Related Experiment Videos
Field trial of graded care profile (GCP) scale: a new measure of care
1New Street Health Centre, Barnsley, South Yorkshire.
Insights
The Graded Care Profile (GCP) scale is user-friendly and shows high agreement between raters for assessing child care. This tool aids in comparing assessments and targeting interventions for children.
Area of Science:
- Child psychology
- Social work assessment tools
Background:
- The Children Act 1989 mandated practical tools for assessing child care.
- Existing methods may lack user-friendliness or consistent application.
Purpose of the Study:
- To evaluate the user friendliness of the Graded Care Profile (GCP) scale.
- To determine the inter-rater agreement of the GCP scale in assessing child care.
Main Methods:
- The GCP scale was used by two independent raters (health visitor, nursery teacher/social worker) on 43 nursery children and 11 children registered for neglect.
- Inter-rater agreement was measured using weighted kappa, and user friendliness was assessed by scoring time and completeness.
Main Results:
- High inter-rater agreement was found for physical care (kappa=0.899), safety (kappa=0.894), and esteem (kappa=0.877).
- A substantial agreement was observed for love (kappa=0.785).
- The scale took an average of 20 minutes to complete with high scoring completeness.
Conclusions:
- The Graded Care Profile (GCP) scale is user-friendly and demonstrates high inter-rater reliability.
- The GCP scale offers a valuable tool for comparing care assessments, studying outcomes, targeting interventions, and monitoring changes in child care.
Aim:
The graded care profile (GCP) scale was developed as a practical tool in response to the Children Act 1989 to provide a measure of care in four areas: physical, safety, love, and esteem, on a bipolar continuum. This field trial was to assess its user friendliness and inter-rater agreement.
Methods:
43 nursery children and 11 registered for neglect were each scored on this scale independently by two different raters (health visitor and nursery teacher or social worker). Their inter-rater agreement was assessed by weighted kappa and user friendliness by time taken for and completeness of scoring.
Results:
An almost perfect level of agreement was achieved in physical care (kappa = 0.899; confidence interval (CI) = 0.850 to 0.948), safety (kappa = 0.894; CI = 0.854 to 0.933), esteem (kappa = 0.877; CI = 0.808 to 0.946), and a substantial level in love (kappa = 0.785; CI = 0.720 to 0.849). Mean time taken for scoring was 20 minutes (range 10 to 30); of 54 paired scales, area of safety was not scored only in three by one of the raters.
Conclusions:
This scale appeared user friendly and provided grading of care with high inter-rater agreement. Its use in practice could provide an opportunity for useful comparison with other means of assessment of care, studying outcomes of different care profiles, targeting intervention, and monitoring change.