In this article, the authors responded to nine commentaries by 17 contributors to their article, Issues in Differential Response. The authors found that a majority of the respondents agreed with the major conclusions of Issues in Differential Response. However, there were varying degrees of disagreement regarding the significance of some of the article’s conclusions. The authors point out and discuss the considerable divergence in the respondents’ definitions of differential response (DR), their assessment of DR reform’s empirical support, and their assessment of its potential for progressive development as an evidence-informed model for child welfare practice. The authors conclude that research claims and public belief regarding DR reform’s safety and effectiveness exceed its scientific support, and they make suggestions for improving model building and outcome research for DR reform.
BarkleyR. A.CookE. H.DiamondA.ZametkinA.ThaparA.TeeterA.…WillcuttE. (2002). International consensus statement on ADHD. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 5, 89–111.
2.
BauerH. (2001). Fatal attractions: The troubles with science. New York, NY: Paraview Press.
Child Welfare Information Gateway. (2003). Reducing re-referral in unsubstantiated child protective services cases: Research to practice. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
5.
Children’s Research Center. (1998). The urban caucus CPS decision making system: Revalidation of the risk instruments and an analysis of the effectiveness of child protective services in three counties. Madison, WI: Author.
6.
FullerT.NietoM. (2009). Substantiation and maltreatment reporting: A propensity score analysis. Child Maltreatment, 14, 27–37.
7.
GambrillE. (2010). Evidence-informed practice: Antidote to propaganda in the helping professions?Research on Social Work Practice, 20, 302–320.
8.
GambrillE. (2011). Ethical aspects of outcome studies in social, behavioral and educational interventions. Research on Social Work Practice, 21, 654–663.
9.
HughesR. C.RycusJ. S. (2007). Issues in risk assessment in child protective services. Journal of Public Child Welfare, 1, 85–116.
10.
Institute of Applied Research. (2004). Minnesota alternative response evaluation: Final Report. St. Louis, MO: Author. Retrieved fromhttp://www.iarstl.org/papers.htm#ancC5Loman
11.
JohnsonK.WagnerD.ScharenbrochC. (2007). Risk assessment validation: A prospective study. California Department of Social Services, Children and Family Services Division. Madison, WI: Children’s Research Center.
12.
MaccounR. J. (1998). Biases in the interpretation and use of research results. Annual Review of Psychology, 49, 259–287.
13.
RycusJ. S.HughesR. C. (2003). Issues in risk assessment in child protective services: A policy white paper. Columbus, OH: North American Resource Center for Child Welfare.
14.
RycusJ. S.HughesR. C. (2004). Issues in risk assessment in child protective services. APSAC Advisor (16). Oklahoma City, OK: The American Professional Society on the Abuse of Children.
15.
RycusJ. S.HughesR. C. (2008). Assessing risk throughout the life of a child welfare case. In LindsayD.ShlonskyA. (Eds.), Child welfare research: Advances for practice and policy (pp. 201–213). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
16.
RycusJ. S.HughesR. C. (2012). Assessing risk in child protective services. In FrysztackiK.IlizA. (Eds.), Between America and Poland: Opole sociological studies (pp. 97–110). Cracow, Poland: Nomos Publishing.
