Skip to main content
. 2014 Jan 31;2014(1):CD006546. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD006546.pub3

Testa 2001.

Methods Multivariate effect sizes adjusted using covariates for age, duration of placement, kinship status, gender, placement variables, and degree of relatedness
Participants Kinship n = 955
 Foster n = 955
Data drawn from 2 sources: (1) the IDCFS Integrated Database designed for the Department of the Chapin Hall Center for Children, and (2) the 1994 RCSA survey
Administrative case records extracted from the Integrated Database of kinship and non‐related foster placements that began in Cook County, Illinois between July 1 1991 and June 30 1995 ‐ placements tracked longitudinally with administrative data until case resolution, placement disruption or June 30 1999
Dataset created by linking records from the Integrated Database to RCSA respondents ‐ a comparable sample of children in non‐related foster care was matched by the child's age and duration of placement
Interventions See Table 2
Outcomes Placement Stability ‐ Placement Disruption
Permanency ‐ Adoption; Guardianship
Notes  
Risk of bias
Bias Authors' judgement Support for judgement
Allocation concealment (selection bias) Low risk Attempt was made to equate the kinship care and foster care groups through controlling for covariates; Evidence on setting, placement characteristics, and child demographics was reported on the comparability of the groups
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) 
 All outcomes Unclear risk Kinship care and foster care groups did not experience different exposure to the intervention; Uncertain if groups received different services during placement
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) 
 All outcomes Unclear risk Uncertain if kinship care and foster care groups were defined in same way; There was no evidence of biased assessment resulting from the type of placement
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) 
 All outcomes Low risk All participants were accounted for in the reporting of results; Attrition could not have influenced the results
Selective reporting (reporting bias) Unclear risk Instrumentation used to measure the outcomes was specified completely; Reliability and/or validity information was not reported for some instrumentation