The Restrictiveness of Living Environment Scale has long been the primary way to conceptualize the “restrictiveness” of a child’s living situation. However, changes in systems of care and other factors have created a need to revisit how restrictiveness is conceptualized and measured. A measure was created to assess an environment’s level of restrictiveness and form the basis for empirically created general environment types. The measure was refined using expert review, cognitive interviewing, and pilot testing. Over 1,000 child organizations and older youth were invited to participate, with responses completed for 446 youth. The sample was reduced to 313 because of a large response from one setting. Cluster analysis produced a four-cluster solution suggesting low, moderate, elevated, and high restrictiveness for a simplified general environment typology. The data also suggest overlap among clusters and that settings with the same names can vary. Limitations are described, and plans for how the measure will be further developed are outlined.
Bachrach, L.L. ( 1980). Is the least restrictive environment always the best? Sociological and semantic implications. Hospital & Community Psychiatry, 31, 97-103.
2.
Byalin, K. ( 1993). In defense of "restrictiveness": A critical concept in consumer-oriented treatment planning. Psychosocial Rehabilitation Journal, 16, 93-100.
3.
Epstein, M.H. ( 1997). The development of a scale to assess the emotional and behavioral strengths of children. In 10th annual research conference proceedings: A system of care for children’s mental health: Expanding the research base (pp. 453-458). Tampa: Louis de la Parte Florida Mental Health Institute, University of South Florida .
4.
Fields, S.A., & Ogles, B.M. ( 2002). The system of care for children and the least restrictive alternative: Legal origins and current concerns. Children’s Services: Social Policy, Research, & Practice, 5, 75-93.
5.
Fields, S.A., & Ogles, B.M. ( 2004). An empirical typology of youth with severe emotional disturbances. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 72, 250-261.
6.
Fisher, P.A., & Chamberlain, P. (2000). Multidimensional treatment foster care: A program for intensive parenting, family support, and skill building. Journal of Emotional & Behavioral Disorders , 8, 155-164.
7.
Friman, P.C., Evans, J., Larzelere, R., Williams, G., & Daly, D.L. ( 1993). Correspondence between child dysfunction and program intrusion: Evidence of a continuum of care across five child mental health programs. Journal of Communwity Psychology, 21, 227-233.
8.
Hair, J.F., & Black, W.C. ( 2000). Cluster analysis. In L. G. Grimm & P. R. Yarnold (Eds.), Reading and understanding more multivariate statistics (pp. 147-205). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association .
9.
Handwerk, M.L. ( 2002). Least restrictive alternative: Challenging assumptions and further implications. Children’s Services: Social Policy, Research, & Practice, 5, 99-103.
10.
Handwerk, M.L., Friman, P.C., Mott, M.A., & Stairs, J.M. ( 1998). The relationship between program restrictiveness and youth behavior problems. Journal of Emotional & Behavioral Disorders, 6, 170-179.
11.
Hargreaves, W.A., Gaynor, J., Ransohoff, P., & Attkisson, C.C. (1984). Restrictiveness of care among the severely mentally disabled. Hospital & Community Psychiatry, 35, 706-709.
12.
Hawkins, R.P., Almeida, M.C., Fabry, B., & Reitz, A.L. ( 1992). A scale to measure restrictiveness of living environments for troubled children and youths. Hospital and Community Psychiatry , 43, 54-58.
13.
Huefner, J.C., Rauktis, M.B., Doucette, A., & O’Brien, K. (2006, November). Revision of the Restrictiveness of Living Environment Scale (ROLES). Panel session presented at the annual conference of the American Evaluation Association, Portland, OR.
14.
Lyman, R.D., & Campbell, N.R. (1996). Treating children and adolescents in residential and inpatient settings. Thousand Oaks, CA : Sage.
15.
Mech, E.V., & Fung, C.C.-M. (1999). Placement restrictiveness and educational achievement among emancipated foster youth. Research on Social Work Practice , 9, 213-228.
16.
Nash, J.K., Thompson, S., & Kim, J.S. ( 2006). Residential trajectories of participants in North Carolina’s Willie-M. Program: A semi-parametric group based model. Journal of Social Service Research, 33, 53-68.
Rubin, D.B. ( 1987). Multiple imputation for nonresponse in surveys. New York: John Wiley.
20.
Saunders, J.A., Morrow-Howell, N., Spitznagel, E., Dore, P., Proctor, E.K., & Pescarino, R. ( 2006). Imputing missing data: A comparison of methods for social work researchers. Social Work Research, 30, 19-31.
21.
Schafer, J.L. ( 1997). The analysis of incomplete multivariate data. London: Chapman & Hall.
22.
Schafer, J.L. ( 1999). Multiple imputation: A primer. Statistical Methods in Medical Research, 8, 3-15.
23.
Scheffer, J. ( 2002). Dealing with missing data. Research Letters in the Information and Mathematical Sciences, 3, 153-160.
24.
Schoenwald, S.K., Brown, T.L., & Henggeler, S.W. (2000). Inside multisystemic therapy: Therapist, supervisory, and program practices. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 8, 113-127.
25.
Sunseri, P.A. ( 2005). Children referred to residential care: Reducing multiple placements, managing costs and improving treatment outcomes. Residential Treatment for Children & Youth, 22, 55.
26.
Thomlison, B., & Krysik, J. ( 1992). The development of an instrument to measure the restrictiveness of children’s living environments. Research on Social Work Practice, 2, 207-219.
27.
Wyatt v. Stickney, 344 F. Supp. 373 (M.D. Ala. 1972).
