Patterns of interactions in multidisciplinary child protection teams in New Jersey.

OBJECTIVE The objective of this study was to gain an understanding of how multidisciplinary team members in child protection worked together within the team, meeting to provide assessments of, and services to, children and families. METHOD Fifteen multidisciplinary child-protection teams in New Jersey were observed during one meeting of each team. The interaction among team members was recorded and analyzed using a structured observation method, Bales' Interaction Process Analysis. RESULTS There was a wide variation in participation among team members, with some contributing nothing to the meeting and others contributing a great deal. In some teams, participation by members was more equal than others. Some professional groups and agencies contributed very little to any meeting while others contributed a great deal to many meetings. CONCLUSIONS Professionals are members of multidisciplinary teams because they are expected to contribute to the investigation of child maltreatment cases and to the planning for further work with cases. However, the findings from this study suggest that there is a considerable degree of inequality in levels of participation in multidisciplinary meetings. It is particularly noticeable that staff from the prosecutor's offices participate in every meeting and either the agency as a whole or individual members of it dominate many of the meetings.

[1]  R. Ofshe,et al.  The Impact of Behavioral Style and Status Characteristics on Social Influence: A Test of Two Competing Theories , 1981 .

[2]  N. Kerr,et al.  Group Process, Group Decision, Group Action , 1992 .

[3]  Jean Carletta,et al.  Placement of Authority and Communication Pattern in Workplace Groups --- the Consequences for Innovation , 2022 .

[4]  L. Penner,et al.  Conformity as a Function of Response Position , 1974 .

[5]  Edward E. Jones,et al.  Self-promotion is not ingratiating. , 1986, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[6]  E. Thomas,et al.  Effects of group size. , 1963, Psychological bulletin.

[7]  Noah E. Friedkin,et al.  Horizons of Observability and Limits of Informal Control in Organizations , 1983 .

[8]  David J. Stang,et al.  Group Size Effects on Conformity , 1976 .

[9]  L. Nordholm Effects of Group Size and Stimulus Ambiguity on Conformity , 1975 .

[10]  N. Kerr Motivation losses in small groups: a social dilemma analysis , 1983 .

[11]  Frank Tutzauer,et al.  Toward a theory of disintegration in communication networks , 1985 .

[12]  C. H. Hawkins Interaction Rates of Jurors Aligned in Factions , 1962 .

[13]  L. Molm Gender, Power, and Legitimation: A Test of Three Theories , 1986, American Journal of Sociology.

[14]  G. Stasser,et al.  Pooling of Unshared Information in Group Decision Making: Biased Information Sampling During Discussion , 1985 .

[15]  H. Joseph Reitz,et al.  Groups and organizations : integrated readings in the analysis of social behavior , 1971 .

[16]  D. Rosenberg The New Child Protection Team Handbook , 1988 .

[17]  Frederick F. Stephan,et al.  The Distribution of Participation in Small Groups: An Exponential Approximation , 1952 .

[18]  A. Hare,et al.  Handbook of small group research , 1962 .

[19]  W. E. Holland,et al.  Communicators and Innovators in Research and Development Organizations , 1983 .

[20]  Helen C. Dawe The Influence of Size of Kindergarten Group upon Performance1 , 1934 .

[21]  A. Craddock Centralized Authority as a Factor in Small Group and Family Problem Solving , 1985 .

[22]  Michael A. West,et al.  Reflexivity, Effectiveness, and Mental Health in BBC-TV Production Teams , 1998 .

[23]  R. Bales,et al.  Phases in group problem-solving. , 1951, Journal of abnormal and social psychology.