2014
DOI: 10.1007/s10566-014-9278-6
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Adolescents in Institutional Care: Significant Adults, Resilience and Well-Being

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1

Citation Types

3
42
0
15

Year Published

2017
2017
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
7
1

Relationship

3
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 52 publications
(60 citation statements)
references
References 41 publications
3
42
0
15
Order By: Relevance
“…McCall & Groark (2015) have argued that "type of care", usually quantified on "hard" measures of care provision, is not the same thing as "quality of care" in which indices such as caregiver-child relationship must be considered (Mota & Matos, 2015). Consistent with this suggestion, our study showed that official categories of child CWI defined by the government did not differ significantly on HOME dimensions; yet CWIs grouped within the same category showed significant differences on HOME dimensions.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…McCall & Groark (2015) have argued that "type of care", usually quantified on "hard" measures of care provision, is not the same thing as "quality of care" in which indices such as caregiver-child relationship must be considered (Mota & Matos, 2015). Consistent with this suggestion, our study showed that official categories of child CWI defined by the government did not differ significantly on HOME dimensions; yet CWIs grouped within the same category showed significant differences on HOME dimensions.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Group homes on the other hand, host no more than 6 children per home with a 3:1 child-caregiver ratio; children are still grouped by gender, but not age. In contrast, variations on less tangible, "soft" measures, such as the quality and nature of child-caregiver interactions (Vorria et al, 2003) and relationship (Mota & Matos, 2015), children's actual usage of resources regardless of provision, and even caregiver's own attachment representation (Mota & Matos, 2016), have been overlooked in care quality assessments and therefore categorization of different types of care. These "soft" qualities may often be "unobservable" (McCall & Groark, 2015), more difficult to define and measure, and also easily biased when using self-report methods.…”
Section: Accepted Manuscriptmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…First, whereas some studies were based solely on measures conducted among the young people themselves (Davidson-Arad & Navaro-Bitton, 2015; Drapeau et al, 2004Drapeau et al, , 2007Drapeau et al, , 2003Hass & Graydon, 2009;Maurović, 2015;McRae, 2008;Mota & Matos, 2015), some relied entirely on measures completed by the families and/or social workers (Barber & Delfabbro, 2003;Bell et al, 2013Bell et al, , 2015Mateos Inchaurrondo et al, 2015;Taylor, 2009), whereas others used a combination of the two (Barnsley, 2011;Legault et al, 2006;McWey et al, 2010;Metzger, 2008;Rousseau et al, 2016;Schofield & Beek, 2009).…”
Section: Study Limitationsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Porém, apesar de este processo gerar dificuldades nas vivências dos jovens, não é irreversível sob o ponto de vista da reorganização dos modelos internos dinâmicos. Alguns autores apontam ainda para o facto do processo de acolhimento residencial surgir como facilitador do desenvolvimento humano (Fante & Cassab, 2007), na medida em que parece contribuir para o restabelecimento de relações afetivas com outras figuras de referência Mota & Matos, 2010, 2015. Perante esta realidade, a reorganização das relações afetivas parece apontar para a possibilidade dos jovens ultrapassarem esta situação de maior fragilidade, resultado da manutenção das ligações com outras figuras alternativas dentro da própria instituição.…”
unclassified
“…Perante esta realidade, a reorganização das relações afetivas parece apontar para a possibilidade dos jovens ultrapassarem esta situação de maior fragilidade, resultado da manutenção das ligações com outras figuras alternativas dentro da própria instituição. Assim sendo, a qualidade das ligações estabelecidas dentro da instituição tendem a contribuir para a reorganização dos modelos internos dinâmicos dos jovens e para o potenciar de um maior sentimento de pertença e confiança (Mota & Matos, 2008, 2015. Por sua vez, o restabelecimento destas relações facilita um desenvolvimento mais resiliente e adaptativo Mota & Matos, 2010 e parece estar relacionado com uma melhoria na satisfação com a vida e na reformulação dos próprios objetivos de vida (Fante & Cassab, 2007;Frankl, 2007).…”
unclassified