Youth In Residential Settings Research Articles

A Review of Family Therapy in Residential Settings

This article provides an overview of the history of family involvement in residential treatment as well as a synthesis of the research showing family-centered interventions and outcomes for youth in residential settings. There are many methods for engaging families in residential treatment that are discussed in the literature; however, there is a significant gap as the field has not yet identified specific family therapy approaches that demonstrate efficacy in working with youth and their families in this particular setting. A review of the literature over the past 10 years will highlight the emerging family therapy models being utilized in this setting, which include multiple-family group intervention, family-directed structural therapy, and narrative family therapy. The article will also include a discussion of three major, well-established theoretical approaches that have been found to be effective in working with youth with conduct issues and show promise in treating youth and families in the complex setting of residential treatment: brief strategic family therapy, multi systemic therapy, and functional family therapy.

Convergent Validity of the Strength-Based Behavioral and Emotional Rating Scale with Youth in a Residential Setting.

Strength-based assessment has been identified as an appropriate approach to use in planning treatment and evaluating outcomes of youth in residential settings. In previous research, the Behavioral and Emotional Rating Scale-2, a standardized and norm-referenced strength-based measure, has demonstrated adequate reliability and validity with youth served in community and educational settings. The purpose of the present study was to examine the internal reliability and convergent validity of the BERS-2 by comparing the test to the Child Behavior Checklist and the Symptoms and Functioning Severity Scale. The results indicate that the scores from the BERS-2 are internally consistent and converge with other behavioral and emotional measures which, taken together, suggest that the BERS-2 could be acceptable for assessing the emotional and behavioral strengths of youth in residential settings. Study limitations and future research directions are identified.

Confirmatory factor analysis of the PedsQL among youth in a residential treatment setting

The Pediatric Quality of Life assessment (PedsQL™) is the most widely used measure for assessing adolescent health-related quality of life (HRQoL). While youth in residential treatment facilities face many physical and mental health, behavioral, education, and familial challenges that could impact their HRQoL, no research has sought to assess the factor structure of the PedsQL™ among youth receiving residential care. High school-aged youth (N = 229) attending a large residential treatment center in Omaha, NE were recruited to complete a data collection packet comprised of various health assessments including the PedsQL. Four competing confirmatory factor analysis models were used to test the hypothesized internal structure of the PedsQL™ 4.0 Teen Report. Models A, B, and C had acceptable CFI (≥.90), TLI (≥.90), and RMSEA (≤.08) fit indicators. However, factor loadings for items 5 and 6 were problematic. After removing the two problematic items, Model D was fit to the data and proved to be the superior of the four models. This model included two first-order factors (physical health problems; school attendance problems) and one second-order factor (psychological health problems). The findings suggest that researchers and practitioners studying youth in residential settings can reliably use the PedsQL™ to assess their HRQoL.

Trauma Exposure, Psychosocial Functioning, and Treatment Needs of Youth in Residential Care: Preliminary Findings from the NCTSN Core Data Set

Given the high prevalence rates of trauma exposure in youth in residential treatment, evidence-based guidelines are needed to identify youth most likely to benefit from this setting. We examined trauma exposure, functional impairments, and treatment outcomes in a large clinical dataset. When compared to youth in nonresidential settings (n = 9,942), youth in residential settings (n = 525) reported both higher rates of trauma exposure across types and higher rates of impairments. Moreover, as the number of trauma types increased among youth in residential care, so did the rates of impairment. Pretreatment and post-treatment rates of impairment significantly decreased in both groups; however, nearly a third of the youth in residential care continued to manifest some impairment. Implications for practice, policy, and research are discussed.

Cognitive-behavioral treatment for antisocial behavior in youth in residential treatment.

Cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) appears to be effective in the treatment of antisocial behavior both in adolescents and adults. Treatment of antisocial behavior in youth in residential settings is a challenge since it usually involves more serious behavioral problems and takes place in a closed setting. The motivation for change is usually low and there is little possibility to address the maintenance of any behavioral changes following release. To investigate the effectiveness of CBT in reducing recidivism of adolescents placed in secure or non-secure residential settings. A secondary objective was to see if interventions that focus particularly on criminogenic needs are more effective than those with a more general focus on cognitions and behavior. We searched a number of databases including: CENTRAL 2005 (Issue 2), MEDLINE 1966 to May 2005, Sociological Abstracts 1963 to May 2005, ERIC 1966 to November 2004, Dissertation Abstracts International 1960s to 2005. We contacted experts in the field concerning current research. Both randomised controlled trials and studies with non-randomized comparison groups were included. Participants had to be young people aged 12-22 and placed in a residential setting for reasons of antisocial behavior. Two reviewers independently reviewed 93 titles and abstracts; 35 full-text reports were retrieved and data from 12 trials eligible for inclusion were extracted and entered into RevMan. Results were synthesized using a random effects model, due to the significant heterogeneity across included studies. Results are reported at 6, 12 and 24 months post-treatment, and presented in graphical (forest plots) form. Odds ratios are used throughout and intention-to-treat analyses were made with drop-outs imputed proportionally. Pooled estimates were weighted with inverse variance methods and 95% confidence intervals were used. The results for 12 months follow-up show that although single studies generally show no significant effects, the results for pooled data are clearly significant in favor of CBT compared to standard treatment with an odds ratio of 0,69. The reduction in recidivism is about 10% on the average. There is no evidence of effects after 6 or 24 months or when CBT is compared to alternative treatments. CBT seems to be a little more effective than standard treatment for youth in residential settings. The effects appear about one year after release, but there is no evidence of more long-term effects or that CBT is any better than alternative treatments.

Cognitive‐Behavioral Treatment for Antisocial Behavior in Youth in Residential Treatment

Antisocial young people who have received cognitive behavioural therapy or other types of treatment in residential settings, do better than young people who have not been offered such treatment. Twelve months after leaving the residential setting, the risk of recidivism is reduced from 53% to 43%. These are the findings of a systematic Campbell/Cochrane review of the best international research in the field.AbstractBackgroundCognitive‐behavioral therapy (CBT) appears to be effective in the treatment of antisocial behavior both in adolescents and adults. Treatment of antisocial behavior in youth in residential settings is a challenge since it usually involves more serious behavioral problems and takes place in a closed setting. The motivation for change is usually low and there is little possibility to address the maintenance of any behavioral changes following release.ObjectivesTo investigate the effectiveness of CBT in reducing recidivism of adolescents placed in secure or non‐secure residential settings. A secondary objective was to see if interventions that focus particularly on criminogenic needs are more effective than those with a more general focus on cognitions and behavior.Search strategyWe searched a number of databases including: CENTRAL 2005 (Issue 2), MEDLINE 1966 to May 2005, Sociological Abstracts 1963 to May 2005, ERIC 1966 to November 2004, Dissertation Abstracts International 1960s to 2005. We contacted experts in the field concerning current research.Selection criteriaBoth randomised controlled trials and studies with non‐randomized comparison groups were included. Participants had to be young people aged 12‐22 and placed in a residential setting for reasons of antisocial behavior.Data collection & analysisTwo reviewers independently reviewed 93 titles and abstracts; 35 full‐text reports were retrieved and data from 12 trials eligible for inclusion were extracted and entered into RevMan. Results were synthesized using a random effects model, due to the significant heterogeneity across included studies. Results are reported at 6, 12 and 24 months post‐treatment, and presented in graphical (forest plots) form. Odds ratios are used throughout and intention‐to‐treat analyses were made with drop‐outs imputed proportionally. Pooled estimates were weighted with inverse variance methods and 95% confidence intervals were used.Main resultsThe results for 12 months follow‐up show that although single studies generally show no significant effects, the results for pooled data are clearly significant in favor of CBT compared to standard treatment with an odds ratio of 0,69. The reduction in recidivism is about 10% on the average. There is no evidence of effects after 6 or 24 months or when CBT is compared to alternative treatments.Reviewers’ conclusionsCBT seems to be a little more effective than standard treatment for youth in residential settings. The effects appear about one year after release, but there is no evidence of more long‐term effects or that CBT is any better than alternative treatments.

Adolescents, Parents, and Residential School in Intercultural Transition: One Story from Three Angles

The education of immigrant youth in residential settings provides an alternative framework that offers solutions for some of the urgent problems of families in cultural transition. This paper focuses on a previously neglected area of research, namely, the trilateral relations between immigrant parents, their adolescent offspring, and the professional staff of such residential institutions in the Israeli context. The study probes the mutual perceptions of shifting intra-family liaisons and the views of the educational staff regarding the perception of its role as a mediator between immigrant parents and their children.

Brief report: Measuring self-efficacy with female adolescents who are conduct disordered: Validation of the program efficacy scale

This study focused on measuring self-efficacy with 44 female conduct disordered youth involuntarily placed in a long-term residential setting. The Program Efficacy Scale (PES) was developed as a measure of self-efficacy linked specifically to program completion. Construct validity for this measure was assessed by correlating it to the Generalized Self-Efficacy Scale (GSE) developed by Tipton and Worthington (1984) and other measures of program success. The PES was found to be significantly related to the GSE, length of placement, level of program achievement, and effort ratings by staff. Possible uses for the PES in predicting success or failure with youth in residential settings are discussed.