Evaluation Review

 

Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Click Here for More Information

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

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
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
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
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Warner, J. L.
Right arrow Articles by Ciarlo, J. A.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Warner, J. L.
Right arrow Articles by Ciarlo, J. A.
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?
Evaluation Review, Vol. 7, No. 5, 635-658 (1983)
DOI: 10.1177/0193841X8300700503

Assessing Mental Health Program Effectiveness

A Comparison of Three Client Follow-Up Methods

Jack L. Warner

University of Denver

John J. Berman

University of Nebraska at Lincoln

James M. Weyant

University of Denver

James A. Ciarlo

University of Denver

In order to assess the advantages and disadvantages of face-to-face interviews, telephone interviews, and mailed questionnaires, 1100 clients were randomly assigned to one of these follow-up methods. All participating clients were contacted approximately 180 days after intake using a well-documented treatment outcome measure. Response rates for the telephone interview and mailed questionnaire were approximately one-half as high as the face-to-face interview, yet for each method very few client background variables were related to whether or not clients responded. The mailed questionnaire was least affected by socially desirable responses, and also cost less to administer than either of the interview methods.


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
American Journal of EvaluationHome page
R. Campbell, A. E. Adams, and D. Patterson
Methodological Challenges of Collecting Evaluation Data From Traumatized Clients/Consumers: A Comparison of Three Methods
American Journal of Evaluation, September 1, 2008; 29(3): 369 - 381.
[Abstract] [PDF]


Home page
AssessmentHome page
J. S. Cacciola, A. I. Alterman, M. J. Rutherford, J. R. McKay, and D. J. May
Comparability of Telephone and In-Person Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-III-R (SCID) Diagnoses
Assessment, September 1, 1999; 6(3): 235 - 242.
[Abstract] [PDF]