Advertisement

Knowledge to Practice or Knowledge of Practice? A Comparison of Two Approaches to Bringing Science to Service

  • David E. Duffee
Chapter
Part of the Handbooks of Sociology and Social Research book series (HSSR)

This chapter examines the struggles to get everyday clinical treatment to utilize empirically supported or tested theories in guiding treatment practice. It does not cover the findings of treatment studies themselves. These topics are covered in a variety of other print and electronic sources (e.g., Campbell Collaboration; Cochrane Collaboration; Cullen & Gendreau, 2000; Lipsey, 1992, 1995; Lipsey, Wilson, & Cothern, 2000). Instead, this chapter reviews the literature on how evidence about treatment process and outcomes is applied to practice. In some types of treatment research, the distinction between studying treatment and using the results is relatively fuzzy. In others, the difference between creating knowledge and applying it is more distinct. The research practice that draws firmer boundaries is probably more familiar in the field of criminology.

Keywords

Child Welfare Juvenile Justice Developmental Strategy Adoption Strategy Residential Treatment Center 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Aarons, G. A. (2004). Mental health provider attitudes toward adoption of evidence-based practice attitude scale (EBPAS). Mental Health Services Research, 6(2), 61–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aarons, G. A. (2005). Measuring provider attitudes towards evidence based practice: Consideration of organizational context and individual differences. Child and Adolescent Psychiatric Clinics of North America, 14(2), 255–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Aarons, G. A., & Sawitzky, A. C. (2006). Organizational culture and climate and mental health provider attitudes toward evidence-based practice. Psychological Services, 3(1), 61–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Addis, M. E., & Krasnow, A. D. (2000). A national survey of practicing psychologists' attitudes toward psychotherapy treatment manuals. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 68(2), 331–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. American Friends Service Committee (1970). The struggle for justice. New York: Hill and Wang.Google Scholar
  6. Anderson-Butcher, D., Lawson, H., Fallara, L., & Furano, G. (2002). Eliciting theories of change from youth care workers and youth participants. Journal of Child and Youth Care Work, 17, 130–150.Google Scholar
  7. Aos, S., Lieb, R., Mayfield, J., Miller, M., & Pennucci, A. (2004). Benefits and costs of prevention and early intervention programs for youth. Olympia, WA: Washington State Institute for Public Policy. Retrieved October 17, 2007 from http://www.wsipp.wa.gov/rptfiles/04-07-3901.pdf.Google Scholar
  8. Argyris, C. (1970). Intervention theory and method. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley.Google Scholar
  9. Armelius, B-A., & Andreassen, T. H. (2007). Cognitive-behavioral treatment for antisocial behavior in youth in residential treatment. Retrieved March 1, 2008, from http://www.campbellcollaboration.org.
  10. Bartholomew, N. G., Joe, G. W., Rowan-Szal, G. A., & Simpson, D. D. (2007). Counselor assessments of training and adoption barriers. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 33(2), 193–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bedell, J. R., Ward, C., Jr., Archer, R. P., & Stokes, M. K. (1985). An empirical evaluation of a model of knowledge utilization. Evaluation Review, 9(2), 109–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Benbenishty, R. (1996). Integrating research and practice: Time for a new agenda. Research on Social Work Practice, 6(1), 77–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Bennis, W. G., Benne, K. D., & Chin, R. (1961). The planning of change. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.Google Scholar
  14. Biglan, A., Mrazek, P. J., Carnine, D., & Flay, B. R. (2003, June/July). The integration of research and practice in the prevention of youth problem behaviors. American Psychologist, 433–440.Google Scholar
  15. Blakely, C. H., Mayer, J. P., Gottschalk, R. G., Schmitt, N., Davidson, W., Roitman, D., et al. (1987). The fidelity-adaptation debate: Implications for the implementation of public sector social programs. American Journal of Community Psychology, 15, 253–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Blamey, A., & Mackenzie, M. (2007). Theories of change and realistic evaluation: Peas in a pod or apples and oranges? Evaluation, 13(4), 439–455.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Blome, W. W., & Steib, S. (2004). Whatever the problem, the answer is “evidence-based practice” – Or is it? Child Welfare, 83(6), 611–615.Google Scholar
  18. Blythe, B. J., & Briar, S. (1985). Developing empirically based models of practice. Social Work, 30, 483–488.Google Scholar
  19. Bogue, B., Campbell, N., Carey, M., Clawson, E., Faust, D., Florio, K., et al. (2004, April 22). Implementing evidence-based principles in community corrections: Leading organizational change and development. Washington DC: National Institute of Corrections and Crime and Justice Institute.Google Scholar
  20. Bogue, B., Woodward, B., Campbell, N., Carey, M., Clawson, E., Faust, D., et al. (2005, November 9). Implementing effective correctional management of offenders in the community, Outcome and process measures. Washington, DC: National Institute of Correction and Crime and Justice Institute.Google Scholar
  21. Brandon, P. R. (1998). Stakeholder participation for helping ensure evaluation validity: Bridging the gap between collaborative and non-collaborative evaluation. American journal of evaluation, 19(3), 325–337.Google Scholar
  22. Brickmeyer, J. D., & Weiss, C. H. (2000). Theory-based evaluation in practice: What do we learn? Evaluation Review, 24(4), 407–431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Bushway, S., & Weisburd, D. (2006). Acknowledging the centrality of quantitative criminology in criminology and criminal justice. The Criminologist, 31(4), 1, 3–4.Google Scholar
  24. Camasso, M. J. (2004). Treatment evidence in a non-experimenting environment: Some recommendations for increasing supply and demand. In A. R. Roberts & K. R. Yeager (Eds.), Evidence-based practice manual (pp. 233–246). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Campbell Collaboration. Available at: http://www.cambellcollaboration.org.
  26. Card, J. (2001). The sociometrics program archives: Promoting the dissemination of evidence-based practices through replication kits. Research on Social Work Practice, 11(4), 521–526.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Carlson, B. E., Barr, W. B., & Young, K. W. (2004). Factors associated with treatment outcomes of male adolescents. In G. Northrup (Ed.), Applied research in residential treatment (pp. 39–58). Binghamton, NY: The Haworth Press, Inc.Google Scholar
  28. Chen, H., & Rossi, P. H. (1989). Issues in the theory-driven perspective. Evaluation and Program Planning, 12, 299–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Chorpita, B. F., Daleiden, E. L., & Weisz, J. R. (2005). Identifying and selecting the common elements of evidence based interventions: A distillation and matching model. Mental Health Services Research, 7(1), 5–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Cochrane Collaboration. Available at: http://www.cochrane.org
  31. Cole, G. (1999). Advancing the development and application of theory-based evaluation in the practice of public health. American Journal of Evaluation, 20(3), 453–470.Google Scholar
  32. Council on Accreditation of Services for Families and Children (COA). (2005). Standards G2.5 and G2.7. New York: COA.Google Scholar
  33. Cournoyer, B. R., & Powers, G. T. (2002). Evidence-based social work: The quiet revolution continues. In A. R. Roberts & G. Greene (Eds.), The social worker’s desk reference (pp. 798–806). New York: Oxford UniversityPress.Google Scholar
  34. Courtney, K. O., Joe, G. W., Rowan-Szal, G. A., & Simpson, D. D. (2007). Using organizational assessment as a tool for program change. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 33(2), 131–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Cousins, J. B., Donohue, J. J., & Bloom, G. A. (1996). Collaborative evaluation in North America: Evaluators’ self-reported opinions, practices and consequences. Evaluation Practice, 17(3), 207–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Cousins, J. B., & Earl, L. M. (1992). The case for participatory evaluation. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 14(4), 397–418.Google Scholar
  37. Cousins, J. B., & Leithwood, K. A. (1986). Current empirical research on evaluation utilization. Review of Educational Research, 56(3), 331–364.Google Scholar
  38. Cozens, W. R. (1999). Data, data everywhere and not a program improvement in sight! Residential Treatment for Children and Youth, 17(1), 65–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Crime and Justice Institute. (2004, April 24). Implementing effective correctional management of offenders in the community: An integrated model. Washington DC: National Institute of Corrections.Google Scholar
  40. Cullen, F. T., & Gendreau, P. (2000). Assessing correctional rehabilitation: Policy, practice and prospects. In J. Horney, J. Martin, D. L. Mackenzie, R. Peterson, & D. Rosenbaum (Eds.), Policies, processes, and decisions of the criminal justice system: Vol. 3. Criminal justice (pp. 109–175). Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.Google Scholar
  41. Cunningham, S. & Duffee, D. E. (2009). Styles of evidence-based practice in the child welfare system. Evidence-Based Social Work, 6(2), 176–197.Google Scholar
  42. Dewey, J. (1933). How we think (Rev. ed.). New York: Heath.Google Scholar
  43. Dobmyer, T. W., Woodward, B., & Olson, L. (2002). Factors supporting the development and utilization of an outcome-based performance measurement system in a chemical health case management program. Administration in Social Work, 26(4), 25–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Duffee, D. E. (1980) Correctional management: Change and control in systems of control. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  45. Duffee, D. E., & Carlson, B. E. (1996). Competing value premises for the provision of drug treatment to probationers, Crime and Delinquency, 42(4), 574–592.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Dunn, W. N., & Swierczek, F. W. (1977). Planned organizational change: Toward grounded theory. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 13(2), 135–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Englebrecht, C., Peterson, D., Scherer, A., & Naccarato, T. (2008). “It’s not my fault”: Acceptance of responsibility as a component of engagement in juvenile residential treatment. Children and Youth Services Review, 30, 466–484.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Fairweather, W., & Tornatzky, L. (1977). Experimental methods for social policy research. Elmsford, NY: Pergamon.Google Scholar
  49. Farrington, D. P., & Weisburd, D. L. (2007). The Campbell Collaboration Crime and Justice Group. The Criminologist, 32(1), 1, 3–5.Google Scholar
  50. Fawcett, S. B., Suarez-Balcazar, Y., Balcazar, F. E., White, G. W., Paine, A. L., Blanchard, K. A., et al. (1994). Conducting intervention research: The design and development process. In J. Rothman & E. J. Thomas (Eds.), Intervention research: Design and development for human service (pp. 25–53). New York: The Haworth Press.Google Scholar
  51. Ferguson, J. L. (2002). Putting the “what works” research into practice: An organizational perspective, Criminal Justice and Behavior, 29(4), 472–492.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Fixsen, D. L., Naoom, S. F. Blasé, K. A., Friedman, R. M., & Wallace, F. (2005). Implementation research: A synthesis of the literature. Tampa, FL: University of South Florida, Louis de la Parte Florida Mental Health Institute, The National Implementation Research Institute. Retrieved March 1, 2008, from http://nirn.fmhi.usf.edu/resources/publications/Monograph/.Google Scholar
  53. Fortune, A. E., & Reid, W. J. (1998). Research in social work (3rd ed.). New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  54. Frambach, R. T., Schillewaert, N. (2002). Organizational innovation adoption. A multi-level framework of determinants and opportunities for future research. Journal of Business Research, 55, 163–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. French, W. L., & Bell, C. H., Jr. (1995). Organization development: Behavioral science interventions for organization improvement (5th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  56. Garland, A. F., Kruse, M., & Aarons, G. A. (2003). Clinician’s and outcome measurement: What’s the use? Journal of Behavioral Health Services & Research, 301(4), 393–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Gira, E. C., Kessler, M. L., & Poertner, J. (2001). Evidence-based practice in child welfare: Challenges and opportunities. Urbana, IL: University at Urbana-Champaign.Google Scholar
  58. Gira, E. C., Kessler, M. L., & Poertner, J. (2004). Influencing social workers to use research evidence in practice: Lessons from medicine and the allied health professions. Research on Social Work Practice, 14(2), 68–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Glisson, C. (2007). Assessing and changing organizational culture and climate for effective services. Research on Social Work Practice, 17(6), 736–747.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Goldstein, H. (1979). Improving policing: A problem oriented approach. Crime and Delinquency, 25, 236–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Grella, C. E., Hser, Y., Teruya, C., & Evans, E. (2005). How can research-based findings be used to improve practice? Perspectives from participants in a statewide outcomes monitoring study. Journal of Drug Issues, 35(3), 469–484.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Hair, H. J. (2005). Outcomes for children and adolescents after residential treatment: A review of research from 1993 to 2003. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 14(4), 551–575.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Hanrahan, P., & Reid, W. J. (1984, June). Choosing effective interventions. Social Service Review, 245–257.Google Scholar
  64. Hartnett, H. P., & Kapp, S. A. (2004). Establishment of quality programming. In A. R. Roberts & K. R. Yeager (Eds.), Evidence-based practice manual (pp. 939–945). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  65. Hatry, H. P. (1997). Outcome measurement and social services: Public and private sector perspectives. In E. J. Mullen & J. L. Magnabosco (Eds.), Outcomes measurement in the human services: Cross-cutting issues and methods (pp. 3–19). Washington DC: National Association of Social Workers Press.Google Scholar
  66. Havelock, R. G., & Havelock, M. C. (1973). Training for change agents. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Institute for Social Research.Google Scholar
  67. Hernandez, M. (2000). Using logic models and program theory to build outcome accountability. Education and Treatment of Children, 23(1), 24–40.Google Scholar
  68. Hernandez, M., & Hodges, S. (2003). Building upon the theory of change for systems of care. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 11(1), 19–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Howe, M., & Joplin, L. (2005). Implementing evidence-based practice in community corrections: Quality assurance manual. Washington, DC: National Institute of Corrections, Community Corrections Division.Google Scholar
  70. Kahn, A. J., & Kamerman, S. B. (1999). Contracting for child and family services: A mission sensitive guide. Baltimore: Annie E. Casey Foundation.Google Scholar
  71. Kendall, P. C., & Beidas, R. S. (2007). Smoothing the trial for dissemination of evidence-based practices for youth: Flexibility within fidelity. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 38(1), 13–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Kerlinger, F. N. (1973). Foundations of behavioral research. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.Google Scholar
  73. Kessler, M. L., Gira, E., & Poertner, J. (2005). Moving best practice to evidence-based practice in child welfare. Families in Society, 86(2), 244–250.Google Scholar
  74. King, J. A. (1998). Making sense of participatory evaluation practice. In E. Whitmore (Ed.), Understanding and practicing participatory evaluation (pp. 57–67). San Francisco: Josey-Bass Publishers.Google Scholar
  75. Klein, K. J., & Sorra, J. S. (1996). The challenge of innovation implementation. Academy of Management Review, 21(4), 1055–1080.Google Scholar
  76. Klinger, J., Ahwee, S., Pilonieta, P., & Menendez, R. (2003). Barriers and facilitators in scaling up research-based practices. Exceptional Children, 69(4), 411–429.Google Scholar
  77. Knorth, E. J., Harder, A. T., Zandberg, T., & Kendrick, A. J. (2008). Under one roof: A review and selective meta-analysis on the outcomes of residential child and youth care. Children and Youth Services Review, 30, 123–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Krisberg, B. (1980). Utility of process evaluation – Crime and delinquency programs. In M. W. Klein & K. S. Teilman (Eds.), Handbook of criminal justice evaluation (pp. 217–236). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  79. Lerman, P. (2002). Twentieth century developments in American institutional systems for youth in trouble. In M. K. Rosenheim, F. E. Zimring, D. S. Tanenhaus, & B. Dohrn (Eds.), A century of juvenile justice (pp. 74–109). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  80. Liddle, H. A., Rowe, C. L., Quille, T. J., Dakof, G. A., Mills, D. S., Sakran, E., et al. (2002). Transporting a research-based adolescent drug treatment into practice. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 22,231–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Lipsey, M. W. (1992). Juvenile delinquency treatment: A meta-analysis inquiry into the variability of effects. In T. D. Cook, H. Cooper, D. S. Cordray, H. Hartmann, L. V. Hedges, R. J. Light, et al. (Eds.), Meta-analysis for explanation: A casebook (pp. 83–127). New York: Russell Sage.Google Scholar
  82. Lipsey, M. W. (1995). What do we learn from 400 research studies on the effectiveness of treatment with juvenile delinquents? In J. McGuire (Ed.), What works? Reducing reoffending (pp. 63–78). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  83. Lipsey, M. W., Wilson, D. B., & Cothern, L. (2000). Effective intervention for serious juvenile offenders. Washington, DC: United States Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.Google Scholar
  84. MacKenzie, D. L., Styve, G. J, & Gover, A. R. (1998). Performance-based standards for juvenile corrections. Corrections Management Quarterly, 2(2), 28–35.Google Scholar
  85. Magill, M. (2006). The future of evidence in evidence-based practice: Who will answer the call for clinical relevance? Journal of Social Work, 62, 101–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Mann-Feder, V. R. (1996). Adolescents in therapeutic communities. Adolescence, 31, 17–29.Google Scholar
  87. Mark, M. M., & Henry, G. T. (2004). The mechanisms and outcomes of evaluation influence. Evaluation, 10(1), 35–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Martin, L. L. (1998). The rush to measure performance. Journal of Sociology and Social Welfare, 25(3), 63–74.Google Scholar
  89. Martin, D. J., Garske, J. P., & Davis, M. K. (2000). Relation of the therapeutic alliance with outcome and other variables: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 68(3), 438–450.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Martinson, R. (1974, Spring). What works? Questions and answers about prison reform. The Public Interest, 35, 22–54.Google Scholar
  91. Mason, P., & Barnes, M. (2007). Constructing theories of change. Evaluation, 13(2), 151–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. McClintock, C. (2004). Integrating program evaluation and organizational development. In A. R. Roberts & K. R. Yeager (Eds.), Evidence-based practice manual (pp. 598–606). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  93. McNeill, T. (2006). Evidence-based practice in an age of relativism: Toward a model for practice. Social Work, 51(2), 147–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. McNiff, J., & Whitehead, J. (2006). All you need to know about action research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  95. Meyer, J. W., & Rowan, B. (1977). Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 83(2), 599–615.Google Scholar
  96. Mihalic, S., Irwin, K, Fagan, A., Ballard, D., & Elliott, D. (2004, July). Successful program implementation: Lessons from blueprints. Juvenile Justice Bulletin. Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice.Google Scholar
  97. Miller, T. I., Kobayashi, M. M., & Noble, P. M. (2006). Insourcing, not capacity building, a better model for sustained program evaluation. American Journal of Evaluation, 27(1), 83–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. Moore, T. D., Rapp, C. A., & Roberts, B. (2000). Improving child welfare performance through supervisory use of client outcome data. Child Welfare, 79, 475–497.Google Scholar
  99. Mowbray, C. T., Holter, M. C., Teague, G. B., & Bybee, D. (2003). Fidelity criteria: Development, measurement, and validation. American Journal of Evaluation, 24(3), 315–340.Google Scholar
  100. Moynihan, D. P. (2005). Impact of managing for results mandates in corrections: Lessons from three states. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 16(1), 18–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. National Institutes of Health Council for Training on Evidence-Based Behavioral Practice. (2008, March). Definition and competencies for evidence-based behavioral practice. Washington, DC: National Institutes ofHealth.Google Scholar
  102. National Institute of Justice (2008) Solicitation: Crime and justice research. Washington, DC: United States Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, National Institute of Justice Funding Opportunity No. 2008-NIJ-1730.Google Scholar
  103. O’Leary, V., Duffee, D., & Wenk, E. (1977). Developing relevant data for a prison organization development program. Journal of Criminal Justice, 5(2), 85–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. Osborne, D., & Gaebler, T. (1992). Reinventing government: How the entrepreneurial spirit is transforming the public sector. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley.Google Scholar
  105. O’Sullivan, R. G., & D’Agostino, A. (2002). Promoting evaluation through collaboration: Findings from community-based programs for youth children and their families. Evaluation, 8(3), 372–387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  106. Patton, M. Q. (1989). A context and boundaries for a theory-driven approach to validity. Evaluation and Program Planning, 12, 375–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  107. Patton, M. Q. (1997). Utilization focused evaluation, The new century text (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  108. Pawson, R. (2003). Nothing as practical as a good theory. Evaluation, 9(4), 471–490.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  109. Pressman, J. L., & Wildavsky, A. (1973). Implementation. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  110. Reid, W. J. (1987). Evaluating an intervention in developmental research. Journal of Social Service Research, 11(1), 17–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  111. Reid, W. J. (1990). Change-process research: A new paradigm? In L. Videka-Sherman & W. J. Reid (Eds.), Advances in clinical social work research (pp. 130–148). Silver Spring, MD: NASW Press.Google Scholar
  112. Rein, M., & White, S. H. (1981). Knowledge for practice. Social Service Review, 55, 1–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  113. Renger, R., & Hurley, C. (2006). From theory to practice: Lessons learned in the application of the ATM approach to developing logic models. Evaluation and Program Planning, 29, 106–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  114. Renger, R., & Titcomb, A. (2002). A three-step approach to teaching logic models. American Journal of Evaluation, 23(4), 493–503.Google Scholar
  115. Richters, J. E. (1997). The Hubble hypothesis and the developmentalist’s dilemma. Development and Psychopathology, 9, 193–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  116. Rosas, S. R. (2005). Concept mapping as a technique for program theory development: An illustration using family support programs. American Journal of Evaluation, 26(3), 389–401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  117. Roscoe, T. (2002). Driving and resisting forces in rationalizing probation: A case study of probation in New York State. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University at Albany, SUNY, Albany, NY.Google Scholar
  118. Rosen, A. (1983). Barriers to utilization of research by social work practitioners. Journal of Social Service Research, 6, 1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  119. Rosen, A. (1992). Facilitating clinical decision making and evaluation. Families in Society: The Journal of Contemporary Human Services, 73, 522–530.Google Scholar
  120. Rosen, A. (1994). Knowledge use in direct practice. Social Service Review, 68, 561–577.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  121. Rosen, A. (2003). Evidence-based social work practice: challenges and promise. Social Work Research, 27(4), 197–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  122. Rossi, P. H. (1997). Program outcomes: Conceptual and measurement issues. In E. J. Mullen & J. L. Magnabosco (Eds.), Outcomes measurement in the human services: Cross-cutting issues and methods (pp. 20–34). Washington DC: National Association of Social Workers Press.Google Scholar
  123. Rossi, P. H., Lipsey, M. W., & Freeman, H. E. (2004). Evaluation: A systematic approach (7th ed.). E. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  124. Rothman, J., Teresa, J. G., Kay, T. L. & Morningstar, G. C. (1983). Marketing human services innovations. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  125. Schoenwald, S., Sheidow, A. J., & Letourneau, E. J. (2004). Toward effective quality assurance in evidence-based practice: Links between expert consultation, therapist fidelity and child outcomes. Journal of Child and Adolescent Psychology, 33(1), 94–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  126. Senge, P., Cambron-McCabe, N., Lucas, T., Smith, B., Dutton, J., & Kleiner, A. (2000). Schools that learn. New York: Doubleday.Google Scholar
  127. Shirk, S. R., & Karver, M. (2003). Prediction of treatment outcome from relationship variables in child and adolescent therapy: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 71(3), 452–464.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  128. Simpson, D. D. (2002). A conceptual framework for transferring research to practice. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 22, 171–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  129. Simpson, D. D., & Flynn, P. M. (2007). Moving innovations into treatment: A stage-based approach to program change. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 33(2), 111–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  130. Smith, B. D., Duffee, D. E., Steinke, C. M., Huang, Y., & Larkin, H. (2008). Outcomes in residential treatment for youth. Children and Youth Services Review, 30(12), 1425–1436.Google Scholar
  131. Stame, N. (2004). Theory-based evaluation and types of complexity. Evaluation, 10(1), 58–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  132. Steib, S. (2004). Whatever the problem, the answer is “evidence-based practice,” Or is it? Child Welfare, 83(6), 611–615.Google Scholar
  133. Stevens, M., Liabo, K., Frost, S., & Roberts, H. (2005). Using research in practice: A research information service for social care practitioners. Child and Family Social Work, 10, 67–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  134. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (2008). National registry of evidence-based programs and practices, Retrieved September 3, 2008 from http://www.nrepp.samhsa.gov/submit.htm.
  135. Sullivan, H., & Stewart, M. (2006). Who owns the theory of change? Evaluation, 12(2), 179–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  136. Susman, G. I., & Evered, R. D. (1978). An assessment of the scientific merits of action research. Administrative Science Quarterly, 23, 582–603.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  137. Taxman, F. S., & Bouffard, J. A. (2002). Assessing therapeutic integrity in modified therapeutic communities for drug-involved offenders. Prison Journal, 82, 189–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  138. Thomas, E. J. (1980). Mousetraps, developmental research, and social work education. Social Service Review, 52, 468–488.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  139. Thomas, E., & Rothman, J. (1994). An integrative perspective on intervention research. In J. Rothman & E. J. Thomas (Eds.), Intervention research: Design and development for human service (pp. 3–23). New York: The Haworth Press.Google Scholar
  140. Toch, H. (1969). Violent men. Chicago: Aldine.Google Scholar
  141. Toch, T. & Grant, D. T. (1982). Reforming human services: Change through participation. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  142. Toch, H., Grant, J. D., & Galvin, R. T. (1975). Agents of change: A study in police reform. Cambridge, MA: Schenkman.Google Scholar
  143. United Way of America (1996). Measuring program outcomes: A practical approach. Alexandria, VA: United Way of America.Google Scholar
  144. Usher, C. L. (1995). Improving evaluability through self-evaluation. Evaluation Practice, 16(1), 59–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  145. Von Hirsch, A. (1976). Doing justice. New York: Hill and Wang.Google Scholar
  146. Wakefield, J. C., & Kirk, S. A. (1996). Unscientific thinking about scientific practice: Evaluating the scientist-practitioner model. Social Work Research, 20, 83–95.Google Scholar
  147. Webster, D., Needell, B., & Wildfire, J. (2002). Data are your friends: Child welfare agency self-evaluation in Los Angeles County with the family to family initiative. Children and Youth Services Review, 24(6), 471–484.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  148. Weiss, C. H. (1997). Theory-based evaluation: Past, present, and future. New directions for evaluation, 76, 41–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  149. Wholey, J. S. (1987). Evaluability assessment: Developing program theory. In L. Bickman (Ed.), Using program theory in evaluation (pp. 77–82). San Francisco: Jossey Bass.Google Scholar
  150. Williams, W. (1980). The implementation perspective: A guide for managing social service delivery programs. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  151. Wulczyn, F. (2005). Monitoring the performance of the child welfare system. In Rockefeller Institute of Government’s, Performance management in state and local government (pp. 54–62). Albany, NY: Rockefeller Institute of Government.Google Scholar
  152. Yampolskaya, S., Nesman, M., Hernandez, M., & Koch, D. (2004). Using concept mapping to develop a logic model and articulate a program theory: A case example. American Journal of Evaluation, 25(2), 191–207.Google Scholar
  153. Yin, R. K. (2000). Rival explanations as an alternative to reforms as ‘experiments.’ In L. Bickman (Ed.), Validity and social experimentation: Donald Campbell’s legacy (pp. 239–266). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  154. Young, D., Moline, K., & Farrell, J. (2006). Best implementation practices: Disseminating new assessment technologies in a juvenile justice agency. Crime & Delinquency, 52, 135–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • David E. Duffee
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.University at Albany, SUNYAlbanyUSA
  2. 2.Arizona State UniversityTempeUSA

Personalised recommendations