IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/evarev/v14y1990i3p290-296.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Treatment Fidelity Among Evaluated and Nonevaluated Workplace Safety-Belt Programs

Author

Listed:
  • Kathryn E.H. Race

    (National Safety Council)

Abstract

To explore the treatment fidelity of employee safety-belt programs, 614 companies and organizations were divided into two groups: those that had conducted an evaluation of their program ( n 1 = 183) and those that had not ( n 2 = 431 ). Scores based on equally weighted program elements were computed and then analyzed by a simple multiple regression model. Present results showed that evaluation-active companies and organizations offer more extensive programs, which tend to include an expanded belt-use policy, more education activities, an incentive component, and active management support. The need for future evaluation research and program theory to identify essential program components is then discussed.

Suggested Citation

  • Kathryn E.H. Race, 1990. "Treatment Fidelity Among Evaluated and Nonevaluated Workplace Safety-Belt Programs," Evaluation Review, , vol. 14(3), pages 290-296, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:evarev:v:14:y:1990:i:3:p:290-296
    DOI: 10.1177/0193841X9001400304
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0193841X9001400304
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0193841X9001400304?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
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:sae:evarev:v:14:y:1990:i:3:p:290-296. 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: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    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.