Measures

This study utilized several scales that were considered to be suitable for studying family services in Finnish municipalities (Kausto et al., 2003;

Toljamo & Perälä, 2008; Vuorenmaa et al., 2014). The support of parental empowerment in substance abuse services (Original article I) and in health and education services (Original article II) was evaluated using the version of the FES aimed at professionals (Vuorenmaa et al., 2014), and the association between the support of parental empowerment and collaborative working practices and management empowerment was evaluated using previously used questionnaires (Karesek & Theorell, 1990; Moorman, 1991; Räikkönen et al., 2007; Table 3).

Table 3. Measuring support of parental empowerment and related factors in this study.

Main variables

Study variable

Measure- ment

SubscalesReliabilityAnalysis Original article I

Supporting parental empowerment of employees of substance abuse services

Supporting parental empowerment a) within the family b) within the service situation c) within the service system The personnel version of the FES (Vuorenmaa et al., 2014)

Three subscales and 32 items. 10 items in the family subscale refer to how employees support parents’ ability to manage everyday life with their children 12 items in the service situation subscale refer to how employees support parents’ ability to obtain and influence the services required for their own child’s needs from the service system 10 items in the service system subscale refer to how employees support parents’ advocacy for improving services for children in general

Cronbach’s alpha a) 0.95 b) 0.92 c) 0.90

Descriptive One-way analysis of variance Independent t-test

Main variables

Study variable

Measure- ment

SubscalesReliabilityAnalysis Original article II

Supporting parental empowerment of employees of child and family services

Supporting parental empowerment a) within the family b) within the service situa- tion c) within the service system The personnel version of the FES (Vuorenmaa et al., 2014)

Three subscales and 32 items - within the family 10 items - within the service situation 12 items - within the service system 10 items a) 0.94 b) 0.92 c) 0.93

Descriptive One-way analysis of variance Independent samples t-test Multiple linear regression (MLR)

Main variables

Study variable

Measure- ment

SubscalesReliabilityAnalysis

Cooperative working practices

Employee awareness of services Functionality of cooperation Shared cooperation practices Agreement on shared goals Agreement on joint practices Commitment to common goals Flow of information Agreement on monitoring and evaluation

Cooperative working practices – questionnaire Job Content Question

-naires (Karasek & Theorell, 1990) Employee awareness of services 18 items Functionality of cooperation - 15 social welfare and education services - 16 health care services Agreement on shared goals5 items Agreement on joint practices5 items

Commitment to common goals 5 items Flow of information

5 items

Agreement on monitoring and evaluation 5 items

0.89 0.91 0.94 0.81 0.82 0.81 0.80 0.88

Main variables

Study variable

Measure- ment

SubscalesReliabilityAnalysis

Empowerment in management

Opportunities to make decisions at work Supervisory support Fairness of treatment Cooperative working prac

-tices – questionnaire Job Content Question

-naires (Karasek & Theorell, 1990) Employee awareness of services 18 items Functionality of cooperation - 15 social welfare and education services - 16 health care services Agreement on shared goals5 items Agreement on joint practices5 items

Commitment to common goals 5 items Flow of information

5 items

Agreement on monitoring and evaluation 5 items

0.89 0.91 0.94 0.81 0.82 0.81 0.80 0.88

Personnel version of the FES (Sub-study I, Original articles I and II)

The support of parental empowerment in substance abuse services (Original article I) and health and education services (Original article II) was evaluated using the version of the FES aimed at professionals (Vuorenmaa et al., 2014).

This measurement includes three subscales and 32 items: 10 items of the family subscale, 12 items of the service situation subscale and 10 items on the service system subscale. Family subscale refer to how employees support parents’ abilities to manage everyday life with their children, for example: “I help parents gain control over their family life.” The service situation subscale refers to how employees support parents’ knowledge, understanding, and rights related to their child’s services, and their ability to collaborate with professionals and participate in decision-making, for example: “I make sure that parents approve all services provided to their child”. The service system subscale refers to how employees support parents’ ability to influence and contribute to improving this system, for example: “I make sure that parents have information on the services for children available in their municipality”.

The personnel version of the FES uses a 5-point Likert-type rating scale (1 = fully disagree, 5 = fully agree).

The measurement is based on Koren et al.’s original FES (1992), which was developed for the parents of children with emotional disabilities. The personnel version of the FES was modified to reflect the perspective of the personnel’s evaluation of their support of parental empowerment. The modification, as well as the back translation was carried out by a group of multidisciplinary experts. The personnel version of the FES was piloted with personnel (n = 17) in school health care and daycare. No changes were made following the pilot study. (Halme et al., 2014; Vuorenmaa, 2016.)

Cooperative working practices (Sub-study II, Original article II)

Awareness of child and family services was measured with 18 items using a five-point Likert-type scale (1=very poor,5= very good) (Joensuu et al., 2013; Perälä et al., 2011). Such services included special education services, psychological support, parish, private sector services, and various forms of

financial support. The functionality of collaboration, within the previous 12 months with social welfare and education services and health care services social welfare was measured with 31 items on a five-point Likert- type scale (1=very poor, 5= very good) (Halme et al., 2014; Perälä et al., 2011)

Shared cooperation practices, agreement on shared goals, agreement on joint practices, commitment to common goals, the flow of information, agreement on monitoring and evaluation, between sectors and municipalities and with third- and private-sector actors providing services for children and families was elicited using a 30-item measure consisting of six items (Veil &

Herbert, 2008). A five-point Likert-type scale (1= strongly disagree, 5=strongly agree) was used (Halme et al., 2014; Perälä et al., 2011).

Empowerment in management (Sub-study II, Original article II)

Job Content Questionnaires (Karasek & Theorell, 1990) was used to evaluate the opportunities for employees to make decisions about their work. Six items using a five-point response scale (1=very poor, 5=very good), were used to assess the employees’ opportunities to make decisions about their work, work tasks and procedures, pace, established working methods, and division of labor, as well as the procurement of any tools and learning materials needed in their workplace. (Halme et al., 2014.)

Supervisory support (Sub-study II, Original article II)

Supervisory support such as empowering support and skills-oriented support activities were measured with the 12-item Supervisory Support Measure (Räikkönen et al., 2007) using a five-point Likert-type scale (1=poor, 5=excellent). The measurement included 12 items. The empowering support behavior subscale contained five items: unit employees’ opportunities to feel respected in their work, receiving feedback about the care they had provided, developing unit practices, influencing decisions made concerning unit practices, and acting according to the principles of good care.

The skills-oriented support activities subscale contained seven items:

receiving training to support professional development, opportunities to

receive clinical supervision, discussing individual performance reviews and development, receiving support for studying on one’s initiative, receiving support for development activities, being provided with information on best practices, and receive opportunities to participate in job rotation.

Fairness of treatment (Sub-study II, Original article II)

The fairness of treatment (Moorman, 1991) was evaluated with a five-point Likert- type scale (1=strongly disagree, 5=strongly agree). The employees’

perceptions of treatment by and relationship with their managers, including their opinions of whether the relationship was equal, honest, and open, were assessed according to seven items. A new item, “My line manager includes subordinates in the decision-making processes,” was added to Moorman’s (1991) original set of six items. The added statement worked well in the scale, and its correlation with other variables in the original measurement ranged from r = 0.58 to r = 0.69. The internal consistency of the new, supplemented measurement, assessed by Cronbach’s alpha coefficient, was excellent (α = 0.93), and thus followed the internal consistency of the original measurement (Kausto et al., 2003).

Demographic variables and aspects of the workplace (Sub-studies I and II, Original articles I and II)

The surveys included demographic variables (e.g., age and gender) and questions about education and managerial position, as well as the industrial sector, workplace location, and the population size in the municipality (Table 1 in Original article I, Table 2 in Original article II).