Methodological approach of the study - Study 1 The initial study

Chapter 3: Study 1 The initial study

3.3 Methodological approach of the study

Ethical approval for this study was given by the University of Liverpool Research Ethics Committee (see Appendix 1 for confirmation of ethical approval). I had intended to compare pre- intervention and post-intervention outcome data to evidence the effectiveness of the interventions. Embedded in the interventions were tools to measure outcomes and provide evaluation data. Table 3.1 indicates which tools were administered in relation to each intervention, who was invited to complete the tools, and the time point at which these tools were to be completed. The majority of these measures were routinely administered by the DVA organisation before and after the interventions were delivered, in theory, enabling comparisons between the outcomes at two different time points, the first being pre-intervention and the second being one-month post- intervention. Post-intervention outcomes were either administered by intervention facilitators visiting families and collecting the data, or by posting the measures in a self- addressed stamped envelope. However, some tools were intended to be administered during the middle of the intervention which involved facilitators visiting parents to collect this data. Whilst the DVA organisation administered the tools to children and parents, I administered one tool to children’s teachers via post, in order to examine the impact of the interventions from the viewpoints of children’s teachers. In order to further explore the longevity of intervention outcomes, I also administered this tool to teachers six months post-intervention. Before providing further details about accessing and collecting data, the following sub-sections outline the tools administered.

3.3.1 Tools used for all interventions

This section provides further details about the tools administered in order to establish the effectiveness of the interventions. As indicated in Table 3.1, Tool A the

Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ; Goodman, 1997; Appendix 2), is a measure of social, emotional and behavioural functioning, and was used to assess the effectiveness of all three interventions. The SDQ uses a multi-informant approach whereby the tool can be administered as a self-report questionnaire (SDQ-S) for young people aged 11-17 years, it can be completed by a parent (SDQ- P) and by a teacher (SDQ-T) (Vaz et al., 2016). The responses for each item are grouped into one of five subscales: emotional, conduct, hyperactivity, peer relationship and prosocial. A total difficulties score is generated from these subscales. It should be noted that norms have been established for likely clinicalcases, for example, those requiring further assessment and support (Goodman, Meltzer, & Bailey, 1998). The SDQ also has an impact

supplement that assesses distress, burden to others, and how long the difficulties have been present. I asked teachers to provide contextual information regarding children’s school attendance, behavioural incidents and academic achievement (Appendix 3), to aid in contextualising the results from the SDQ-T.

Table 3.1: Tools used to demonstrate effectiveness of Interventions, A, B and C

Intervention Measure Timing of measure

completion

Data source

Intervention A

Tool A: Goodman’s Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ)

Pre- and post- intervention (all to complete one-month post, and teachers to also complete six months- post intervention)

Parent (SDQ-P) and Teacher (SDQ-T)

Tool B: Midway review Halfway through intervention

Parent

Tool C: Final review Post- intervention (within one month)

Parent

Tool D: Post- group evaluation questionnaire

Post- intervention (last session of intervention)

Child /young person Intervention

Tool A: Goodman’s Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ)

Tool E: Control—Individual Protective Factors Index

Tool F: Hare Area-Specific Self-Esteem Scale

Tool G: Hostility- Symptom Checklist-90

Tool H: Violent Intentions- Teen Conflict Survey

Tool I: Self-Efficacy- Teen

Pre- intervention and post- intervention (all to complete one-month post, and teachers to also complete six months post)

Pre- intervention and post- intervention (one month)

Pre- intervention and post- intervention (one month) Parent (SDQ-P) and Teacher (SDQ-T) Child/ young person Child/ young person Child/ young person Child/ young person Child/ young

Conflict Survey Pre- intervention and post- intervention (one month)

person

Intervention C

Tool A: Goodman’s Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ)

Tool E: Control—Individual Protective Factors Index

Tool F: Hare Area-Specific Self-Esteem Scale

Tool G: Hostility- Symptom Checklist-90

Tool H: Violent Intentions- Teen Conflict Survey

Tool I: Self-Efficacy- Teen Conflict Survey

Tool J: Positive Outlook- Individual Protective Factors Index

Took K: Mating Effort Scale

Pre- intervention and post- intervention (all to complete one-month post, and teachers to also complete six months post)

Pre- intervention and post- intervention (one month)

Pre- intervention and post- intervention (one month) Child (SDQ-S), Parent(SDQ-P) and Teacher (SDQ-T) Child/young person Child/young person Child/young person Child/young person Child/young person Child/young person Child/young person

3.3.2 Non-standardised tools used to examine the effectiveness of Intervention A

With regard to the additional tools used to evidence the effectiveness of Intervention A, the following three non-standardised questionnaires were used (see Appendix 4).

i) Tool B: ‘Midway review’

Tool B comprised five questions and was administered to a parent (non- perpetrator) or another appropriate family member. It asked the informant to indicate

how many intervention sessions the child had completed, whether they perceived their child to be coping in the group sessions of the intervention, whether they had noticed behavioural improvements, how well they thought the child had engaged in the group sessions, and if there were additional ways in which the child could be supported.

ii) Tool C: ‘Final review’

Tool C also comprised five questions and was administered to a parent (non- perpetrator) or another appropriate family member. As a follow-up to Tool B, it asked the informant to provide their perceptions about whether the intervention had helped the child and the informant, whether the child’s behaviour had improved due to the intervention, if the informant’s relationship with the child had changed as a result of the intervention, and whether the informant required further support.

iii) Tool D: ‘Post-group evaluation questionnaire’

Tool D was administered to children during last session of the intervention. The questionnaire asked 11 questions that invited children to respond usually through written words or by drawing a facial expression if they preferred. The questions asked children to express how they felt at the start of the intervention and at the end, whether the group had helped them to: understand their previous experiences; manage their feelings and behaviour; communicate their experiences with their family; help them identify who was responsible for the violence, and whether they knew who to speak to if they had concerns. Children were asked to specify the ‘best’ and ‘worst’ aspects of the intervention and to share any other additional information that they wanted to communicate.

3.3.3 Standardised tools used to examine the effectiveness of Interventions B and C

In addition to the SDQ, five standardised tools had been selected from Dahlberg, Toal, Swahn, and Behren’s (2005) ‘Compendium of Assessment Tool’, to assess the effectiveness of Interventions B and C (see Appendix 5). Dahlberg et al. (2005) present a set of over 170 tools that can be used to evaluate interventions that prevent youth violence and measure violence-related beliefs, behaviours and influences. It was expected that these five measures would be completed by the children and young people pre-intervention and 1-month post- intervention.

i) Tool E: Control—Individual Protective Factors Index (Phillips & Springer, 1992; ‘Control’, Appendix 5). This tool measured young people’s sense of

control and this had two subscales: self-efficacy and self-control. Respondents were asked to indicate how closely several statements match their feelings. A response of “YES!” indicated that the statement was ‘very true’ for them; “yes” if it was ‘somewhat true’; “no” if it was ‘somewhat false’; and “NO!” if it was ‘very false’.

ii) Tool F: Hare Area-Specific Self-Esteem Scale (Hare; 1996; ‘How I feel about myself’, Appendix 5). This 10-item scale measured young people’s feelings about their worth and importance in relation to being a friend, a student, and as a family member. They were asked to indicate the extent to which they agreed or disagreed (strongly disagree; disagree; agree; strongly agree) with 10 statements.

iii) Tool G: Hostility- Symptom Checklist-90 (Derogatis, Rickels, & Rock, 1976; ‘How angry do you feel?’ Appendix 5). Tool G is a six-item scale which measured ‘symptoms’ of underlying hostility. Young people were asked to respond to the items in light of how often (never; once in a while; fairly often; most of time) it was likely that they engaged in certain behaviours.

iv) Tool H: Violent Intentions-Teen Conflict Survey (Bosworth & Espelage, 1995; ‘Dealing with anger’, Appendix 5). Tool H is an eight-item scale and measured a young person’s intentions to use nonviolent strategies to control anger and conflict. They were asked to indicate how likely (very likely, likely, unlikely, very unlikely) they would be to adopt certain nonviolent behaviours the next time they got angry.

v) Tool I: Self-Efficacy- Teen Conflict Survey (Bosworth & Espelage, 1995; ‘Managing Anger’, Appendix 5). Tool I, a five-item scale measured a young person’s confidence in their ability to control anger and resolve conflicts without using violence, by indicating how likely they would be to use certain nonviolent strategies (very confident; somewhat confident; unsure; not very confident; not at all confident).

3.3.4 Additional standardised tools used to examine the effectiveness of Intervention C

In addition to the aforementioned tools, two additional measures were used to examine the effectiveness of Intervention C (see Appendix 6).

i) Tool J: The Positive Outlook-Individual Protective Factors Index (Springer & Phillips, 1992; ‘Outlook on the Future’, Appendix 6). Selected from Dahlberg et al.’s (2005) compendium, this six -item scale measured a young person’s outlook for the future, in relation to how closely several statements matched their feelings. A response of “YES!” was selected if the statement was ‘very true’ for them; “yes” if it was ‘somewhat true’; “no” if it as ‘somewhat false’; and “NO!” if it was ‘very false’.

ii) Took K: Mating Effort Scale (Rowe, Vazsonyi, & Figueredo, 1997; ‘Dating’, Appendix 6). This is a 10-item scale designed to evaluate young people’s attitudes towards sexual competition, based on the premise that high levels of sexual competition are highly correlated with future relationship violence. Young people were invited to respond to statements regarding the extent to which they agree (strongly disagree; disagree; neither agree or disagree; agree; strongly agree).

In document Developing the Intervention Evidence Base for Children and Young People who have Experienced Domestic Violence and Abuse (Page 61-66)