Skip to main content
Log in

The Role of Fidelity and Feedback in the Wraparound Approach

  • Published:
Journal of Child and Family Studies Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Wraparound approaches are being implemented with children in many mental health systems around the country. Evidence for the effectiveness of the wraparound approach, however, is limited. In addition, the degree to which wraparound interventions adhere to the principles of wraparound has rarely been assessed. We examined the influence of adherence to wraparound principles and outcome feedback within the wraparound approach. Children participating in family team meetings were enrolled in a feedback or no feedback condition. Teams receiving feedback were given a brief report regarding outcome progress four times over a three-month period. In addition, adherence to wraparound principles was assessed in the initial team meeting and examined in relationship to outcome at three months and nine months. Although youth in both feedback and non-feedback groups improved with intervention, there were few differences between the groups based on outcome feedback. Similarly, adherence was uniformly high and did not influence the outcome for individual cases. Although the wraparound approach was helpful for youth in our sample, outcome feedback and adherence to wraparound principles had limited influence on these effects.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

REFERENCES

  • Battle, C. C., Imber, S. D., Hoehn-Saric, R., Stone, A. R., Nash, E. H., & Frank, J. D. (1966). Target complaints as a criteria of improvement. American Journal of Psychotherapy, 20, 184–192.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bickman, L., Smith, D. M., Lambert, E. W., & Andrade, M. R. (2003). Evaluation of a congressionally mandated wraparound demonstration. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 12, 135–157.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, R. A., & Hill, B. A. (1996). Opportunity for change: Exploring an alternative to residential treatment. Child Welfare, 75, 35–57.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burchard, J. D., & Clark, R. T. (1990). The role of individualized care in a service delivery system for children and adolescents with severely maladjusted behavior. The Journal of Mental Health Administration, 17, 48–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burns, E. J., Burchard, J. D., & Yoe, J. T. (1995). Evaluating the Vermont system of care: Outcomes associated with community-based wraparound services. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 4, 321–339.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burns, B. J., Schoenwald, S. K., Burchard, J. D., Faw, L., & Santos, A. B. (2000). Comprehensive community-based interventions for youth with severe emotional disorders: Multisystemic therapy and the wraparound approach. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 9, 283–315.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clark, H. B., Lee, B., Prange, M. E., & McDonald, B. A. (1996). Children lost within the foster care system: Can wraparound service strategies improve placement outcomes? Journal of Child and Family Studies, 5, 39–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eber, L., Osuch, R., & Redditt, C. A. (1996). School-based applications of the wraparound process: Early results on service provision and student outcomes. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 5, 83–99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Epstein, M. H., Jayanthi, M., McKelvey, J., Frankenberry, E., Hardy, R., & Dennis, K. (1998). Reliability of the Wraparound Observation Form: An instrument to measure the wraparound process. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 7, 161–170.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hart, R. R. (1978). Therapeutic effectiveness of setting and monitoring goals. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 46, 1242–1245.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kanfer, F. H., & Gaelick-Buys, L. (1991). Self-management methods. In F. H. Kanfer & A. P. Goldstein (Eds.). Helping people change (4th ed.; pp. 305–360). New York: Pergamon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kiresuk, T. J., Smith, A., & Cardillo, J. E. (Eds.). (1994). Goal attainment scaling: Applications, theory, and measurement. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

  • Lambert, M. J., Whipple, J. L., Smart, D. W., Vermeersch, D. A., Nielsen, S. L., & Hawkins, E. J. (2001). The effects of providing therapists with feedback on patient progress during psychotherapy: Are outcomes enhanced? Psychotherapy Research, 11, 49–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lueger, R. J. (1998). Using feedback on patient progress to predict the outcome of psychotherapy. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 54, 383–393.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Myaard, M. J. (2000). Applying behavior analysis within the wraparound process: A multiple baseline study. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 8, 216–229.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ogles, B. M., Hatfield, D., Carlston, D., Fields, S. A., Dowell, K., & Melendez, G. (2002). The role of fidelity and feedback in the wraparound approach: initial data. New Research in Mental Health: 2000-2001 Biennium, 15, 240–245.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ogles, B. M., Melendez, G., Davis, D. C., & Lunnen, K. M. (2001). The Ohio Scales: Practical outcome assessment. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 10, 199–212.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Olson, D. H., Portner, J., & Lavee, Y. (1985). FACES-III. St. Paul, MN: University of Minnesota.

  • Rosenblatt, A. (1996). Bows and ribbons, tape and twine: Wrapping the wraparound process for children with multi-system needs. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 5, 101–116.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stroul, B. A., & Friedman, R. M. (1986). A system of care for children and youth with severe emotionally disturbances (Rev. Ed.). Washington, D. C.: Georgetown University Child Development Center.

  • Toffalo, D. A. D. (2000). An investigation of treatment integrity and outcomes in wraparound services. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 9, 351–361.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • VanDenBerg, J. E., & Grealish, E. M. (1996). Individualized services and supports through the wraparound process: Philosophies and procedures. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 5, 7–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This study was funded by a grant from the Ohio Department of Mental Health, Office of Program Evaluation and Research, #00.1139A

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Benjamin M. Ogles Ph.D..

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Ogles, B.M., Carlston, D., Hatfield, D. et al. The Role of Fidelity and Feedback in the Wraparound Approach. J Child Fam Stud 15, 114–128 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-005-9008-7

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-005-9008-7

KEY WORDS:

Navigation