The Consistencies and Vagaries of the Washington State Inventory of Evidence-Based Practice: The Definition of “Evidence-Based” in a Policy Context

Abstract

As states increasingly establish the importance of evidence-based practice through policy and funding mandates, the definition of evidence-based practice can have a significant impact on investment decisions. Not meeting established criteria can mean a loss of funding for established programs and the implementation disruption of programs without a strong research base. Whether the definition of "evidence-based" is influenced by these high stakes contexts is an interesting question that can inform the larger field about the value and utility of evidence-based practice lists/inventories for disseminating knowledge. In this paper we review the development of the Washington State Inventory of Evidence-Based, Research-Based and Promising Practices as a case study for the process of defining evidence-based practice in a policy context. As part of this study we also present a comparison of other well-known evidence-based practice inventories and examine consistencies and differences in the process of identifying and developing program ratings.

Evidence‐based juvenile justice programs and practices: A critical review

“…There is less consensus regarding the definition of practices , which typically involve generic types of programs or strategies that have some common elements or core components but are more flexible than manualized programs as they do not necessarily involve the same detailed package of prescribed activities that characterize programs. Policies involve formal regulations or laws that apply uniformly to general populations (Elliott & Fagan, 2017; Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, 2018; Walker et al.,, 2017). With respect to current juvenile justice prevention and treatment, interventions demonstrated by research to be effective, hereafter referred to as evidence‐based interventions, are primarily programs and practices.…”

Researcher readiness for participating in community-engaged dissemination and implementation research: a conceptual framework of core competencies

“…As such, D&I differs substantially from many other types of research, including some health services research, which may never involve direct interaction with members of the participating organizations [7]. For example, D&I research commonly involves assessing evidence in the context of community stakeholder needs [8][9][10], assessing barriers and facilitators to disseminating and implementing the evidence within a specific setting [11], and adapting and testing dissemination and implementation strategies within the setting [12][13][14]. Stakeholder engagement can be thought of as a continuum ranging from stakeholders solely as participants in a research study to stakeholders exercising control over aspects of the research process.…”

The Early Implementation of FFT-CW®, MST-Psychiatric®, and SafeCare® in Australia

“…The United States in particular is known for its distinctive turn toward RSIs (Shlonsky & Gibbs, 2004; Thyer & Pignotti, 2011) since the early 2000s. Multiple databases now exist that are aimed at providing practitioners and agencies with guidance on programs considered to be RSIs, as well as their effectiveness and implementability with different target populations and settings (Lyon et al, 2015; Martin et al, 2015; Mihalic & Elliott, 2015; Thyer et al, 2017; Walker et al, 2017; Wilson et al, 2019). Prominent examples of listed RSIs developed in the United States and used in child and family services are Multisystemic Therapy (MST®), Functional Family Therapy (FFT®), and SafeCare®.…”