IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/evarev/v41y2017i5p407-435.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Assessing and Strengthening Evidence-Based Program Registries’ Usefulness for Social Service Program Replication and Adaptation

Author

Listed:
  • Christopher S. Horne

Abstract

Background: Government and private funders increasingly require social service providers to adopt program models deemed “evidence based,†particularly as defined by evidence-based program registries, such as What Works Clearinghouse and National Registry of Evidence-Based Programs and Practices. These registries summarize the evidence about programs’ effectiveness, giving near-exclusive priority to evidence from experimental-design evaluations. The registries’ goal is to aid decision making about program replication, but critics suspect the emphasis on evidence from experimental-design evaluations, while ensuring strong internal validity, may inadvertently undermine that goal, which requires strong external validity as well. Objective: The objective of this study is to determine the extent to which the registries’ reports provide information about context-specific program implementation factors that affect program outcomes and would thus support decision making about program replication and adaptation. Method: A research-derived rubric was used to rate the extent of context-specific reporting in the population of seven major registries’ evidence summaries ( N = 55) for youth development programs. Findings: Nearly all (91%) of the reports provide context-specific information about program participants, but far fewer provide context-specific information about implementation fidelity and other variations in program implementation (55%), the program’s environment (37%), costs (27%), quality assurance measures (22%), implementing agencies (19%), or staff (15%). Conclusion: Evidence-based program registries provide insufficient information to guide context-sensitive decision making about program replication and adaptation. Registries should supplement their evidence base with nonexperimental evaluations and revise their methodological screens and synthesis-writing protocols to prioritize reporting—by both evaluators and the registries themselves—of context-specific implementation factors that affect program outcomes.

Suggested Citation

  • Christopher S. Horne, 2017. "Assessing and Strengthening Evidence-Based Program Registries’ Usefulness for Social Service Program Replication and Adaptation," Evaluation Review, , vol. 41(5), pages 407-435, October.
  • Handle: RePEc:sae:evarev:v:41:y:2017:i:5:p:407-435
    DOI: 10.1177/0193841X15625014
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0193841X15625014
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0193841X15625014?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
    ---><---

    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:41:y:2017:i:5:p:407-435. 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.