The basic academic skills enhancement program: Translating prevention theory into action research

Abstract

The Basic Academic Skills Enhancement (BASE) program is described as an example of one research team's approach to the design, conduct, and implementation of a multilevel (i.e., primary and secondary) prevention program. Following presentation of the conceptual rationale for the program, BASE'S evolution is discussed with regard to its specific personnel and setting characteristics. In describing the program's screening, intepretation, and evaluation components, the authors present a model of collaboration between university and community-based individuals that appears, to this point, to have resulted in a program solidly rooted in the setting's current and foreseeable strategies for responding to children's learning and emotional disorders from a prevention rather than a treatment orientation.

Introduction: The Heritage of Kurt Lewin

“…One kind consists of studies that employ the method to solve some social problem. Examples include articles on educational innovations (e.g., Lorion, Hightower, Work, & Shockley, 1987), probation services (Finckenauer, 1986), and medical treatment (Unger & Wandersman, 1985). Some of the research cited earlier that applies principles of group dynamics to organizational development in business and industry (Sashkin & Burke, 1987) also belongs here, along with Weisbord (1987) and Whyte (1989).…”

Methodological Issues in Epidemiological, Prevention, and Treatment Research on Drug-Exposed Women and Their Children

“…If the clinic staff is in concert with the goals of the research or see some benefit to themselves or their patients/clients, cooperation is more likely (Lorion et al 1987). Coulter and colleagues (1985) reported gaining cooperation for a study of sexually abused children in the face of considerable skepticism by adapting research procedures to the perceived needs of the social agency and by providing services that the agency lacked.…”

“…If such cooperation is not possible or is constrained by the design of the experiment, protocols should be arranged, staff trained, and methods planned that cause as little disruption as possible and that are unobtrusive. Because people are more likely to be sympathetic to research they understand and support, other methods for improving cooperation include providing inservice and educational materials to staff, engaging staff in planning the goals of the research, and providing feedback about outcomes on a periodic basis (Lorion et al 1987).…”