LANARKSHIREWell-being IndicatorDr David Best

GIRFEC Wheel

Background

Getting it right for every child ∙ (GIRFEC), a national approach

in supporting and working with all children and young people in

Scotland

GIRFEC was developed in order to reflect initiatives, studies and ∙

reports that had been carried out in services for children

GIRFEC aims to improve the life chances of vulnerable children, ∙

although the words “every child” are of paramount importance

Rationale

The current project builds on the success of GIRFEC by using the ∙

domains of the well-being indicator as the basic structure for the

instrument

Well-being indicators: ∙

Safe Healthy Achieving Nurtured

Active Respected Responsible Included

Children’s well-becoming: ∙

Confident individuals Effective contributors

Successful learners Responsible citizens

Rationale

The instrument also uses ‘strength’ and ‘risk’ factors ∙

which have been used in an adult well-being measure –

the Assessment of Recovery Capital (ARC, Best et al. in

preparation)

Measuring well-being generically is more useful than an ∙

explicit measure of substance problems

Testing Process

Testing acceptability – using a steering group and with a ∙

focus group of young people

This led to substantial changes to the questionnaire and the ∙

information provided to young people

School-based testing: three aspects of the psychometrics of ∙

the instrument were assessed

1.) Factor structure

2.) Test-retest reliability analysis

3.) Concurrent validity

Descriptives

A total of 803 young people took part in the school phase of the analysis ∙

and Table 1 below shows the range of schools that they were attending

Table 1: Breakdown of schools involved in the pilot work

Valid

Frequency Percent

Abronhill High 96 12.0

Braidhurst High 76 9.5

Cathkin High 57 7.1

Kilsyth High 77 9.6

Larkhall Academy 76 9.5

St Aidan's High 131 16.3

St Ambrose High 96 12.0

Strathaven Academy 130 16.2

Kilsyth – retest 64 8.0

Total 803 100.0

Descriptives

Table 2 below gives the breakdown of the school year for each of the pupils ∙

participating

Table 2: School year of participants

Valid

Missing

Frequency Percent

S1 103 12.8

S2 165 20.5

S3 197 24.5

S4 122 15.2

S5 132 16.4

S6 79 9.8

Total 798 99.4

9 5 .6

Total 803 100.0

Norms

The overall pattern of threats and strengths are shown in

Table 3 and Figure 1 below

Strengths Threats

Safety 4.2 0.4

Health 3.8 1.2

Achieving 4 1.6

Nurture 4.6 0.3

Activity 3.4 1.2

Respect 2.9 0.9

Responsibility 3.3 0.9

Inclusion 3.9 1.3

Figure 1: Overall profile of strengths and threatsTable 3: Overall average scores for strengths and threats

Norms

The overall pattern of threats by year are shown in table 4 ∙

Table 4: Mean threat scores by year

Safety Health Achieving Nurture Activity Respect Respons Inclusion

S1 0.4 0.9 1.3 0.3 0.8 1 1.2 1.6

S2 0.6 1.1 1.4 0.4 1.1 0.9 0.9 1.3

S3 0.4 1.2 1.7 0.3 1.3 0.9 1 1.4

S4 0.6 1.4 2 0.4 1.3 0.9 0.8 1.2

S5 0.3 1.2 1.3 0.2 1 0.8 0.7 1

S6 0.4 1.5 1.7 0.3 1.5 1 0.6 1.2

Norms

Figure 2: Threat scores by year

Practice

The next stage is to have a go at filling in the questionnaire ∙

for yourself

Please complete it as a role-play – being an imaginary or ∙

real young person accessing the service

How & when to use

Baseline ∙

At appropriate subsequent follow-up points ∙

The key measure is change ∙

Recording and coding the results ∙

Use as a clinical marker ∙

Scoring Guide

Each section has two scores – one for ∙

strengths and one for risks or threats

Both of these will be between 0-5 ∙

You can also work out a total score for ∙

strengths (0-40)

And for threats (0-40) ∙

And you can compare to an ‘average’ ∙

school population

Pilot data and next steps

Complete with all new clients ∙

Take a copy for your case files ∙

Collate a central copy and UWS research ∙

team will collect

The pilot will run for three months ∙

We are trying to establish service norms and ∙

change measures

Interpreting and using the results

The aim is to use as the basis for evaluation ∙

So what we are hoping to see is change in key indicators ∙

However, it may also direct your attention to key areas for therapeutic ∙

focus and intervention

Intractable risk areas may require a more intensive intervention ∙

High correlations with the SDQ mean that there are grounds for ∙

clinical utility

Evaluation

We will feed back early in the new year ∙

But implementation is as important as the statistics ∙

Please give us feedback about how easy it is to use and what the ∙

response is like for the young people

If this works, the next stage will be about using it as a therapeutic tool ∙