Internet surveys of American Evaluation Association (AEA) members are a common method for studying evaluation practice. Response rates obtained from Internet surveys of AEA members are, however, frequently very small. To investigate whether or not material incentives increase response rates to Internet surveys of AEA members, a between-subjects three-treatment and one control randomized experiment in which a randomly selected sample of AEA members were randomly assigned to a no-incentive control condition, lottery condition, token incentive condition, or philanthropic donation incentive condition was utilized. The overall response rate to the survey was 39.66% and the response rates for each of the four conditions were control = 36.24%, lottery = 44.39%, token incentive = 43.28%, and philanthropic donation = 34.67%, respectively. The cost-effectiveness of each of the four conditions also was examined, demonstrating that the lottery was the most cost-effective. Other factors potentially influencing response or nonresponse decisions also are discussed.

Evidence-based program registries (EBPRs) are web-based compilations of behavioral healthcare programs/interventions that rely on research-based criteria to rate program efficacy or effectiveness for support of programmatic decision-making. The objective was to determine the extent to which behavioral health decision-makers access EBPRs and to understand whether and exactly how they use the information obtained from EPBRs. Single State Authorities (SSAs) and service provider agencies in the areas of behavioral health and child welfare were recruited nationally. Senior staff (n = 375) responsible for the selection and implementation of programs and/or policies were interviewed by telephone concerning their visits (if any) to 28 relevant EBPRs, the types of information they were seeking, whether they found it, and how they may have used that information to effect changes in their organizations. At least one EBPR was visited by 80% of the respondents, with a median of three different registers being visited. Most visitors (55%) found all the information they were seeking; those who did not desired more guidance or tools for individual program implementation or were unable to locate the program or practice that they were seeking. Most visitors (65%) related using the information obtained to make changes in their organizations, in particular to select, start or change a program, or to support the adoption or improvement of evidence-based clinical practices. EBPRs were shown to be important resources for dissemination of research-based program effectiveness data, leading to increased use of evidence-based practices in the field, but the study also identified needs for greater awareness of EBPRs generally and for more attention to implementation of specific recommended programs and practices.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract