2406 intervention studies

The cumulation of results of studies of an
interventions effects and the analysis of this
assembly of studies are important to science,
of course. Systematic reviews of intervention
studies of effect have developed remarkably
since the 1990s. The scientific rubrics for devel
opment in this area include meta analysis and
systematic reviews, each of which emphasizes
the quality of the evidence. The QUOROM
Group in health research standards reports on
meta analyses of randomized trials (Moher et al.
1999). As yet, analogous guidelines have not yet
been developed for the educational, social wel
fare, and criminological areas.
Beginning in 1993 the international Cochrane
Collaboration (www.cochrane.org.) in health has
led the way in generating uniform, systematic,
high quality reviews of assemblies of studies on
effectiveness of interventions. The international
Campbell Collaboration (www.campbellcolla
boration.org.), Cochranes younger sibling,
focuses on social welfare, crime and justice,
and education. The Cochrane Collaboration
has produced over 1,500 systematic reviews
since 1993. The topics range from effectiveness
of psychosocial development interventions such
as multi systemic therapy, to summarizing
efforts to manage colitis, heart disease, and other
illness. Both the Cochrane Collaboration and the
Campbell Collaboration have developed world
wide accessible registers of randomized trials. In
this respect, the organizations compile informa
tion that addresses a variation on questions of
the third kind in the context of intervention
studies What works? Or works better? based
on fair evidence.

SEE ALSO: Effect Sizes; Evaluation; Experi
ment; Experimental Methods; Prevention, Inter
vention; Structural Equation Modeling; Survey
Research; Theory; Variables, Independent

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED
READINGS

Boruch, R. (1997) Randomized Experiments. Sage,
Thousand Oaks, CA.
Campbell, M. K., Elbourne, D. E., & Altman, D. G.
(2004) CONSORT Statement: Extension to Clus-
ter Randomized Trials. British Medical Journal
328: 702 8.
Deeks, J. J., Dinnes, J., DAmico, R., Sowden, A. J.,
Sakarovitch, C., Song, F., Petticrew, M., & Alt-
man, D. G. (2003) Evaluating Nonrandomized
Intervention Studies. Health Technology Assessment
7(27): 1 173.
Fixsen, D. L. et al. (2005) Implementation Research:
A Synthesis of the Literature. University of South
Florida, National Implementation Research Net-
work. Online. www.nirn.fmhi.usf.edu.
Flay, B. R. et al. (2005) Standards of Evidence:
Criteria for Efficacy, Effectiveness, and Dissemi-
nation. Prevention Science (May): 1 25.
Gibson-Davis, C. & Duncan, G. J. (2005) Qualita-
tive/Quantitative Synergies in a Random Assign-
ment Program Evaluation. In: Weisner, T. S.
(Ed.), Discovering Successful Pathways in Childrens
Development. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp.
283 303.
Glazerman, D., Levy, D. M., & Myers, D. (2003)
Nonexperimental versus Experimental Esti-
mates of Earnings Impacts. Annals of the American
Academy of Political and Social Sciences 589:
63 93.
Greenwood, P. W., Model, K. E., Rydell, C. P., &
Chiesa, J. (1996) Diverting Children from a Life of
Crime: Measuring Costs and Benefits. RAND Cor-
poration, Santa Monica, CA.
Levin, H. M. & McEwan, P. J. (2001) Cost Effectiveness
Analysis: Methods and Applications, 2nd edn. Sage,
Thousand Oaks, CA.
Mohrer, D., Schulz, K. F., & Altman, D. G.
(2001) The CONSORT Statement. Lancet 357:
1191 204.
Mohrer, D., Cook, D., Eastwood, S., Olkin, I.,
Rennie, D., & Stroup, D. for the QUOROM
Group (1999) Improving the Quality of Reports
of Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled
Trials: The QUORUM Statement. Lancet 354:
1896 900.
National Institute of Drug Abuse (1999) Measuring
and Improving Costs, Cost Effectiveness, and
Cost Benefit for Substance Treatment Programs.
National Institutes of Health/NIDA, Washington,
DC.
Parker, S. & Teruel, G. M. (2005) Randomization
and Social Program Evaluation. Annals of the
American Academy of Political and Social Science
599: 199 219.
Rawlings, L. (2005) Operational Reflections on Eval-
uating Development Programs. In: Pitman, G. K.,
Feinstein, O. N., & Ingram, G. N. (Eds.), Evalu
ating Development Programs. Transaction Books,
London, pp. 193 204.
Rossi, P., Lipsey, M., & Freeman, H. (2004) Evalua
tion: A Systematic Approach, 7th edn. Sage, Thou-
sand Oaks, CA.