Download - LANARKSHIRE - Getting It Right
LANARKSHIREWell-being IndicatorDr David Best
GIRFEC Wheel
Background
Getting it right for every child ∙ (GIRFEC), a national approach
in supporting and working with all children and young people in
Scotland
GIRFEC was developed in order to reflect initiatives, studies and ∙
reports that had been carried out in services for children
GIRFEC aims to improve the life chances of vulnerable children, ∙
although the words “every child” are of paramount importance
Rationale
The current project builds on the success of GIRFEC by using the ∙
domains of the well-being indicator as the basic structure for the
instrument
Well-being indicators: ∙
Safe Healthy Achieving Nurtured
Active Respected Responsible Included
Children’s well-becoming: ∙
Confident individuals Effective contributors
Successful learners Responsible citizens
Rationale
The instrument also uses ‘strength’ and ‘risk’ factors ∙
which have been used in an adult well-being measure –
the Assessment of Recovery Capital (ARC, Best et al. in
preparation)
Measuring well-being generically is more useful than an ∙
explicit measure of substance problems
Testing Process
Testing acceptability – using a steering group and with a ∙
focus group of young people
This led to substantial changes to the questionnaire and the ∙
information provided to young people
School-based testing: three aspects of the psychometrics of ∙
the instrument were assessed
1.) Factor structure
2.) Test-retest reliability analysis
3.) Concurrent validity
Descriptives
A total of 803 young people took part in the school phase of the analysis ∙
and Table 1 below shows the range of schools that they were attending
Table 1: Breakdown of schools involved in the pilot work
Valid
Frequency Percent
Abronhill High 96 12.0
Braidhurst High 76 9.5
Cathkin High 57 7.1
Kilsyth High 77 9.6
Larkhall Academy 76 9.5
St Aidan's High 131 16.3
St Ambrose High 96 12.0
Strathaven Academy 130 16.2
Kilsyth – retest 64 8.0
Total 803 100.0
Descriptives
Table 2 below gives the breakdown of the school year for each of the pupils ∙
participating
Table 2: School year of participants
Valid
Missing
Frequency Percent
S1 103 12.8
S2 165 20.5
S3 197 24.5
S4 122 15.2
S5 132 16.4
S6 79 9.8
Total 798 99.4
9 5 .6
Total 803 100.0
Norms
The overall pattern of threats and strengths are shown in
Table 3 and Figure 1 below
Strengths Threats
Safety 4.2 0.4
Health 3.8 1.2
Achieving 4 1.6
Nurture 4.6 0.3
Activity 3.4 1.2
Respect 2.9 0.9
Responsibility 3.3 0.9
Inclusion 3.9 1.3
Figure 1: Overall profile of strengths and threatsTable 3: Overall average scores for strengths and threats
Norms
The overall pattern of threats by year are shown in table 4 ∙
Table 4: Mean threat scores by year
Safety Health Achieving Nurture Activity Respect Respons Inclusion
S1 0.4 0.9 1.3 0.3 0.8 1 1.2 1.6
S2 0.6 1.1 1.4 0.4 1.1 0.9 0.9 1.3
S3 0.4 1.2 1.7 0.3 1.3 0.9 1 1.4
S4 0.6 1.4 2 0.4 1.3 0.9 0.8 1.2
S5 0.3 1.2 1.3 0.2 1 0.8 0.7 1
S6 0.4 1.5 1.7 0.3 1.5 1 0.6 1.2
Norms
Figure 2: Threat scores by year
Practice
The next stage is to have a go at filling in the questionnaire ∙
for yourself
Please complete it as a role-play – being an imaginary or ∙
real young person accessing the service
How & when to use
Baseline ∙
At appropriate subsequent follow-up points ∙
The key measure is change ∙
Recording and coding the results ∙
Use as a clinical marker ∙
Scoring Guide
Each section has two scores – one for ∙
strengths and one for risks or threats
Both of these will be between 0-5 ∙
You can also work out a total score for ∙
strengths (0-40)
And for threats (0-40) ∙
And you can compare to an ‘average’ ∙
school population
Pilot data and next steps
Complete with all new clients ∙
Take a copy for your case files ∙
Collate a central copy and UWS research ∙
team will collect
The pilot will run for three months ∙
We are trying to establish service norms and ∙
change measures
Interpreting and using the results
The aim is to use as the basis for evaluation ∙
So what we are hoping to see is change in key indicators ∙
However, it may also direct your attention to key areas for therapeutic ∙
focus and intervention
Intractable risk areas may require a more intensive intervention ∙
High correlations with the SDQ mean that there are grounds for ∙
clinical utility
Evaluation
We will feed back early in the new year ∙
But implementation is as important as the statistics ∙
Please give us feedback about how easy it is to use and what the ∙
response is like for the young people
If this works, the next stage will be about using it as a therapeutic tool ∙