Skip to main content



Child-Maltreatment-Research-L (CMRL) List Serve

Browse or Search All Past CMRL Messages

Welcome to the database of past Child-Maltreatment-Research-L (CMRL) list serve messages (10,000+). The table below contains all past CMRL messages (text only, no attachments) from Nov. 20, 1996 - September 14, 2018 and is updated quarterly.

Instructions: Postings are listed for browsing with the newest messages first. Click on the linked ID number to see a message. You can search the author, subject, message ID, and message content fields by entering your criteria into this search box:

Message ID: 8526
Date: 2010-04-30

Author:Michelle Johnson

Subject:Regarding "Assessing Parent Education Programs for Families Involved with Child Welfare Services: Evidence and Implications"

In the current era of "evidence," Cochrane procedures are the most rigorous guidelines available to us. This is not a question. However, in literatures reflecting a wide range of methodologies, other types of reviews are not without value or purpose. During the planning stages of this project we considered the development of a systematic review using Cochrane procedures. Based on a preliminary search and our collective understanding of the knowledge base in this area, we determined that this nascent body of literature, heterogeneous in study design and comprised predominately of non-randomized studies, was not conducive to the application of procedures for the review of randomized control trials. While the current version of the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions (Version 5) has evolved to include chapters on evidence other than randomized control trials, most of the text is oriented to clinical trials, particularly randomized trials. As the state of the literature on our topic came into focus, we were presented with difficult questions. These questions centered on what we could contribute, particularly in light of the information needs expressed by the social service agencies that had contracted with us for the review. Rather than restrict our review to a few RCTs, we opted for a more comprehensive effort to assess the general state of the literature on parenting program development and evaluation in the context of maltreating populations, and to examine the extent to which program elements intersect with leading etiological theories of child maltreatment. The review reveals the development of knowledge in this area, points to future directions for research, and provides practitioners with some considerations for contracting for parenting programs, which they are typically required to do in an era of limited information on the topic. To characterize something as haphazard suggests that it is marked by a lack of planning, order, or direction. This review was not a random exercise. -- Michelle A. Johnson, Ph.D., MSW Assistant Professor UCLA School of Public Affairs, Department of Social Welfare 3250 Public Affairs Building, Box 951656 Los Angeles, CA 90095-1656 Office: (310) 825-9661 Fax: (310) 206-7564 E-mail: maj@ucla.edu Child Maltreatment Researchers digest wrote: > CHILD-MALTREATMENT-RESEARCH-L Digest for Wednesday, April 14, 2010. > > 1. Re: child-maltreatment-research-l digest: April 12, 2010 > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Subject: Re: child-maltreatment-research-l digest: April 12, 2010 > From: Julia Littell > Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2010 08:55:30 -0400 > X-Message-Number: 1 > > It is important to note that, like most reviews upon which "evidence based > practices" (Triple P, PCIT, MST, FFT) are based, this is a *haphazard* > review. Although it is extensive and thoughtful, it does not adhere to > current scientific standards for reviewing research (Cochrane Handbook, > PRISMA). How can we expect practitioners to use evidence about practice if > reviewers don't use evidence about reviewing? This is not an academic > concern; summaries presented in Figure 5 are misleading (e.g., compare > summary of MST/PT on p. 23 to a detailed analysis of the study cited here > in Littell, J. H. (2008). Evidence-based or biased? The quality of > published reviews of evidence-based practices. *Children and Youth Services > Review, 30, *1299-1317). > > > > > On Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 6:55 AM, Michelle Johnson wrote: > > >> The Bay Area Social Services Consortium at UC Berkeley conducted an >> extensive literature review on the outcomes of 58 parent education programs >> with families determined to be at-risk of child maltreatment and/or abusive >> or neglectful. The report, "Assessing Parent Education Programs for Families >> Involved with Child Welfare Services: Evidence and Implications," is located >> at >> >> http://www.bassc.net/html/research/projects_details.html >> >> More studies have come out since the 2006 publication. This report may be a >> helpful starting point in your search. >> >> -- >> Michelle A. Johnson, Ph.D., MSW >> Assistant Professor >> UCLA School of Public Affairs, Department of Social Welfare >> 3250 Public Affairs Building, Box 951656 >> Los Angeles, CA 90095-1656 >> Office: (310) 825-9661 Fax: (310) 206-7564 E-mail: maj@ucla.edu >> >> >> > >

In the current era of "evidence," Cochrane procedures are the most rigorous guidelines available to us. This is not a question. However, in literatures reflecting a wide range of methodologies, other types of reviews are not without value or purpose. During the planning stages of this project we considered the development of a systematic review using Cochrane procedures. Based on a preliminary search and our collective understanding of the knowledge base in this area, we determined that this nascent body of literature, heterogeneous in study design and comprised predominately of non-randomized studies, was not conducive to the application of procedures for the review of randomized control trials. While the current version of the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions (Version 5) has evolved to include chapters on evidence other than randomized control trials, most of the text is oriented to clinical trials, particularly randomized trials. As the state of the literature on our topic came into focus, we were presented with difficult questions. These questions centered on what we could contribute, particularly in light of the information needs expressed by the social service agencies that had contracted with us for the review. Rather than restrict our review to a few RCTs, we opted for a more comprehensive effort to assess the general state of the literature on parenting program development and evaluation in the context of maltreating populations, and to examine the extent to which program elements intersect with leading etiological theories of child maltreatment. The review reveals the development of knowledge in this area, points to future directions for research, and provides practitioners with some considerations for contracting for parenting programs, which they are typically required to do in an era of limited information on the topic. To characterize something as haphazard suggests that it is marked by a lack of planning, order, or direction. This review was not a random exercise. -- Michelle A. Johnson, Ph.D., MSW Assistant Professor UCLA School of Public Affairs, Department of Social Welfare 3250 Public Affairs Building, Box 951656 Los Angeles, CA 90095-1656 Office: (310) 825-9661 Fax: (310) 206-7564 E-mail: majucla.edu Child Maltreatment Researchers digest wrote: > CHILD-MALTREATMENT-RESEARCH-L Digest for Wednesday, April 14, 2010. > > 1. Re: child-maltreatment-research-l digest: April 12, 2010 > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Subject: Re: child-maltreatment-research-l digest: April 12, 2010 > From: Julia Littell > Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2010 08:55:30 -0400 > X-Message-Number: 1 > > It is important to note that, like most reviews upon which "evidence based > practices" (Triple P, PCIT, MST, FFT) are based, this is a *haphazard* > review. Although it is extensive and thoughtful, it does not adhere to > current scientific standards for reviewing research (Cochrane Handbook, > PRISMA). How can we expect practitioners to use evidence about practice if > reviewers don't use evidence about reviewing? This is not an academic > concern; summaries presented in Figure 5 are misleading (e.g., compare > summary of MST/PT on p. 23 to a detailed analysis of the study cited here > in Littell, J. H. (2008). Evidence-based or biased? The quality of > published reviews of evidence-based practices. *Children and Youth Services > Review, 30, *1299-1317). > > > > > On Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 6:55 AM, Michelle Johnson wrote: > > >> The Bay Area Social Services Consortium at UC Berkeley conducted an >> extensive literature review on the outcomes of 58 parent education programs >> with families determined to be at-risk of child maltreatment and/or abusive >> or neglectful. The report, "Assessing Parent Education Programs for Families >> Involved with Child Welfare Services: Evidence and Implications," is located >> at >> >> http://www.bassc.net/html/research/projects_details.html >> >> More studies have come out since the 2006 publication. This report may be a >> helpful starting point in your search. >> >> -- >> Michelle A. Johnson, Ph.D., MSW >> Assistant Professor >> UCLA School of Public Affairs, Department of Social Welfare >> 3250 Public Affairs Building, Box 951656 >> Los Angeles, CA 90095-1656 >> Office: (310) 825-9661 Fax: (310) 206-7564 E-mail: majucla.edu >> >> >> > >