This tool has received the Measurement Tools Rating of
A – Psychometrics Well-Demonstrated based on the published, peer-reviewed research available. The tool must have 2 or more published, peer-reviewed studies that have established the measure’s psychometrics (e.g., reliability and validity, sensitivity and specificity, etc.). Please see the
Measurement Tools Rating Scale for more information.
View
All Research Articles
-
Boel-Studt, S., Huefner, J. C., Bender, K., Huang, H., & Abell, N. (2018). Developing quality standards and performance measures for residential group care: Translating theory to practice. Residential Treatment for Children & Youth, 36(4), 260–281. https://doi.org/10.1080/0886571X.2018.1536494
Sample:
Participants: 16 subject matter experts (content validation study); 56 service providers and 27 youth from 10 group homes in one region in Florida (reliability study)
Race/Ethnicity — Not reported
Summary:
The psychometrics of the Quality Standards Assessment was examined in two studies. First, data from a survey of subject matter experts was analyzed using the Scale Content Validity Index (S-CVI); a S-CVI score of .80 or higher (≥ 80% agreement) indicates an item was viewed as a valid representation of a standard. The results show that the total S-CVI was above .80 for the youth, provider, and licensing forms. S-CVI scores for all eight subscales of the youth form were .80 or higher. Second, a feasibility study with 11 group homes provided data for an examination of internal consistency reliability. Results of a preliminary reliability analysis of the youth forms was promising for the overall scales (Youth α = 0.90). Estimates for six out of eight subscales (75%) on the youth form were in the acceptable or higher range.
-
Boel-Studt, S., Huefner, J. C., & Huang, H. (2019). The group care quality standards assessment: A framework for assessment, quality improvement, and effectiveness. Children and Youth Services Review, 105, Article 104425. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2019.104425
Sample:
Participants: Licensing specialists (37 forms), youth (72 forms), case managers and placement coordinators (78 forms), and group home directors and direct care workers (116 forms) from 37 group homes in two regions in Florida
Race/Ethnicity — Not reported
Summary:
The reliability of the Quality Standards Assessment was examined in an implementation pilot study through Cronbach’s alphas, which were calculated for all eight scales for the Youth form (Youth α = 0.60–0.90)
-
Boel-Studt, S., Huang, H., & Collins, C. (2023). “I hope my voice is heard.”: A mixed-methods study of youths’ perceptions of residential care. Children and Youth Services Review, 152, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2023.107034
Sample:
Participants: 450 youths placed in 127 licensed residential care programs in Florida
Race/Ethnicity — 36.3% White, 36% Black, 16% Hispanic/Latino, 9.6% Other/Mixed race, 1.1% Asian, 0.7% Native Hawaiian/ Pacific Islander, and 0.7% American Indian/Alaska Native
Summary:
Data were collected as part of a larger statewide pilot of the Quality Standards Assessment (QSA). Reliability was reported through Cronbach’s alphas for the QSA – Youth Form. Scale scores were as follows: the Assessment, Admission and Services Planning Scale (7 items, α = 0.88); Positive, Safe Living Environment (17 items, α = 0.89); Monitor and Report Problems (five items, α = 0.83); Family, Culture, and Spirituality (nine items, α = 0.88); Program Elements (14 items, α = 0.92); Education, Skills, and Positive Outcomes (four items, α = 0.87); and Pre-Discharge & Post- Discharge Processes (four items, α = 0.86).
-
Boel-Studt, S., Huefner, J. C., & Dowdy-Hazlett, T. (2025). Validity of the Quality Standards Assessment for children’s residential care. Residential Treatment for Children & Youth. 43(2), 272–295. https://doi.org/10.1080/0886571X.2025.2460832n
Sample:
Participants: Factorial validity study: 1,407 QSAs were completed by youth (n = 450), state licensing specialists (n = 152), lead agency personnel (n = 183), residential program directors (n = 172), and direct care specialists (n = 450) from 169 residential programs in Florida. Convergent validity study: youth (n = 328), lead agency personnel (n = 137), direct care specialists (n = 302), directors (n = 224), and licensing specialists (n = 159) in 159 residential programs. Concurrent Validity study: 98 programs with complete QSA-CCP and QSA-Y data with incident data reported during the same time.
Race/Ethnicity — Not reported
Summary:
The validity of the Quality Standards Assessment was examined using evidence from multiple approaches to evaluating validity (content (see Boel-Studt, Huefner, Bender et al, 2018 above for more details), factorial, convergent, and criterion validity) from a series of pilots and studies carried out from 2016–2022. Factorial validity was examined using confirmatory factor analyses (CFA); all tested models achieved acceptable fit, supporting the seven-factor structure of the QSA-Y. Convergent validity was examined through the use of single-item indicators (SII). Pearson’s correlation coefficient was used to estimate associations between mean QSA domain scores and domain SII ratings. All correlations were positive, moderate to large, and statistically significant, providing strong overall evidence of convergent validity. Concurrent validity of the QSA was examined through correlations between QSA domain scores and the number of documented incidents and staff turnover. The results support several expected negative associations, collectively providing additional, albeit preliminary evidence of convergent validity. Most consistently, higher mean scores were associated with fewer total incidents, runaway episodes, law enforcement calls, and staff turnover. The results of this research lend preliminary support for the validity of the QSA as a measure of quality residential care for children and youth.
