IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/epplan/v70y2018icp83-89.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Revisiting the utility of retrospective pre-post designs: The need for mixed-method pilot data

Author

Listed:
  • Geldhof, G. John
  • Warner, Danielle A.
  • Finders, Jennifer K.
  • Thogmartin, Asia A.
  • Clark, Adam
  • Longway, Kelly A.

Abstract

The retrospective pre-post design affords many benefits to program staff and, accordingly, has piqued renewed interest among applied program evaluators. In particular, the field has witnessed increasing application of a post-program-only data collection strategy in which only posttest and retrospective pretest data are collected. A post-program-only assessment strategy takes considerably less time than is required for collecting pre-program data and presumably has the added benefit of eliminating the impact of response-shift bias. Response-shift bias occurs when the knowledge, skills, or experiences participants gain through program participation leads them to interpret questionnaire items in a qualitatively different manner at pretest versus posttest. In this article, we discuss the strengths and weaknesses associated with administering retrospective pretest assessments and underscore the importance of thoroughly evaluating any application of a retrospective measurement strategy prior to its broader implementation. We provide a practical illustration of this evaluation process using a mixed-method study that assesses one measure of parenting education program effectiveness—the Parenting Skills Ladder.

Suggested Citation

  • Geldhof, G. John & Warner, Danielle A. & Finders, Jennifer K. & Thogmartin, Asia A. & Clark, Adam & Longway, Kelly A., 2018. "Revisiting the utility of retrospective pre-post designs: The need for mixed-method pilot data," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 83-89.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:epplan:v:70:y:2018:i:c:p:83-89
    DOI: 10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2018.05.002
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0149718917302707
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2018.05.002?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Miller, J. Jay, 2020. "Developing self-care competency among child welfare workers: A first step," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 108(C).
    2. Tibbitts, Deanne C. & Aicher, Sue A. & Sugg, Judith & Handloser, Kimberlee & Eisman, Liz & Booth, Lauren D. & Bradley, Ryan D., 2021. "Program evaluation of trauma-informed yoga for vulnerable populations," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 88(C).
    3. Melanie McKoin Owens & Alexis Zickafoose & Gary Wingenbach & Sana Haddad & Jamie Freeny & Josephine Engels, 2022. "Selected Texan K-12 Educators’ Perceptions of Youth Suicide Prevention Training," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(19), pages 1-12, October.
    4. Agans, Jennifer P. & Maley, Mary & Rainone, Nicolette & Cope, Marie & Turner, Andrew & Eckenrode, John & Pillemer, Karl, 2020. "Evaluating the evidence for youth outcomes in 4-H: A scoping review," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 108(C).
    5. Kowalski, Monica J., 2023. "Measuring changes with traditional and retrospective pre-posttest self-report surveys for a brief intervention program," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 99(C).
    6. Sarah Clement & Katie Spellman & Laura Oxtoby & Kelly Kealy & Karin Bodony & Elena Sparrow & Christopher Arp, 2023. "Redistributing Power in Community and Citizen Science: Effects on Youth Science Self-Efficacy and Interest," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(11), pages 1-16, May.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:epplan:v:70:y:2018:i:c:p:83-89. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/evalprogplan .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.