• Login
    View Item 
    •   UMB Digital Archive
    • School, Graduate
    • Theses and Dissertations All Schools
    • View Item
    •   UMB Digital Archive
    • School, Graduate
    • Theses and Dissertations All Schools
    • View Item
    JavaScript is disabled for your browser. Some features of this site may not work without it.

    Browse

    All of UMB Digital ArchiveCommunitiesPublication DateAuthorsTitlesSubjectsThis CollectionPublication DateAuthorsTitlesSubjects

    My Account

    LoginRegister

    Statistics

    Display statistics

    The CARF assessment tool and the predictability of family characteristics in decisions to reunify separated child-maltreating families

    • CSV
    • RefMan
    • EndNote
    • BibTex
    • RefWorks
    Find Full text
    Author
    Kirschner, Dean Robert
    Advisor
    Munson, Carlton E.
    Date
    1996
    Type
    dissertation
    
    Metadata
    Show full item record
    Abstract
    This study was designed to test three hypotheses concerning the ability of a specific risk assessment tool to make probability statements regarding the reunification of child maltreating families. The risk assessment tool tested was the Child At Risk Field (CARF), then in use in the social service agencies of several Pennsylvania counties. It was hypothesized that it could be empirically demonstrated that high scores on the CARF would be associated with non-reunification. This hypothesis was not supported. A second hypothesis was that low scores on the elements of the CARF (the independent variables) would be associated with reunification of the family. This hypothesis was not supported either. Findings regarding the summative risk scores of the CARF, which reflect the family unit at risk of re-abuse, showed that the logistic model did not fit the data. The third hypothesis was that scores on the risk assessment tool for sexually abusive families would not be the same as those for families who were physically abusive. This hypothesis was not supported but four variables (condition, family functioning, perpetrator identity, perpetrator parenting) were found to have differences between the types of abuse despite reunification outcomes. Five elements, non-perpetrator adaption, perpetrator identity, perpetrator parenting, extent of abuse, and non-perpetrator's parenting were significant when the outcome was reunification, and two (condition and nature) were significant when the outcome was non-reunification. The analyses performed in this study included logistic regressions and t-tests. These analyses were unable to support any of the three hypotheses. Though the findings of this study were not statistically significant, social workers interested in protecting children from abuse can still benefit from some of the findings. Family characteristics such as family functioning and the availability of services can lend support to probability statements about reunification. Yet social workers are cautioned about the use of risk assessment tools, specifically the CARF, when making decisions about reunification of child maltreating families. One reason is the high intercorrelations between several CARF elements (independent variables). Another reason is the failure of most of the CARF elements to support probability statements regarding reunification.
    Description
    University of Maryland, Baltimore. Social Work. Ph.D. 1996
    Keyword
    Sociology, Individual and Family Studies
    Child at Risk Field (CARF)
    Child abuse
    Child welfare
    Dysfunctional families
    Family reunification
    Risk Factors
    Social Work
    Identifier to cite or link to this item
    http://hdl.handle.net/10713/1486
    Collections
    Theses and Dissertations All Schools
    Theses and Dissertations School of Social Work

    entitlement

     
    DSpace software (copyright © 2002 - 2023)  DuraSpace
    Quick Guide | Policies | Contact Us | UMB Health Sciences & Human Services Library
    Open Repository is a service operated by 
    Atmire NV
     

    Export search results

    The export option will allow you to export the current search results of the entered query to a file. Different formats are available for download. To export the items, click on the button corresponding with the preferred download format.

    By default, clicking on the export buttons will result in a download of the allowed maximum amount of items.

    To select a subset of the search results, click "Selective Export" button and make a selection of the items you want to export. The amount of items that can be exported at once is similarly restricted as the full export.

    After making a selection, click one of the export format buttons. The amount of items that will be exported is indicated in the bubble next to export format.