Journal of Child and Family Studies

, Volume 15, Issue 1, pp 114–128 | Cite as

The Role of Fidelity and Feedback in the Wraparound Approach

  • Benjamin M. Ogles
  • David Carlston
  • Derek Hatfield
  • Gregorio Melendez
  • Kathy Dowell
  • Scott A. Fields

Wraparound approaches are being implemented with children in many mental health systems around the country. Evidence for the effectiveness of the wraparound approach, however, is limited. In addition, the degree to which wraparound interventions adhere to the principles of wraparound has rarely been assessed. We examined the influence of adherence to wraparound principles and outcome feedback within the wraparound approach. Children participating in family team meetings were enrolled in a feedback or no feedback condition. Teams receiving feedback were given a brief report regarding outcome progress four times over a three-month period. In addition, adherence to wraparound principles was assessed in the initial team meeting and examined in relationship to outcome at three months and nine months. Although youth in both feedback and non-feedback groups improved with intervention, there were few differences between the groups based on outcome feedback. Similarly, adherence was uniformly high and did not influence the outcome for individual cases. Although the wraparound approach was helpful for youth in our sample, outcome feedback and adherence to wraparound principles had limited influence on these effects.


wraparound feedback adherence outcome mental health 



This study was funded by a grant from the Ohio Department of Mental Health, Office of Program Evaluation and Research, #00.1139A


  1. Battle, C. C., Imber, S. D., Hoehn-Saric, R., Stone, A. R., Nash, E. H., & Frank, J. D. (1966). Target complaints as a criteria of improvement. American Journal of Psychotherapy, 20, 184–192.Google Scholar
  2. Bickman, L., Smith, D. M., Lambert, E. W., & Andrade, M. R. (2003). Evaluation of a congressionally mandated wraparound demonstration. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 12, 135–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Brown, R. A., & Hill, B. A. (1996). Opportunity for change: Exploring an alternative to residential treatment. Child Welfare, 75, 35–57.Google Scholar
  4. Burchard, J. D., & Clark, R. T. (1990). The role of individualized care in a service delivery system for children and adolescents with severely maladjusted behavior. The Journal of Mental Health Administration, 17, 48–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Burns, E. J., Burchard, J. D., & Yoe, J. T. (1995). Evaluating the Vermont system of care: Outcomes associated with community-based wraparound services. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 4, 321–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Burns, B. J., Schoenwald, S. K., Burchard, J. D., Faw, L., & Santos, A. B. (2000). Comprehensive community-based interventions for youth with severe emotional disorders: Multisystemic therapy and the wraparound approach. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 9, 283–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Clark, H. B., Lee, B., Prange, M. E., & McDonald, B. A. (1996). Children lost within the foster care system: Can wraparound service strategies improve placement outcomes? Journal of Child and Family Studies, 5, 39–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Eber, L., Osuch, R., & Redditt, C. A. (1996). School-based applications of the wraparound process: Early results on service provision and student outcomes. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 5, 83–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Epstein, M. H., Jayanthi, M., McKelvey, J., Frankenberry, E., Hardy, R., & Dennis, K. (1998). Reliability of the Wraparound Observation Form: An instrument to measure the wraparound process. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 7, 161–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hart, R. R. (1978). Therapeutic effectiveness of setting and monitoring goals. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 46, 1242–1245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Kanfer, F. H., & Gaelick-Buys, L. (1991). Self-management methods. In F. H. Kanfer & A. P. Goldstein (Eds.). Helping people change (4th ed.; pp. 305–360). New York: Pergamon.Google Scholar
  12. Kiresuk, T. J., Smith, A., & Cardillo, J. E. (Eds.). (1994). Goal attainment scaling: Applications, theory, and measurement. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  13. Lambert, M. J., Whipple, J. L., Smart, D. W., Vermeersch, D. A., Nielsen, S. L., & Hawkins, E. J. (2001). The effects of providing therapists with feedback on patient progress during psychotherapy: Are outcomes enhanced? Psychotherapy Research, 11, 49–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Lueger, R. J. (1998). Using feedback on patient progress to predict the outcome of psychotherapy. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 54, 383–393.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Myaard, M. J. (2000). Applying behavior analysis within the wraparound process: A multiple baseline study. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 8, 216–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Ogles, B. M., Hatfield, D., Carlston, D., Fields, S. A., Dowell, K., & Melendez, G. (2002). The role of fidelity and feedback in the wraparound approach: initial data. New Research in Mental Health: 2000-2001 Biennium, 15, 240–245.Google Scholar
  17. Ogles, B. M., Melendez, G., Davis, D. C., & Lunnen, K. M. (2001). The Ohio Scales: Practical outcome assessment. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 10, 199–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Olson, D. H., Portner, J., & Lavee, Y. (1985). FACES-III. St. Paul, MN: University of Minnesota.Google Scholar
  19. Rosenblatt, A. (1996). Bows and ribbons, tape and twine: Wrapping the wraparound process for children with multi-system needs. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 5, 101–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Stroul, B. A., & Friedman, R. M. (1986). A system of care for children and youth with severe emotionally disturbances (Rev. Ed.). Washington, D. C.: Georgetown University Child Development Center.Google Scholar
  21. Toffalo, D. A. D. (2000). An investigation of treatment integrity and outcomes in wraparound services. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 9, 351–361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. VanDenBerg, J. E., & Grealish, E. M. (1996). Individualized services and supports through the wraparound process: Philosophies and procedures. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 5, 7–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Benjamin M. Ogles
    • 1
    • 7
  • David Carlston
    • 2
  • Derek Hatfield
    • 3
  • Gregorio Melendez
    • 4
  • Kathy Dowell
    • 5
  • Scott A. Fields
    • 6
  1. 1.Professor and Chair, Department of PsychologyOhio UniversityAthensUSA
  2. 2.Assistant Professor, Department of PsychologyMidwestern State UniversityWichita FallsUSA
  3. 3.Doctoral Candidate, Department of PsychologyOhio UniversityAthensUSA
  4. 4.MST ConsultantMST ServicesMt. PleasantUSA
  5. 5.Assistant ProfessorUniversity of Minnesota at DuluthDuluthUSA
  6. 6.Assistant Professor, Director of Behavioral Sciences, Department of Family MedicineWest Virginia University School of Medicine, Charleston DivisionCharlestonUSA
  7. 7.Department of PsychologyOhio University, AthensUSA

Personalised recommendations