Measuring the care needs of young people with intellectual difficulties: Construct validity of the learning disability vulnerability assessment scale and utility in establish the care needs of young people

Abstract

The concept of ‘vulnerability’ in children is critical to needs-related planning and risk management. Despite proliferation of measures there is limited evidence-base to support the validity of existing, relevant clinical assessments. The FACE CARAS young person’s risk assessment toolkit includes a measure of vulnerability-the Learning Disability Vulnerability Assessment Scale (LD-VAS). Good inter-rater reliability has been reported but construct validity has not previously been demonstrated. The aims of this study were to assess the construct-validity of the tool by: (i) evaluating the dimensionality of the ratings produced, and (ii) modelling the ability of the scores to quantify the care needs of young people. LD-VAS ratings were available for 143 young people, the dimensionality of the scale ratings was assessed using a parallel analysis and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). The ability of scores to predict care-level was modelled using discriminant function analysis and multinomial logistic regression. A single factor CFA model showed a good fit to the data. The discriminant function analysis suggested several scoring profiles exist, relating to care-level. On multinomial logistic regression the scores could statistically significantly differentiate between those in the lowest and higher intensity care categories. The LD-VAS appears to have construct validity and is potentially useful in supporting rational decision-making regarding care-provision for children affected by learning disability.

Keywords

risk assessment vulnerability child protection needs assessment

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Aldersey

H. M.

Francis

G. L.

Haines

S. J.

, et al. (2017). Family Quality of Life in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Journal of Policy and Practice in Intellectual Disabilities, 14(1), 78–86. https://doi.org/10.1111/jppi.12189

Arruabarrena Paúl

Indias

, et al. (2017). Racial/ethnic and socio‐economic biases in child maltreatment severity assessment in Spanish child protection services caseworkers. Child & Family Social Work, 22(2), 575–586. https://doi.org/10.1111/cfs.12271

Bracken-Roche

Bell

Macdonald

M. E.

, et al. (2017). The concept of ‘vulnerability’ in research ethics: an in-depth analysis of policies and guidelines. Health Research Policy and Systems, 15(1), 8–8. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12961-016-0164-6

Coram and Coram International . Constructing a Definition of Vulnerability – Attempts to Define and Measure: Technical Paper 1 in Children’s Commissioner project on vulnerable children London: The Children's Commissioner; 2017 July 2017. https://assets.childrenscommissioner.gov.uk/wpuploads/2017/07/CCO-TP1-Constructing-a-Definition-of-Vulnerability-Coram-1.pdf

Costaris

Peterson-Badali

Skilling

T. A.

(2022). A Latent Class Analysis of the Antisocial Attitudes Domain of the Youth Level of Service/Case Management Inventory. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 49(8), 1192-1209. https://doi.org/10.1177/00938548221084301

Daniel

M. R.

Weir

Tiffin

P. A.

(2013). A novel CAMHS risk assessment system: clinicians’ views. Journal of Forensic Practice, 15(3), 182–191. https://doi.org/10.1108/JFP-09-2012-0011

Evans

S. A.

Young

Tiffin

P. A.

(2019). Predictive validity and interrater reliability of the FACE‐CARAS toolkit in a CAMHS setting. Criminal Behaviour and Mental Health, 29(1), 47–56. https://doi.org/10.1002/cbm.2104

Epps

Jackson

B. J.

(Eds.). (2000). Empowered families, successful children: Early intervention programs that work. American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/10354-000

Fischoff

Nightingale

E. O.

Ianotta

J. G.

(2001). Adolescent risk and vulnerability: Concepts and measurement. Washington. DC: National Academy Press.

10.

Fisher

Bellon

Lawn

, et al. (2020) Brain injury, behaviour support, and family involvement: putting the pieces together and looking forward. Disability and Rehabilitation, 42:9, 1305-1315, DOI: 10.1080/09638288.2018.1522551

11.

Grove

W. M.

(2005). Clinical versus statistical prediction: The contribution of Paul E. Meehl. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 61(10), 1233–1243. https://doi.org/10.1002/jclp.20179

12.

Grove

W. M.

Meehl

P. E.

(1996). Comparative efficiency of informal (subjective, impressionistic) and formal (mechanical, algorithmic) prediction procedures: The clinical–statistical controversy. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 2(2), 293–323. https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-8971.2.2.293

13.

Harris

G. T.

Rice

M. E.

Quinsey

V. L.

, et al. (2015) Violent offenders: Appraising and manging risk: Third edition. Washington. DC: American Psychological Association.

14.

Horn

J.L.

(1965) A rationale and test for the number of factors in factor analysis. Psychometrika 30, 179–185. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02289447

15.

Jansen van der Putten

A. A. J.

Vlaskamp

(2013). What parents find important in the support of a child with profound intellectual and multiple disabilities. Child: Care, Health & Development, 39(3), 432–441. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2214.2012.01381.x

16.

Jarvis Fraser

L. K.

(2018). Comparing routine inpatient data and death records as a means of identifying children and young people with life-limiting conditions. Palliative Medicine, 32(2), 543–553. https://doi.org/10.1177/0269216317728432

17.

Jeandarme

Pouls

De Laender

, et al. (2017). Field validity of the HCR-20 in forensic medium security units in Flanders. Psychology, Crime & Law, 23(4), 305–322. https://doi.org/10.1080/1068316X.2016.1258467

18.

Johnson

Clancy

Bastian

(2015). Child abuse/neglect risk assessment under field practice conditions: Tests of external and temporal validity and comparison with heart disease prediction. Children and Youth Services Review, 56, 76–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2015.06.013

19.

Jöreskog

K.G.

Moustaki

(2001). Factor Analysis of Ordinal Variables: A Comparison of Three Approaches. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 36, 347 - 387.

20.

Kahneman

Sibony

Sunstein

C. R.

(2021). Noise: A flaw in human judgment. Harper Collins: London ISBN: 9780008309039.

21.

Kraemer

H. C.

Kupfer

D. J.

Clarke

D. E.

, et al. (2012). DSM-5: How Reliable Is Reliable Enough? The American Journal of Psychiatry, 169(1), 13–15. https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ajp.2011.11010050

22.

Laming

W. H.

(2003). The Victoria Climbie inquiry: Report of an inquiry by Lord Laming (Cm 5730). The Stationery Office. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/273183/5730.pd

23.

Linacre

. Many-Facet Rasch Measurement. Chicago, IL: Mesa Press; 1994.

24.

Lorenzo-Seva

Ferrando

P. J.

(2021). Not positive definite correlation matrices in exploratory item factor analysis: Causes, consequences and a proposed solution. Structural Equation Modeling, 28(1), 138–147. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2020.1735393

25.

McNeilly

Macdonald

Kelly

(2017). The participation of parents of disabled children and young people in health and social care decisions. Child: Care, Health & Development, 43(6), 839–846. https://doi.org/10.1111/cch.12487

26.

Morewedge

C. K.

Kahneman

(2010). Associative processes in intuitive judgment. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 14(10), 435–440. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2010.07.004

27.

Muthén

L. K.

Muthén

B. O.

(1998-2017). Mplus User’s Guide (Eighth Edition). Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.

28.

Panczykowski

Murphy

Heyward

, et al. (2022) Lived experiences of parents of children with disabilities engaged in a support group incorporating equines. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 128, 104294, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ridd.2022.104294.

29.

Quay

H. O.

(1983). Standards for adult correctional institutions. Washington, DC: Federal Bureau of Prisons.

30.

Rasch

Probabilistic models for some intelligence and attainment tests. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press; 1960.

31.

Shlonsky

(2015). Current status and prospects for improving decision making research in child protection: A commentary. Child Abuse & Neglect, 49, 154–162. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2015.09.006

32.

Shlonsky

Wagner

(2005). The next step: Integrating actuarial risk assessment and clinical judgment into an evidence-based practice framework in CPS case management. Children and Youth Services Review, 27(4), 409–427. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2004.11.007

33.

Smargiassi

Inchingolo

Chiappetta

, et al. (2019). Agreement between chest ultrasonography and chest X-ray in patients who have undergone thoracic surgery: preliminary results. Multidisciplinary Respiratory Medicine, 14(1), 9–9. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40248-019-0171-x

34.

Sunstein Hastie

(2015). Garbage in, garbage out? Some micro sources of macro errors. Journal of Institutional Economics, 11(3), 561–583. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1744137413000398

35.

Sunstein

C. R.

Hastie

(2014). Making Dumb Groups Smarter. In Harvard business review (Vol. 92, Number 12, pp. 91-98). Harvard Business Review.

36.

Tharwat

Gaber

Ibrahim

, et al. Linear discriminant analysis: A detailed tutorial. AI Communications. 2017;30:169-90.

37.

Tiffin

P. A.

Kitchen

C. E. W.

Weir

(2015). Innovations in Practice: Piloting a new child and adolescent risk assessment suite in the UK. Child and Adolescent Mental Health, 20(4), 225–229. https://doi.org/10.1111/camh.12110

38.

Timmerman

M. E.

Lorenzo-Seva

(2011). Dimensionality assessment of ordered polytomous items with parallel analysis. Psychological Methods, 16(2), 209–220. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0023353

39.

Wardrop

Crilly

Ranse

, et al. (2021). Vulnerability: A concept synthesis and its application to the Emergency Department. International emergency nursing, 54, 100936. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ienj.2020.100936

40.

Zarowsky

Haddad

Nguyen

V.-K.

(2013). Beyond ‘vulnerable groups’: contexts and dynamics of vulnerability. Global Health Promotion, 20(1_suppl), 3–9. https://doi.org/10.1177/1757975912470062