Motivation
Conditions
Keywords
Treatment Motivation, Multidimensional Family Therapy, Youth, Parents, Delinquency
Brief summary
This project entails to gain a deeper understanding of the development of treatment motivation over the course of intramural and outpatient forensic youth care. Research questions are 1) How does treatment motivation of youth and parents develop over the course of forensic systemic therapy, and following the transition from inpatient to outpatient therapy?; 2) Which client factors, interpersonal factors, and contextual characteristics moderate the development of treatment motivation?; 3) Which mechanisms play a role in the development of treatment motivation?; and 4) How does treatment motivation affect treatment retention and the achievement of primary therapy goals?
Detailed description
Multidimensional Family Therapy (MDFT) has been shown to motivate youth and parents in forensic care for treatment. The current study will investigate the development of treatment motivation of youth and parents over the course of MDFT, offered in a juvenile justice center. Furthermore, mechanisms and moderators will be examined, in addition to the impact of treatment motivation on treatment retention and goal achievement. Two studies with a Multiple Case Experimental Design (MCED), one with an ABC design (A = baseline, B = residential MDFT, and C = outpatient MDFT) and one with an AB design, will be conducted. Juveniles who enter residential MDFT, during a short detention period (study 1; 10 cases) or during a longer detention period (study 2; 6 cases) will be recruited, as will their parents.
Interventions
BEHAVIORALMultidimensional Family Therapy
Multidimensional family therapy is a manualized,evidence-based, intensive intervention program with assessment and treatment modules focusing on four areas: (a) the individual adolescents' issues regarding substance use disorder, delinquency, and comorbid psychopathology, (b) the parents' child-rearing skills and personal functioning, (c) communication and relationship between adolescent and parent(s), and (d) interactions between family members and key social systems (Liddle, 2002).
Sponsors
Kwaliteit Forensische Zorg Jeugd
University of Amsterdam
Study design
Observational model
CASE_CROSSOVER
Time perspective
PROSPECTIVE
Eligibility
Sex/Gender
MALE
Age
12 Years to 24 Years
Healthy volunteers
No
Inclusion criteria
\- entering residential MDFT
Exclusion criteria
\- (only for short term residents) residing more than an hours' drive from the juvenile justice center after detention
Design outcomes
Primary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Treatment motivation youth perspective (validated questionnaires) | at least 5 times during phase A (2-6 weeks); every other week during phase B (1-9 months; at least 5 assessments), at least 5 times during phase C (1-3 months). | Treatment Motivation Questionnaire for Adolescents (van der Helm et al., 2013; van der Helm et al., 2018; 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (completely disagree) to 5 (completely agree), with a higher score indicating more motivation for treatment; Cooperation Scale (Tolan et al., 2002; 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (completely disagree) to 5 (completely agree. A higher total score indicates more motivation for treatment). |
| Treatment motivation caregiver perspective (validated questionnaires) | at least 5 times during phase A (2-6 weeks); every other week during phase B (1-9 months; at least 5 assessments), at least 5 times during phase C (1-3 months). | Parent Motivation Inventory (Nock & Photos, 2006); Cooperation Scale (Tolan et al., 2002). Participants respond on a 5-point Likert scale on both questionnaires ranging from 1 (completely disagree) to 5 (completely agree). Higher total scores indicate more motivation for treatment. |
| Treatment motivation therapist perspective (validated questionnaires) | every other week during phase B (1-9 months; at least 5 assessments), at least 5 times during phase C (1-3 months). | Cooperation Scale (Tolan et al., 2002; 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (completely disagree) to 5 (completely agree). A higher score indicates more motivation for treatment). |
| Treatment motivation (qualitative data) | Youth/Caregivers: at the end of each phase (A (after 2-6 weeks), B (after 1-9 months) and C (after 1-3 months)) | Youth/Caregivers: semi-structured interview |
Secondary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Therapeutic alliance youth perspective | every other week during phase B (1-9 months; at least 5 assessments), at least 5 times during phase C (1-3 months). | Session Rating Scale (SRS; Duncan et al., 2003). The SRS is scored by adding the total of the client's marks on the four 10-cm lines, with a higher total score indicating a stronger alliance. |
| Therapeutic alliance caregiver perspective | every other week during phase B (1-9 months; at least 5 assessments), at least 5 times during phase C (1-3 months). | Session Rating Scale (Duncan et al., 2003). The SRS is scored by adding the total of the client's marks on the four 10-cm lines, with a higher total score indicating a stronger alliance. |
| Sense of competence youth perspective | at least 5 times during phase A (2-6 weeks); every other week during phase B (1-9 months; at least 5 assessments), at least 5 times during phase C (1-3 months). | Basic Psychological Need Satisfaction and Frustration Scale (Chen et al., 2015), subscales Competence Satisfaction and Competence Frustration. Participants respond on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (completely disagree) to 5 (completely agree). A higher total score indicates a higher sense of competence. |
| Sense of competence caregiver perspective | at least 5 times during phase A (2-6 weeks); every other week during phase B (1-9 months; at least 5 assessments), at least 5 times during phase C (1-3 months). | Basic Psychological Need Satisfaction and Frustration Scale (Chen et al., 2015), subscales Competence Satisfaction and Competence Frustration. Participants respond on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (completely disagree) to 5 (completely agree). A higher total score indicates a higher sense of competence. |
| Aggression and rule-breaking behavior youth perspective | The complete subscale is administered in phase A (2-6 weeks), every other week during phase B (1-9 months) and C (1-3 months) the (3-5) items reflecting the most severe problems are selected. | Youth Self Report (YSR; Achenbach, 1991), subscale aggression and rule-breaking behavior. Youth complete the YSR by rating their behavior on a three-point scale for the 30 items in this subscale. Specifically, the child rates the behavioral symptoms as '0' if not present, a '1' if the child sometimes exhibits the symptom and '2' if the child frequently demonstrates the symptom. A higher total score indicates more aggression and rule breaking behavior. |
| Aggression and rule-breaking behavior caregiver perspective | The complete subscale is administered in phase A (2-6 weeks), every other week during phase B (1-9 months) and C (1-3 months) the (3-5) items reflecting the most severe problems are selected. | Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL; Achenbach, 1991), subscale aggression and rule-breaking behavior. Parents complete the CBCL by rating their children on a three-point scale for the 30 items in this subscale. Specifically, a parent rates the behavior as a '0' if it is not present, a '1' if the child sometimes exhibits the symptom, and a '2' if the child frequently demonstrates the symptom. A higher total score indicates more aggression and rule breaking behavior. |
Countries
Netherlands
Contacts
Primary ContactHanneke E Creemers
Backup ContactJet Westerveld
Outcome results
None listed