弱勢家庭親職、家庭功能與家庭環境評估之研究---一般家庭與弱勢家庭的比較

全文

(1)行政院國家科學委員會專題研究計畫成果報告弱勢家庭親職、家庭功能與家庭環境評估之研究：一般家庭與弱勢家庭的比較研究成果報告(精簡版). 計計執執. 畫畫行行. 類編期單. 別號間位. ：個別型： NSC 98-2410-H-004-109： 98 年 08 月 01 日至 99 年 07 月 31 日：國立政治大學社會工作研究所. 計畫主持人：謝美娥計畫參與人員：碩士班研究生-兼任助理人員：陳虹彣. 處理方式：本計畫可公開查詢. 中. 華. 民. 國 99 年 07 月 15 日.

(2) Research on the assessment of parental responsibility, family function and family environment among vulnerable families: A comparison of normal families and vulnerable families NSC 98. I.

(3) 6-12. 235. 33. 31. 137 ( 43 ). 30 72 .872. .911. :. II. .890. .881 31-40.

(4) Abstract Some families are suffering from the dramatic social change. This dramatic change not only weakens their family function, but also inflicts damage on children due to family stress. In general, the family intervention services must include: meeting developmental need of children, assessing the ability and responsibility of primary caregivers, providing safer environment for children, and alleviating risk situations. Therefore, the purpose of this study intends to portray the picture of vulnerable families in terms of assessing parenting function, family function and family environment to ensure the appropriateness of helping. Qualitative and quantitative methods are employed simultaneously in the study. First, focus group discussion and content analysis are used to delineate the definition and characteristics of the families. Second, 235 families (75.8% of the response rate) from stratified sampling method are assessed by the responsible social worker. The findings show that children applying for the “ emergent living assistance of vulnerable families with children and youth”are moderately well developed. The caregivers are parenting well too. However, the family function is moderately not so good in terms of setting family rules. The family environment is also not so adequate in activity space and learning environment. Finally, the practice and research implications are provided.. Key words: vulnerable families, family functioning, family environment, parental responsibility. III.

(5) 95. 97. 1.

(6) 200 Bolger, Patterson, Thompson, & Kupersmidt,1995 Brain, Eleanor & Carroll,2004. 2007. Crossen-Tower, 2007 McGaw & Sturmey, 1994 Crossen-Tower, 2007 Beavers, Hulgus, & Hampson, 1988 Milner & Dopke, 1997. DiLauro, 2005. Chavkin & Williams, 1990 Epstein, Bishop, & Levin, 1978 Walsh functioning). 1993. (global family. Beavers, Hulgus, & Hampson, 2007 Sousa & Rodrigues,. Hsueh & Yoshikawa,. Mink Ekbom & Bojö, 1999 Watson,Kirby,Kelleher & Bradley Bradley, Whiteside,. 1996) Mundfrom, Casey, Kelleher, & Pope, 1994 Verma, 1999, Evans, 2004. Larson & Gielen, Wilson, Faden, Wissow, &. Harvilchuck, 1995 2.

(7) 6-12. 235 Department of Health, Department of education and employment, and home office(2002) Bradley(1984) for Measurement of the Environment)( Epstein McMaster FAD. (. (Core Assessment) Caldwell (HOME inventory, Home Observation Linver, Brooks-Gunn& Cabrera, 2004) Family Assessment Device,. ) 50 31-40 51-60 57% 50.2%. 84.6% 51.2%. 88.9%. 46.2% 26.4% 34.9%. 89.4% 41.3% 54.9%. 45.1%. 12 22.7% 43.8% 1 (. 39.6%. 47.2% 70.2% 2. 21.7%. ). t=-3.07, p<.01. t=-3.95, p<.001 t=-3.64, p<.001. t=-3.79, p<.001 t=-3.86, p<.001. 3.

(8) t=-2.70, p<.01. t=-3.53, p<.01 t=-3.76, p<.001 t=-3.84, p<.001 t=-3.74,. p<.001. t=-2.59, p<.05 t=-3.02, p<.01 t=-3.66, p<.001. t=-3.95, p<.001. t=-2.66, p<.01. t=-2.22, p<.05. t=-3.02, p<.01 t=-1.82, p<.01 t=-2.79, p<.01 t=-2.58, p<.05. 95.7% 81.7%. 70.6% 54.9%. 1. —. 2. 3.. 4.

(9) 5.

(10) Beavers, W. R., Hulgus, Y. F.& Hampson, R.B. (1988). The assessment of competence in families with a retarded child. Journal of Family Psychology, 2, 32-53. Bradley, R. H., Whiteside, L., Mundfrom, D. J., Casey, P. H., Kelleher, K. J., & Pope,S. K. (1994).Early indications of resilience and their relation to experiences in the home environments of low birthweight, Premature children living in poverty. Child Development, 65(2), 346-360. Brain, P. A., Eleanor, D. B.,& Carroll, E.I.(2004). The relations between contextual risks, earned incomes, and the school adjustment of children from economically disadvantaged families. Development Psychology,40(2),204-216. Chavkin, N., & Williams, D. L. (1990). Working parents and schools: Implications for parents. Education, 111(2), 242-248. Crossen-Tower, C. (2007). Exploring child welfare: a practice perspective(4nd ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon. DiLauro, M.D. (2005). Psychosocial factors associated with types of child maltreatment. Child welfare, 83(1), 69-99. Department of Health, Department of education and employment, and home office( 2000).Framework for the assessment of children in need and their families – pack. London,UK: The stationery office From: http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/Publicationsandstatistics/Publications/PublicationsPolicyA ndGuidance/DH_4008144 Ekbom, A., & Bojö, J. (1999). Poverty and Environment: Evidence of Links and Integration into the Country Assistance Strategy Process. Paper presented at the meeting of The World Bank Environment Group, Africa Region.Evans, G.. W. 6.

(11) (2004). The Environment of Childhood Poverty. American Psychologist. 59(2), 77-92. Epstein, N. B.(1983). The McMaster family assessment device. Journal of Marital and family therapy, 9(2), 171-180. Epstein,N. B., Bishop,D. , & Levin, S. (1978). The mcmaster model of family functioning. Journal of Marriage and Family Counseling,4, 19-31. Evan, G.. W.(2004). The environment of childhood poverty. American Psychologist, 59, 77-92. Gielen, A. C., Wilson, M., Faden, R., Wissow, L., & Harvilchuck, J.(1995). In-home injury prevention practices for infants and toddlers:The role of parental beliefs, barriers, and housing quality. Health Education Quarterly, 22, 85–95. Hsueh, J., & Yoshikawa, H. (2007). Working nonstandard schedules and variable shifts in low-income families: Associations with parental psychological well-being, family functioning, and child well-being. Developmental Psychology, 43, 620-632. Linver, M. R., Brooks-Gunn,J.& Cabrera,N.(2004). The home observation for measurement of the environment(HOME) inventory: the derivation of conceptually designed subscales. parenting: science and practice, 4, 99-114. McGaw, S. , & Sturmey, P. (1994). Assessing parents with learning disabilities: The parental skills model. Child Abuse Review, 3, 36-51. Sousa, L., & Rodrigues, S. (2009). Support in multiproblem low-income families: The role of the family manager. Journal of community psychology, 37(5), 649-662. Waston, J.E., Kriby, R.S., Kelleher, K.J., & Bradley, R.H. (1996). Effects of Poverty on Home Environment: An Analysis of Three-Year Outcome Data for Low Birth Weight Premature Infants. Journal of Pediatric Psychology,21(3), 419-431.. >. 7.

(12) 無研發成果推廣資料.

(13) 國科會補助專題研究計畫成果報告自評表請就研究內容與原計畫相符程度、達成預期目標情況、研究成果之學術或應用價值（簡要敘述成果所代表之意義、價值、影響或進一步發展之可能性）、是否適合在學術期刊發表或申請專利、主要發現或其他有關價值等，作一綜合評估。 1. 請就研究內容與原計畫相符程度、達成預期目標情況作一綜合評估 □達成目標 ■未達成目標（請說明，以 100 字為限） □實驗失敗 □因故實驗中斷 ■其他原因說明：原計畫為三年內針對兒童、家長和社工員等不同觀點切入兒童居家的適切性、比較一般家庭和弱勢家庭的差異和家庭處遇的成效等。因故被刪成一年。且僅配有兼任助理，預算與時間大大刪減，無法實現原來計畫的三項目的。. 2. 研究成果在學術期刊發表或申請專利等情形：論文：□已發表 ■未發表之文稿 □撰寫中 □無專利：□已獲得 □申請中 ■無技轉：□已技轉 □洽談中 ■無其他：（以 100 字為限） 3. 請依學術成就、技術創新、社會影響等方面，評估研究成果之學術或應用價值（簡要敘述成果所代表之意義、價值、影響或進一步發展之可能性）（以 500 字為限）本研究仍以弱勢家庭瞭解為主要目的，以質化和量化進行對其兒童發展、家庭環境、家庭功能和親職功能上的檢視。研究結果有助於對此一弱勢群體的深度瞭解，也因著有進一步的瞭解，遂能提出更具體的建議，有利於對弱勢家庭的協助。.

(14)

(15)