Methoden vergelijken

	Structured Decision Making	Standardized Clinical Cutoff
Vakgebied	Social Work	Social Work
Familie	Process / pipeline	Process / pipeline
Jaar van ontstaan	1999	1991
Grondlegger	Children's Research Center (now Evident Change); Christopher Baird, Dennis Wagner & colleagues	Neil S. Jacobson & Paula Truax
Type	Structured assessment system standardizing key decisions across the child-welfare case process	Method for judging whether individual change on a standardized measure is reliable and clinically meaningful
Oorspronkelijke bron	Baird, C., Wagner, D., Healy, T., & Johnson, K. (1999). Risk assessment in child protective services: Consensus and actuarial model reliability. Child Welfare, 78(6), 723–748.	Jacobson, N. S., & Truax, P. (1991). Clinical significance: A statistical approach to defining meaningful change in psychotherapy research. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 59(1), 12–19.
Aliassen	SDM, Structured Decision Making (Child Welfare), SDM System, Structured Decision-Making Model	Clinical Cutoff Score, Clinical Significance Method, Reliable Change Index, Jacobson-Truax Method
Verwant	4	3
Samenvatting	Structured Decision Making (SDM) is a child-welfare case-management system that brings consistency to the most consequential decisions in a case — whether to investigate, whether a child is safe, how high the risk of future maltreatment is, what the family needs, and whether to close — by applying a standardized, research-based assessment tool at each of these decision points. Developed by the Children's Research Center (now Evident Change) around the actuarial-risk work of Christopher Baird, Dennis Wagner, and colleagues, SDM aims to reduce the wide variability and bias of unaided judgment and to target resources where they matter most.	The standardized clinical cutoff approach, developed by Jacobson and Truax, judges whether an individual client's change on a standardized measure is both statistically reliable and clinically meaningful. It pairs a Reliable Change Index — which asks whether a pre-to-post change is larger than the measurement error of the instrument — with a cutoff score that marks the boundary between the dysfunctional and functional (normal) populations. A client who moves reliably across that cutoff is counted as recovered, giving practice and research a defensible, individual-level definition of meaningful improvement.