Assessing the Associations of Solution-Focused Factors and Trauma-Informed Care Factors Using Exploratory Structural Equation Modeling

Background and Purpose: Given the prevalence of trauma in society, it is beneficial for social service agencies to operate from a solution-focused and trauma-informed perspective. While solution-focused and trauma-informed orientations are generally treated as distinct approaches, they have considerable theoretical overlap. Together, solution-focused and trauma-informed care are currently being used to assist organizational change strategies whose aims are to increase responsiveness to client needs and minimize the consequences of bureaucratically structured organizations.

The current study had two aims. The first was to explore the factor structure of a solution-focused trauma-informed care (SFTIC) instrument. The second was to empirically assess the correlational relationship between the solution-focused factors and the trauma-informed care factors. The instrument was a combination of a reduced version of the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration Trauma-Informed Organizational Toolkit (Toolkit) for homeless services and an adaption and expansion of the solution-focused items published by Grant, Cavanagh, et al. (2012). The reduced Toolkit item set consisted of 54 items from 13 subscales within five domains (A. Training, supervision, and support; B. Safe environment and respectful communication; C. Safety and crisis management; D. Developing goals, services and interventions; and E. Creating and reviewing policies).

Methods: The SFTIC instrument was administered anonymously using SurveyMonkey to all employees of a large social services agency providing services to children and families. Approximately twenty-five percent of staff across the agency completed the survey (N=294). The majority of the participants were Caucasian (75.6%), female (70.3%), and between the ages of 31 and 60 (73.5%).

Parallel analysis was used first to determine the number of factors for items in each of the five included Toolkit primary domains and for the solution-focused items. Exploratory structural equation modeling (Mplus 7.4) then was used to examine the factor structure of the identified number of factors. Scales were constructed per the factor structure results and then correlated.

Results: The factor analyses of the Toolkit items identified two domain A factors (Training and Supervision), three domain B factors (Safe physical environment, Supportive environment, and Confidentiality and respectful communication), and one factor from each of domains C, D, and E. Alpha reliabilities for these factors ranged from .79 to .94. The factor analysis of the solution-focused items identified two factors, Solution process and Solution perspective, with reliabilities

of .90 and .72, respectively. All correlations were significant at p<.001. Correlations between Toolkit factors ranged between .31 and .75 with most in the .45-.55 range. The solution-focused factors correlated .58 with each other, and with the Toolkit factors Solution process correlated .36 to .60 and Solution perspective correlated .22 to .37.

 Conclusions and Implications: The Toolkit factors had moderately strong correlations that may indicate a common underlying dimension. The solution-focused measure analysis found a broad, reliable Solution process factor and a weaker, secondary factor needing, perhaps, further development. The Toolkit factors had moderately strong correlations with Solution process and indicate strong connection between trauma-informed care and solution-focused care.