104973150101100406.

Reed, K. (1998). The reliability and validity of the North Carolina Family Assessment Scale. University of North Carolina.

Rossi, P. H., Lipsey, M. W., & Henry, G. T. (2018). Evaluation: A systematic approach. SAGE Publications.

Shahidi, F. V., Ramraj, C., Sod-Erdene, O., Hildebrand, V., & Siddiqi, A. (2019). The impact of social assistance programs on population health: A systematic review of research in high-income countries. BMC public health, 19(1), 2 https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-018-6337-1.

Taibo, L. C., Gutierrez, C. P., & Muzzio, E. G. (2018). Graves vulneraciones de derechos en la infancia y adolescencia: Variables de funcionamiento familiar. Universitas Psychologica, 17(3), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.11144/javeriana.upsy17-3.gvdi.

Valencia, E., & Gómez, E. (2010). An eco-systemic family assessment scale for social programs: Reliability and validity of NCFAS in a high psychosocial risk population. Psykhe (Santiago), 19(1), 89–103. https://doi.org/10.4067/S0718-22282010000100007.

Worthington, R. L., & Whittaker, T. A. (2006). Scale development research: A content analysis and recommendations for best practices. The Counseling Psychologist, 34(6), 806–838. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011000006288127.

Xia, Y., & Yang, Y. (2019). RMSEA, CFI, and TLI in structural equation modeling with ordered categorical data: The story they tell depends on the estimation methods. Behavior Research Methods, 51(1), 409–428. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-018-1055-2.

Yan, Y., & De Luca, S. (2021). Heterogeneity of treatment effects of PMTO in foster care: A latent profile transition analysis. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 30(1), 17–28. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-020-01798-y.

Yumbay, M. (26 de febrero del 2019). Proyecto de Red de Protección Social en Ecuador. Ministerio de Inclusión Económica Y Social. https://www.inclusion.gob.ec/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/2PRIM.pdf.

Thông tin
Thông tin xuất bản

Journal of Child and Family Studies

Tập 33 Số 1

103-113

Thông tin tác giả