Metodología para definir métricas de calidad de software

Bivariate test statistics for each problematic substance use variable by all dependent variables

Table 3: Bivariate Statistics (Weighted)

Total Sample In-Home Sample

Dependent Variables Caseworker Report of Problematic Alcohol Use

Caseworker Report of Problematic Drug Use

AUDIT Score DAST-20 Score Child Internalizing Behavior Wave 1 F = 1.91, p = 0.17 Note. SD = standard deviation. Chi-squares reported are adjusted Wald chi-squares.

71

at both waves are presented in Table 3. In the total sample, caseworker report of problematic alcohol use was associated with a child being OOH at baseline and wave 2, baseline services, wave 2 services, and case outcomes at wave 1. In the total sample, caseworker report of

problematic drug use was associated with a child being OOH at baseline, baseline services, wave 2 services, and case outcomes at wave 1. In the in-home sample, self-report of problematic alcohol use was associated with child internalizing behaviors at wave 1 and child externalizing behaviors at waves 1 and 2. In the in-home sample, self-report of problematic drug use was associated with child internalizing behaviors at wave 2, child depression at wave 2, and some wave 2 service variables. At the bivariate level, the caseworker report of problematic alcohol or drug use is not associated with any of the child well-being indicators (internalizing behaviors, externalizing behaviors, child depression, and child trauma). However, it is strongly associated with most of the safety and permanency indicators reflecting CPS services and case decisions.

Comparison of Caseworker and Self-Report on Problematic Substance Use

An analysis was conducted to compare the caseworker report of problematic alcohol and drug use to caregiver self-report of problematic alcohol and drug use. A t-test (F = 15.74, p = .0002) comparing the mean self-reported AUDIT scores for the primary caregiver by whether or not the case worker reported primary caregiver problematic alcohol use indicated that there were higher mean AUDIT scores in caregivers that caseworkers identified (mean = 4.44, SD = 0.74) compared to caregivers that caseworkers did not identify (mean = 1.45, SD = 0.08). A t-test comparing the mean DAST-20 by whether or not the caseworker reported problematic drug use found higher mean scores on the DAST-20, mean = 2.30 (SD = 0.26) vs. mean = 0.76 (SD = 0.05), when caseworkers reported problematic drug use (F = 34.97, p < .0001).

72

Next, continuous scores on the AUDIT and DAST-20 were dichotomized by clinical cut-points to examine the caseworker detection levels of caregivers with self-reported problematic substance use. Using a cut-point of 5 or greater for women and 8 or greater for men as a

threshold for problematic use on the AUDIT, caseworkers accurately detected that 17.65% of the caregivers with self-reported problematic alcohol use were engaged in problematic alcohol use.

Caseworkers reported that 82.35% of caregivers with self-reported problematic alcohol use, based on AUDIT scores, did not have a problem with alcohol. Of the caregivers who scored sub-threshold on the AUDIT, caseworkers reported that only 2.30% of these individuals were engaged in problematic alcohol use. Of the cases where caseworkers did not report caregiver problematic alcohol use, 92.57% of these caregivers did not self-report problematic alcohol use indicating that caseworker perception that problematic alcohol use was not occurring was pretty accurate. However, if a caseworker reported caregiver problematic alcohol use, the finding was less certain with some of these caregivers not self-reporting problematic alcohol use (57.75%) and some of them indicating they were engaged in problematic alcohol use (42.25%).

Using a cut-point of 6 or greater for both women and men on the DAST-20, caseworkers accurately detected that 37.59% of the caregivers who self-reported problematic drug use were engaging in problematic drug use. However, they did not detect problematic drug use in 62.41%

of the caregivers who self-reported problematic drug use. Only 7.53% of the caregivers who did not self-report problematic drug use were identified as engaging in problematic drug use by caseworkers. Consistent with problematic alcohol use, when caseworkers did not report problematic drug use, caregivers rarely self-reported problematic drug use (1.98%). However, caseworker report of problematic drug use did not align well with caregiver self-report of

73

problematic drug use. Of the 591 cases where a caseworker reported problematic drug use, 13.01% of these caregivers self-report problematic drug use.

Examination of Secondary Caregiver Presence

In 27.02% of the sample, a secondary caregiver was present in the home. The author considered the possibility of including a dichotomous variable indicating whether or not a secondary caregiver was present in the home at baseline into the model. The secondary

caregiver variable was significantly associated with the control variable poverty (χ² = 6.77, p = .01) but not at an extremely high level. It was not associated with any of the other control variables. The author examined the bivariate relationship between the presence of a secondary caregiver and each of the safety, permanency, and well-being dependent variables at wave 1 and wave 2 to determine if there was a need to control for the variable in the models. Presence of a secondary caregiver was only significantly related to out-of-home placement at baseline (χ² = 6.91, p = .01) and case outcomes at wave 2 (χ² = 4.53, p = .01). For these models only, the dichotomous caregiver presence variable was included as a control variable.

C. Path Analysis Models for Caseworker Report of Problematic Use of Substances