Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Click here to sign up for SAGE Journal Email Alerts today!

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Evaluation Review
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Peterson, P. L.
Right arrow Articles by Catalano, R. F.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Peterson, P. L.
Right arrow Articles by Catalano, R. F.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?

Evaluating Comprehensive Community Drug Risk Reduction Interventions

Design Challenges and Recommendations

Peggy L. Peterson

University of Washington

J. David Hawkins

University of Washington

Richard F. Catalano

University of Washington

Comprehensive community interventions pose several challenges to rigorous evaluation design. This article summarizes the recommendations for a feasible and rigorous design that were formulated by a 1991 conference on the evaluation of comprehensive community interventions. One such comprehensive intervention strategy for drug risk reduction called Communities That Care illustrates the points discussed. Conference participants recommended a multisite experimental trial of matched community pairs randomized into intervention and comparison conditions. In this design, randomization occurs at the community level. The implications of this design for community selection, sample size, and power are discussed

Evaluation Review, Vol. 16, No. 6, 579-602 (1992)
DOI: 10.1177/0193841X9201600601
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Eval RevHome page
R. G. St.Pierre and P. H. Rossi
Randomize Groups, Not Individuals: A Strategy for Improving Early Childhood Programs
Eval Rev, October 1, 2006; 30(5): 656 - 685.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 American Behavioral ScientistHome page
R. Boruch, H. May, H. Turner, J. Lavenberg, A. Petrosino, D. de Moya, J. Grimshaw, and E. Foley
Estimating the Effects of Interventions That are Deployed in Many Places: Place-Randomized Trials
American Behavioral Scientist, January 1, 2004; 47(5): 608 - 633.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 EvaluationHome page
D. P. Farrington
Evaluating 'Communities that Care': Realistic Scientific Considerations
Evaluation, April 1, 1998; 4(2): 204 - 210.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 EvaluationHome page
R. Pawson and N. Tilley
Caring Communities, Paradigm Polemics, Design Debates
Evaluation, January 1, 1998; 4(1): 73 - 90.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 EvaluationHome page
D. P. Farrington
Evaluating a Community Crime Prevention Program
Evaluation, April 1, 1997; 3(2): 157 - 173.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Eval RevHome page
M. Hennessy
Adolescent Syndromes of Risk for HIV Infection
Eval Rev, June 1, 1994; 18(3): 312 - 341.
[Abstract] [PDF]