English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Zendy Open

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Insights

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Zendy Tools

Zendy Plus

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Recently, a critical commentary was published in the British Journal of Social Work in which the use of Randomised Controlled Trials (RCTs) to examine the effects of Family Group Conferencing (FGC) was questioned and alternatives were proposed to better examine the effects of FGC. According to the authors, a critical approach towards the evidence provided by RCTs is warranted given the uncontrollability of the social reality of FGC and the generally small sample sizes of FGC studies. We think many of the arguments are based on a misunderstanding of RCTs, while the problems indicated are not solved by using a weaker research design. Because we believe it is a moral imperative to support children and families with evidence-based practice, we feel the need to respond to the misunderstandings and correct them. In addition, we emphasise the necessity for conducting research that allows unbiased conclusions about the effectiveness of FGC

the british journal of social work

When the ‘Golden’ Standard Should Be the General Standard: Response to a Commentary on the Use of Randomised Controlled Trials to Examine the Effectiveness of Family Group Conferencing