Table 2.
Review Articles Summary
| Author, Year | (C1). Total References |
(C2). Of (C1), # Used as Evidence |
(C3). Of (C2), # of Research Studies1 |
(C4). Of (C3), # met QL. Criteria2 |
(C5). Proportion QL Studies (C4)/(C2) | (C6). # QL Studies Available to Cite |
(C7). Proportion of Available QL Studies Cited (C4/C6) |
(C8). Review article citation count | Conclusion Statements |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ainsworth and Maluccio, 2002 | 36 | 03 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 6 | 0 | 12 | “A paramount goal of child care and protection authorities should be to preserve family and sibling ties as appropriate. Ideally, this should be through joint placement of siblings.” Pg. n/a |
| O’Neil, 2002 | 103 | 10 | 9 | 2 | 0.20 | 6 | 0.33 | 3 | “What is clear is that sibling relationships are very likely to be of lifelong importance…separation should only be a consideration of last resort.” Pg. 14 |
| Groza et. al., 2003 | 35 | 16 | 14 | 2 | 0.13 | 6 | 0.33 | 49 | “Operating from the basic philosophy that siblings should be placed together unless there is a compelling reason to separate them is consistent with best practice.” Pg. 489 |
| Hegar, 2005 | 102 | 15 | 15 | 2 | 0.13 | 6 | 0.33 | 132 | “More important, findings of the studies support the tentative conclusion that joint sibling placements are as stable as or more stable than placements of single children or separated siblings, and several studies suggest that children do as well or better when placed with their brothers and sisters.” Pg. 731 |
| Shlonsky et. al., 2005 | 83 | n/a4 | n/a | n/a | n/a | 6 | n/a | 86 | “While we advocate for a constitutionally protected right of association among siblings based on our read of the scarce extant literature, case law, and on moral principle, it is unknown whether such an approach will result in optimal outcomes for children. We simply need more information…” Pg. 713 |
| Oosterman et. al., 2007 | 47 | 75 | 7 | 5 | 0.72 | 5 | 1 | 478 | “In sum, although most of the findings concerning siblings in care were in the same direction, that is placement with siblings was associated with less placement breakdown, there was considerable diversity in types of placements…which hampers comparisons across the studies.” Pg. 69 |
| Washington, 2007 | 27 | 11 | 11 | 2 | 0.18 | 8 | 0.25 | 45 | “If at all possible, children in foster care should be placed with their siblings, unless compelling reasons exist for their separation. Researchers have utilized a wide range of techniques and approaches and arrived at similar conclusions, offering strong support for this finding.” Pg. 431 |
| McCormick, 2010 | 52 | 14 | 12 | 2 | 0.17 | 12 | 0.17 | 33 | “The evidence presented in this review suggests that in most cases children benefit significantly from having access to their siblings.” Pg. 213 |
| Gustavsson and MacEachron, 2010 | 41 | 15 | 10 | 3 | 0.30 | 12 | 0.25 | 26 | “Reasonable efforts to enable siblings to maintain their ties regardless of agency actions or placement plans is the cornerstone of best practice.” Pg. 44 |
| Waid, 2014 | 53 | 13 | 12 | 8 | 0.67 | 15 | 0.53 | 25 | “Much has been learned about the relationship between the co-placement of siblings and placement stability and permanency outcomes. Despite this, the relationship between sibling co-placement stability, and child and family well-being remains unclear.” Pg. 294 |
| Rock et. al., 2015 | 79 | 85 | 8 | 6 | 0.75 | 8 | 0.75 | 100 | “Separation of siblings was associated with instability in a majority of studies.” Pg. 194 |
| Jones, 2016 | 40 | 22 | 21 | 5 | 0.23 | 19 | 0.26 | 20 | “Given that research on siblings in adoption and fostering since 2004 broadly confirms Hegar’s conclusion that co-placement of siblings appears to be protective in terms of placement stability, achieving permanence and child well-being ...” Pg. 332 |
| Seale and Damiani-Taraba, 2017 | 62 | 23 | 18 | 7 | 0.30 | 21 | 0.33 | 1 | “Results of the review partially reflect the results of past research, which stated that siblings benefit from being placed with their siblings and thus co-placement should be an overriding goal when making placement decisions.” Pg. 19–20 |
| Meakings, Sebba, and Luke, 2017 | 51 | 18 | 18 | 8 | 0.44 | 21 | 0.38 | 13 | “Despite the acknowledge policy and practice imperative to place siblings together in foster care, evidence on the outcomes for sibling placements remains relatively sparse. Taken together, the evidence…suggests that the outcomes for children placed with siblings in foster care are mostly better than for those placed apart from siblings.” Pg. 13 |
| Konijn et. al., 2019 | 121 | 95 | 9 | 7 | 0.78 | 13 | 0.54 | 11 | “Finally, whenever possible, children should preferably be placed with kin and together with their siblings.” Pg. 495 |
| Children’s Bureau, 2019 | 21 | 10 | 9 | 3 | 0.30 | 23 | 0.13 | n/a6 | “Maintaining and strengthening sibling bonds is a key component to child well-being and permanency outcomes. It is also central to meeting the requirements of the Fostering Connections Act.” Pg.8 |
| Total Unique Studies | -- | 98 | 83 | 19 | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- |
Quantitative and qualitative research studies are included at this point.
QL = Quantitative and Longitudinal. The criteria for inclusion consists of studies that had sibling placement as the independent variable, were quantitative and longitudinal, and included only children in foster care. All qualitative studies are dropped at this point; however, relevant qualitative studies are examined separately in Table 5. Note that some studies may not distinguish between siblings placed alone versus children placed alone who do not have any siblings. Studies that include children without siblings are specified as footnotes in Tables 2–4.
Ainsworth and Maluccio (2002) literature review consists of descriptive statistics on initial sibling placement and size of sibling groups. An outcome section beyond these descriptive statistics is not included.
Shlonsky et. al. (2005) was largely a methodological review. Although it included a short outcome section; however, noted that “Much of this literature, however, is conflicting and based on practice experience rather than empirical studies, and this is particularly true in the area of assessment of sibling relationships.” (pg700). Being that Shlonsky et. al. did not specify which studies are based on practice versus empirical research, no further attempt to count empirical studies is included.
This review is on foster care stability with a section on sibling placement included. We examined only the section on sibling placement.
Citation count data not available.