记录实现差距,第1部分:在加利福尼亚循证信息交换所索引的项目中使用保真度支持

IF 0.9 Q3 SOCIAL WORK Journal of Family Social Work Pub Date : 2020-03-14 DOI:10.1080/10522158.2019.1694342
Jennifer A. Rolls Reutz, S. Kerns, Jennifer A. Sedivy, Cricket Mitchell
{"title":"记录实现差距,第1部分:在加利福尼亚循证信息交换所索引的项目中使用保真度支持","authors":"Jennifer A. Rolls Reutz, S. Kerns, Jennifer A. Sedivy, Cricket Mitchell","doi":"10.1080/10522158.2019.1694342","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT There is an implementation gap in which more is known about what works to support implementation than what is done in practice. This paper uses information from programs rated on the California Evidence-Based Clearinghouse (CEBC), a web-based repository of information on the evidence base for programs that serve children and families, to examine the extent of this gap as it relates to the availability of fidelity measurement implementation supports. Fidelity measures and materials supplied during the CEBC data collection process by representatives of programs rated on the CEBC Scientific Rating Scale as having well-supported, supported, or promising research evidence were examined. Over 30% of these programs did not have a fidelity assessment approach. For the rest, using the available data, the program’s fidelity characteristics, including source, type, and frequency of use, were coded. The extent to which fidelity supports are incorporated into these programs remains variable. No relationship was found between the level of scientific rating and the existence of fidelity measures. Overall, a range of fidelity strategies were used, including those considered gold standard (e.g., live or video observation). However, rarely are these strategies required. Results underscore the substantial implementation gap as it applies to fidelity measurement.","PeriodicalId":46016,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Family Social Work","volume":"23 1","pages":"114 - 132"},"PeriodicalIF":0.9000,"publicationDate":"2020-03-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/10522158.2019.1694342","citationCount":"6","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Documenting the implementation gap, part 1: Use of fidelity supports in programs indexed in the California evidence-based clearinghouse\",\"authors\":\"Jennifer A. Rolls Reutz, S. Kerns, Jennifer A. Sedivy, Cricket Mitchell\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/10522158.2019.1694342\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACT There is an implementation gap in which more is known about what works to support implementation than what is done in practice. This paper uses information from programs rated on the California Evidence-Based Clearinghouse (CEBC), a web-based repository of information on the evidence base for programs that serve children and families, to examine the extent of this gap as it relates to the availability of fidelity measurement implementation supports. Fidelity measures and materials supplied during the CEBC data collection process by representatives of programs rated on the CEBC Scientific Rating Scale as having well-supported, supported, or promising research evidence were examined. Over 30% of these programs did not have a fidelity assessment approach. For the rest, using the available data, the program’s fidelity characteristics, including source, type, and frequency of use, were coded. The extent to which fidelity supports are incorporated into these programs remains variable. No relationship was found between the level of scientific rating and the existence of fidelity measures. Overall, a range of fidelity strategies were used, including those considered gold standard (e.g., live or video observation). However, rarely are these strategies required. Results underscore the substantial implementation gap as it applies to fidelity measurement.\",\"PeriodicalId\":46016,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Family Social Work\",\"volume\":\"23 1\",\"pages\":\"114 - 132\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-03-14\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/10522158.2019.1694342\",\"citationCount\":\"6\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Family Social Work\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/10522158.2019.1694342\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"SOCIAL WORK\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Family Social Work","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10522158.2019.1694342","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"SOCIAL WORK","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 6

摘要

存在一个实施差距,在这个差距中,人们对支持实施的工作的了解比实际做的要多。本文使用加州循证信息交换所(CEBC)评定的项目信息,该信息交换所是一个基于网络的关于为儿童和家庭服务的项目的证据基础的信息库,以检查这一差距的程度,因为它与保真度测量实施支持的可用性有关。在CEBC科学评定量表中被评为具有良好支持、支持或有希望的研究证据的项目的代表在CEBC数据收集过程中提供的保真度测量和材料进行了检查。其中超过30%的程序没有保真度评估方法。其余的,使用可用的数据,程序的保真度特征,包括来源,类型和使用频率,被编码。保真度支持纳入这些计划的程度仍然是可变的。科学评定水平与保真度测量之间没有关系。总体而言,使用了一系列保真策略,包括那些被认为是黄金标准的策略(例如,现场或视频观察)。然而,很少需要这些策略。结果强调了实质性的实施差距,因为它适用于保真度测量。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Documenting the implementation gap, part 1: Use of fidelity supports in programs indexed in the California evidence-based clearinghouse
ABSTRACT There is an implementation gap in which more is known about what works to support implementation than what is done in practice. This paper uses information from programs rated on the California Evidence-Based Clearinghouse (CEBC), a web-based repository of information on the evidence base for programs that serve children and families, to examine the extent of this gap as it relates to the availability of fidelity measurement implementation supports. Fidelity measures and materials supplied during the CEBC data collection process by representatives of programs rated on the CEBC Scientific Rating Scale as having well-supported, supported, or promising research evidence were examined. Over 30% of these programs did not have a fidelity assessment approach. For the rest, using the available data, the program’s fidelity characteristics, including source, type, and frequency of use, were coded. The extent to which fidelity supports are incorporated into these programs remains variable. No relationship was found between the level of scientific rating and the existence of fidelity measures. Overall, a range of fidelity strategies were used, including those considered gold standard (e.g., live or video observation). However, rarely are these strategies required. Results underscore the substantial implementation gap as it applies to fidelity measurement.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
4
期刊介绍: Each issue of the Journal of Family Social Work contains peer reviewed research articles, conceptual and practice articles, creative works, letters to the editor, and book reviews devoted to innovative family theory and practice subjects. In celebrating social workers" tradition of working with couples and families in their life context, the Journal of Family Social Work features articles which advance the capacity of practitioners to integrate research, theory building, and practice wisdom into their services to families. It is a journal of policy, clinical practice, and research directed to the needs of social workers working with couples and families.
期刊最新文献
Visitation and policy: implications for incarcerated individuals and their families Family meeting Connecting to birth culture: a phenomenological approach to understanding how transracial adoptive parents address cultural depth Elopement and its implications to a family system: a sociocultural perspective Parenthood and family in the opinions of adult offenders: qualitative study
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1