Swipe om te navigeren naar een ander artikel
The purpose of the current study is to examine the use of both a prospective and a retrospective pretest in evaluating the impact of the Strengthening Families Program on foster care involved families affected by parental substance abuse. Debate has existed in the literature for over 60 years regarding the use of retrospective pretests in assessing self-reported program impact, with key stakeholders often arguing strongly that, due to response-shift bias, sensitization, and the nature of many human service settings, retrospective pretesting may be more appropriate. However, program evaluators must also incorporate into the evaluation design funding mandates to collect data at specific points in time. In order to mitigate potential pretest-only biases and enhance the evaluation’s rigor, this study sought to address the pretest debate through the use of both a traditional, prospective pretest and a retrospective pretest. Using data provided by 411 caregivers, program effectiveness was measured in the areas of family, child and parent functioning. Statistical significance tests and effect sizes were analyzed to compare traditional prospective pretest to posttest scores and retrospective pretests to posttest scores. Findings indicate that overall, the Strengthening Families Program positively impacted family, child and parent functioning and that there were few differences between testing approaches when testing for statistical significance; however, relative differences between prospective pretests and retrospective pretests appeared more prominent in effect size computations. This research informs the longstanding debate, and suggests that program evaluators consider the advantages and disadvantages of using a retrospective pretest in design planning.
Log in om toegang te krijgen
Met onderstaand(e) abonnement(en) heeft u direct toegang:
Allen, J. M., & Nimon, K. (2007). Retrospective pretest: A practical technique for professional development evaluation. Journal of Industrial Teacher Education, 44(3), 27–42.
Barth, R. P., Landsverk, J., Chamberlain, P., Reid, J. B., Rolls, J. A., Hurlburt, M. S., & Kohl, P. L. (2005). Parent-training programs in child welfare services: Planning for a more evidence-based approach to serving biological parents. Research on Social Work Practice, 15(5), 353–371. CrossRef
Betz, D. L., & Hill, L. G. (2006). Real world evaluation. Journal of Extension, 44(2), 2RIB9.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Deutsch, M., & Collins, M. E. (1951). Interracial housing: A psychological evaluation of a social experiment. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Falconer, M. K., Haskett, M. E., McDaniels, L., Dirkes, T., & Siegel, E. C. (2008). Evaluation of support groups for child abuse prevention: Outcomes of four state evaluations. Social Work with Groups, 31(2), 165–182. CrossRef
Hill, L. G., & Betz, D. L. (2005). Revisiting the retrospective pretest. American Journal of Evaluation, 26(4), 501–517. CrossRef
Kellam, S., Werthamer-Larsson, L., Dolan, L., Brown, C. H., Mayer, L., Rebok, G., & Wheeler, L. (1991). Developmental epidemiologically based preventive trials: Baseline modeling of early target behaviors and depressive symptoms. American Journal of Community Psychology, 19(4), 563–584. doi: 10.1007/BF00937992. CrossRefPubMed
Kumpfer, K., & Alvarado, R. (1998). Effective family strengthening interventions. US Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Washington, DC.
Kumpfer, K., DeMarsh, J., & Child, W. (1989). Strengthening Families Program: Children’s skills training curriculum manual, parent training manual, children’s skills training manual, and family skills training manual Prevention Services to Children of Substance-Abusing Parents. Salt Lake City: Social Research Institute, Graduate School of Social Work, University of Utah.
Kumpfer, K., Whiteside, H., Greene, J. A., & Allen, K. C. (2010). Effectiveness outcomes of four age versions of the Strengthening Families Program in statewide field sites. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 14(3), 211. CrossRef
Lamb, T. (2005). The retrospective pretest: An imperfect but useful tool. The Evaluation Exchange, 11, 181.
Miller, M., & Hinshaw, R. E. (2012). The retrospective pretest as a gauge of change. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 39(3/4), 251–258.
Nimon, K., Zigarmi, D., & Allen, J. (2011). Measures of program effectiveness based on retrospective pretest data: Are all created equal? American Journal of Evaluation,. doi: 10.1177/1098214010378354.
Radloff, L. S. (1977). The CES-D scale A self-report depression scale for research in the general population. Applied Psychological Measurement, 1(3), 385–401. CrossRef
Rees, J., Waldron, D., O’Boyle, C., Ewings, P., & MacDonagh, R. (2003). Prospective vs retrospective assessment of lower urinary tract symptoms in patients with advanced prostate cancer: the effect of ‘response shift’. BJU International, 92(7), 703–706. doi: 10.1046/j.1464-410X.2003.04462.x. CrossRefPubMed
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. (2013). NSDUH: Comparison of 2010– 2011 and 2011– 2012 model- based prevalence estimates for adults aged 18 or older. Retrieved from. http://www.samhsa.gov/data/sites/default/files/NSDUHStateEst2011-2012/AdultTabs/Web/NSDUHsaeAdultTabs2012.htm.
Taylor, P. J., Russ-Eft, D. F., & Taylor, H. (2008). Gilding the outcome by tarnishing the past: Inflationary biases in retrospective pretests. American Journal of Evaluation,. doi: 10.1177/1098214008328517.
- The Use of Prospective Versus Retrospective Pretests with Child-Welfare Involved Families
Becci A. Akin
Thomas P. McDonald
- Springer US