Suchergebnisse

English
Research evidence in the form of syntheses of offender treatment evaluation has played a role in perceptions of offender rehabilitation. This article reviews the history of the offender treatment debate in the United States, but the focus is more on the reviews than the ideological and political climate of the day. There is no question that such reviews were influential within the academic community during the fall of rehabilitation in the 1960s-70s and especially during its revival since the late 1980s. Narrative reviews such as Robert Martinson's landmark paper summarised evaluations of rehabilitation programmes and concluded that there was little evidence of treatment efficacy. By the 1980s, however, the findings from quantitative reviews or meta-analysis overturned widespread pessimism about intervention and led to the conclusion that treatment, on average, does have positive effects even if modest in size.

Research evidence in the form of syntheses of offender treatment evaluation has played a role in perceptions of offender rehabilitation. This article reviews the history of the offender treatment debate in the United States, but the focus is more on the reviews than the ideological & political climate of the day. There is no question that such reviews were influential within the academic community during the fall of rehabilitation in the 1960s-70s & especially during its revival since the late 1980s. Narrative reviews such as Robert Martinson's landmark paper summarised evaluations of rehabilitation programmes & concluded that there was little evidence of treatment efficacy. By the 1980s, however, the findings from quantitative reviews or meta-analysis overturned widespread pessimism about intervention & led to the conclusion that treatment, on average, does have positive effects even if modest in size. 1 Figure, 109 References. Adapted from the source document.

Data on the frequency of experiments are elusive. One way to estimate how many experiments are done is by analyzing the contents of bibliographic databases. This article analyzes the citation information from six major bibliographic databases to estimate the proportion of randomized (or possibly randomized) experiments compared to all outcome or impact evaluation studies. The focus of the article is on the evaluation of programs designed for children (from birth to eighteen years of age). The results indicate that randomized studies are used in nearly 70 percent of childhood interventions in health care but probably in 6 to 15 percent of kindergarten through twelfth-grade interventions in education and juvenile justice. The article concludes with discussion about these data, particularly on suggestions of how to produce more outcome studies, and randomized experiments, of childhood interventions.

The Campbell Collaboration Crime and Justice Group continues to focus on issues of evidence: what studies count in a systematic review and how many studies are needed to claim an intervention works. They are not alone. Since the mid-1990s, a number of similar efforts have sprung up to provide guidance to policy makers who wish to adopt programs to prevent violence or drug use. Many of these are particularly relevant to school-based drug prevention programs. This article describes seven efforts to produce guides to research-based programs, focusing on the standards adopted to determine what evidence counts and how much of it is necessary to determine that it worked. The author concludes with a discussion of some of the issues raised by this review.

Data on the frequency of experiments are elusive. One way to estimate how many experiments are done is by analyzing the contents of bibliographic databases. This article analyzes the citation information from six major bibliographic databases to estimate the proportion of randomized (or possibly randomized) experiments compared to all outcome or impact evaluation studies. The focus of the article is on the evaluation of programs designed for children (from birth to eighteen years of age). The results indicate that randomized studies are used in nearly 70 percent of childhood interventions in health care but probably in 6 to 15 percent of kindergarten through twelfth-grade interventions in education & juvenile justice. The article concludes with discussion about these data, particularly on suggestions of how to produce more outcome studies, & randomized experiments, of childhood interventions. [Copyright 2003 Sage Publications, Inc.]

The Campbell Collaboration Crime & Justice Group continues to focus on issues of evidence: what studies count in a systematic review & how many studies are needed to claim an intervention works. They are not alone. Since the mid-1990s, a number of similar efforts have sprung up to provide guidance to policy makers who wish to adopt programs to prevent violence or drug use. Many of these are particularly relevant to school-based drug prevention programs. This article describes seven efforts to produce guides to research-based programs, focusing on the standards adopted to determine what evidence counts & how much of it is necessary to determine that it worked. The author concludes with a discussion of some of the issues raised by this review. 1 Table, 5 Appendixes, 33 References. [Copyright 2003 Sage Publications, Inc.]

AbstractEven simple program theory evaluations could be used in meta‐analysis to provide benefit. Several examples of ways to combine the two are explored, including a hypothetical model and an actual example of a federal funding program.

The author examines the role of mediators and moderators in the evaluation of programs for children. The terms are defined and examples of each are presented. Using bibliometric analysis, the author examines how evaluators use mediators and moderators in treatment studies in education, juvenile justice, health care, child protection, and mental health. The use of mediators and moderators is sporadic and vague at best. An agenda for improvement is outlined that includes greater use of program theory and intensive case studies to find out why researchers in prevention and health promotion incorporate mediators and moderators more effectively in their evaluations.

One of the most important stages of a meta-analysis is specifying the inclusion criteria. In other words, what studies will be included in or excluded from the quantitative review? How are these decisions made? The author presents problems and illustrations from this first phase in an ongoing meta-analysis of crime reduction programs. The eight criteria for including studies in the crime reduction meta-analysis are specified, problematic studies confronted using the criteria are listed, and rules for handling those studies to retain consistency throughout the meta-analysis are discussed. The article concludes with three recommendations for future meta-analyses of this type.

During the 1960s and 1970s, the California Youth Authority embarked on a series of randomized field trials to test interventions for juvenile and young adult offenders. This article examines the institutional and political reasons why rigorous tests were adopted for such interventions as the Community Treatment Program. It also describes the effect these trials had on the agency and on California justice, as well as how the experimental method eventually became less often used in the Youth Authority. The authors explore some general reasons why this happened.

Systematic reviews use rigorous methods for locating, appraising, & synthesizing evidence from prior evaluation studies. They have explicit objectives, explicit criteria for including or excluding studies, & a structured & detailed report. The Campbell Collaboration Crime & Justice Group aims to prepare & maintain systematic reviews of criminological interventions & to make them accessible electronically to scholars, practitioners, policy makers, & the general public. The major challenges include setting methodological criteria for including studies in reviews, securing continued funding, academics needing publications in scholarly journals, & coping with the volume of work needed to maintain high standards, including refereeing proposals & final reviews & dealing with correspondence & unsolicited proposals. The aim of making the best knowledge about the effectiveness of criminological interventions immediately available to everyone is ambitious & very important. 12 References. [Copyright 2001 Sage Publications, Inc.]

Scared Straight and other programs involve organized visits to prison facilities by juvenile delinquents or at-risk kids to deter them from delinquency. Despite several research studies and reviews questioning their effectiveness, they remain in use and have now been tried in at least six nations. The authors report here on the results of a systematic review of randomized experimental tests of this program. Studies that tested any program involving the organized visits of delinquents or at-risk children to penal institutions were included. Each study had to have a no-treatment control condition with at least one outcome measure of "postvisit" criminal behavior. Using extensive search methods, the authors located nine randomized trials meeting eligibility criteria. After describing the studies and appraising their methodological quality, the authors present the narrative findings from each evaluation. A meta-analysis of prevalence rates indicates that the intervention on average is more harmful to juveniles than doing nothing. The authors conclude that governments should institute rigorous programs of research to ensure that well-intentioned treatments do not cause harm to the citizens they pledge to protect.