What Works Best For Whom? A Closer Look at Intensive Family Preservation Services

By Julia H. Littell, J. Schuerman. 2002

97 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Clinical Psychology, Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/270d0877f4accb238ccfb3eb70c87af4196ff087

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Clinical Psychology

1. R. Barth
2. Michael S. Hurlburt
3. Mary M. Wagner
4. D. Spiker

In Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health

1. Michael S. Hurlburt

Citations in the corpus

• Parent-Training Programs in Child Welfare Services: Planning for a More Evidence-Based Approach to Serving Biological Parents (2005, background): “Yet Littell and Schuerman (2002) found no advantage for subgroups of recipients receiving extended intensive family preservation services.”
• Dimensions of Parental Engagement in Home Visiting Programs (2003, background): “Similarly, a comprehensive study by Littell and Schuerman (2002) on the relationship between service characteristics and outcomes for subgroups of families involved in intensive in-home family preservation services used “structural” measures of services (duration, intensity, and number of services…”