Ayoub C, Jacewitz M M
Child Abuse Negl. 1982;6(4):413-22. doi: 10.1016/0145-2134(82)90085-0.
Sixty families assessed to be at risk of poor parenting were the subject of this study. These families were participants in a model multidisciplinary program designed for the secondary prevention of poor parenting and the extremes of child abuse and neglect. The model program consists of special medical, psychological, social and developmental services to families on an inpatient, outpatient, and in-home basis. Demographic information on these 60 families was tabulated. Each family was given a monthly rating on a simple measure of family function. Ratings over time were observed, and families were characterized in terms of a family rating vector (up, up-plateau, plateau, fluctuating, and down). Families were also described in terms of the constellation of problems brought to the therapy situation. Problem lists for each family were subjected to factor analysis. Five factor constructs which made clinical sense emerged from the analysis. Each factor could be labeled as a "family type." These types were: (I) Abusive Family, (II) Neglectful or Antisocial Family. (III) Family with an Emotionally Unstable Parent, (IV) Family with Cultural or Intellectual Limitation, and (V) Family with Child-Rearing Difficulties. Approximately 20% of these families did not fit the typology. Families were then divided into two groups--those who were relatively long-term, ongoing recipients of services, and those who left the program in the observation interval. Families were categorized according to family function rating vector and "family type." It was noted among long-term families, measured improvement in family function was most evident in families with transient situational crisis (who did not fit the typology) and those with intellectual and cultural deficits (Type IV). Among the families who dropped from the program, 15% were no longer at risk. Sixty-three percent of the remaining families were not improving. These techniques may be useful in determining which at risk families are more successful candidates for prevention efforts.
本研究以60个被评估为存在不良养育风险的家庭为对象。这些家庭参与了一个旨在二级预防不良养育以及极端虐待和忽视儿童情况的多学科示范项目。该示范项目包括为家庭提供住院、门诊和居家的特殊医疗、心理、社会和发育服务。整理了这60个家庭的人口统计学信息。每个家庭每月都要依据一项简单的家庭功能指标进行评分。观察评分随时间的变化情况,并依据家庭评分向量(上升、上升平稳、平稳、波动和下降)对家庭进行分类。还根据带到治疗情境中的一系列问题对家庭进行描述。对每个家庭的问题清单进行了因子分析。分析得出了五个具有临床意义的因子结构。每个因子都可被标记为一种“家庭类型”。这些类型分别是:(I)虐待型家庭,(II)忽视或反社会型家庭,(III)有情绪不稳定父母的家庭,(IV)有文化或智力局限的家庭,以及(V)有育儿困难的家庭。这些家庭中约20%不符合这种类型划分。然后将家庭分为两组——一组是相对长期持续接受服务的家庭,另一组是在观察期内退出项目的家庭。根据家庭功能评分向量和“家庭类型”对家庭进行分类。结果发现,在长期家庭中,家庭功能有明显改善的情况在有短暂情境危机的家庭(不符合类型划分)以及有智力和文化缺陷的家庭(IV型)中最为明显。在退出项目的家庭中,15%不再有风险。其余家庭中有63%没有改善。这些技术可能有助于确定哪些有风险的家庭在预防工作中更有可能取得成功。