Analyzing Costs, Procedures, Processes, and Outcomes in Human
                    Services

Yates, Brian T.

doi:10.4135/9781412983358

Cited by 95 publications

(104 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

101

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Effectiveness research is now at the point of sophistication wherein black-box outcome studies are no longer acceptable (Chen, 1990;Yates, 1994Yates, , 1995Yates, , 1996. Rather, interventions are expected to specify the model-a scientifically sound program theory or theory of action, explicating the mechanisms through which the program will achieve its desired outcomes.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Fidelity Criteria: Development, Measurement, and Validation

Mowbray

Holter²,

Teague³

et al. 2003

American Journal of Evaluation

652

476

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Fidelity may be defined as the extent to which delivery of an intervention adheres to the protocol or program model originally developed. Fidelity measurement has increasing significance for evaluation, treatment effectiveness research, and service administration. Yet few published studies using fidelity criteria provide details on the construction of a valid fidelity index. The purpose of this review article is to outline steps in the development, measurement, and validation of fidelity criteria, providing examples from health and education literatures. We further identify important issues in conducting each step. Finally, we raise questions about the dynamic nature of fidelity criteria, appropriate validation and statistical analysis methods, the inclusion of structure and process criteria in fidelity assessment, and the role of program theory in deciding on the balance between adaptation versus exact replication of model programs. Further attention to the use and refinement of fidelity criteria is important to evaluation practice.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Fidelity Criteria: Development, Measurement, and Validation

Mowbray

Holter²,

Teague³

et al. 2003

American Journal of Evaluation

652

476

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Some of us have advocated for this more fine-grained approach to resource activity assessment for decades, despite resistance from colleagues. This goes beyond the Bingredients approach^to cost assessment, providing the foundation not only for common-sense management decisions but also for applying the quantitative optimization methods of operations research (e.g., Yates 1980Yates , 1996 used in business and some branches of government.…”

Section: Beyond Total Ingredients: Resources Used In Specific Programmentioning

confidence: 99%

Commentary on “Standards of Evidence for Conducting and Reporting Economic Evaluations in Prevention Science”

Yates

2018

Prev Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The current paper is a commentary on the Standards of Evidence for Conducting and Reporting Economic Evaluations in Prevention Science (Crowley et al. 2018). Although the standards got a lot right, some important issues were not addressed or could be explored further. Measuring rather than modeling is encouraged whenever possible. That also is in keeping with the approach taken by many prevention researchers. Pre-program planning for collection of data on resources used by individual participants (i.e., costs) is recommended, along with devotion of evaluation resources to cost assessment throughout program implementation. A Bcost study^should never be an afterthought tacked on as a later aim in a research proposal. Needing inclusion or enhancement in the standards, however, are several key concepts, starting with the often-confused distinction between costs and outcomes. The importance of collecting data on individual-level variability in resource use, i.e., costs, needs to be distinguished from simplistic disaggregation-by-division of program cost totals down to individuals. In some passages of the standards, the uniqueness of individual participants seems dismissed as error variance rather than considered a primary phenomenon for study and understanding. Standards for formatting reports of economic evaluations could themselves be more evidence-based. Missing too is an explicit call for inclusion of the standards' recommendations in peer review of prevention research proposals, and in funding of prevention research. Finally, we can be confident that the better outcomes the standards promise will come at additional costs to prevention researchers. This commentary concludes by considering whether the standards themselves are cost-beneficial.

show abstract

“…There has been significant progress in recent years in the development of costing methodology for substance abuse services 37,38 , and there are now several examples of cost analyses in the research literature 39,40,41 . The information from resource tracing studies can be used by service providers to monitor how the resources within a treatment delivery programme are being used to deliver services.…”

Section: Costing Evaluationmentioning

confidence: 99%

The evaluation of treatment services and systems for substance use disorders

Rush

2003

Rev. psiquiatr. Rio Gd. Sul

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Scientific research and program evaluation have not played a major role in shaping the development of treatment services and systems in most countries. This has led to disparities in the development, management and monitoring of national treatment systems. In the evaluation of treatment for substance use disorders, the evaluation practitioner will usually be working at one of five levels: single case, treatment activity, treatment service, treatment agency or treatment system. One of the major barriers to undertaking internal program evaluation is the belief that it is a complicated research process best left to those with specific research training. Program managers and staff can plan and initiate an evaluation process for their program if they have access to research expertise when needed for certain parts of the process. There are seven main components of an evaluation process that can be planned and implemented: need assessment; evaluation planning, process evaluation, cost analysis, client satisfaction evaluation, outcome evaluation and economic evaluation. However, evaluation is more than the techniques and technology required to implement these types of activities. It also involves the routine questioning of current practice even if the feedback may be less positive than anticipated. A healthy culture for evaluation is one in which feedback loops are woven into the fabric of the treatment service or system. There are many barriers to evaluation in substance abuse services but these barriers can be overcome with careful planning and commitment to the delivery of evidence-based services.

show abstract

Analyzing Costs, Procedures, Processes, and Outcomes in Human Services

Cited by 95 publications

References 0 publications

Fidelity Criteria: Development, Measurement, and Validation

Fidelity Criteria: Development, Measurement, and Validation

Commentary on “Standards of Evidence for Conducting and Reporting Economic Evaluations in Prevention Science”

The evaluation of treatment services and systems for substance use disorders

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About