American Journal of Community Psychology

, Volume 21, Issue 5, pp 665–672 | Cite as

Preventing problems in prevention research

  • Lee B. Sechrest


The design, conduct, and analysis of prevention research efforts present formidable challenges, but as the papers in this volume illustrate, the problems of prevention research are probably not altogether intractable; they simply require the best of our thinking and the firmest of our commitments. The papers included in this issue represent some of the best thinking likely to be available, and, in aggregate, they give reason for some optimism about prevention research. Which is fortunate, because it is by now abundantly clear that treatment of all the assorted personal and social maladies that afflict us individually and as a society, is impossibly intrusive and expensive, even if we were certain we knew what to do, and we are not. Treatment research is only a step or two ahead of prevention research in nearly any field.

Key words

prevention research evidence innovation logic of science 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Bryk, A. S., & Raudenbush, S. W. (1992).Hierarchical linear models: applications and data analysis methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  2. Diamond, J. (1987). Soft sciences are often harder than hard sciences. Discover, 34–39.Google Scholar
  3. Feinstein, A. R. (1968). Clinical epidemiology: III. The clinical design of statistics in therapy.Annals of Internal Medicine, 69, 1287–1312.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Gusfield, J. (1976). The literary rhetoric of science: comedy and pathos in drinking driving research.American Sociological Review, 41, 16–34.Google Scholar
  5. Kaplan, A. (1964).The conduct of inquiry: Methodology for behavioral science. San Francisco: Chandler Publishing Co.Google Scholar
  6. Lipsey, M. W. (1990). Theory as method: small theories of treatments. In L. Sechrest, E. Perrin, and J. Bunker (Eds.),Research methodology: strengthening causal interpretations of nonexperimental data. Washington, D.C.: DHHS, Agency for Health Care Policy and Research, pp. 33–52.Google Scholar
  7. Russell, L. (1986).Is prevention better than cure? Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution.Google Scholar
  8. Sechrest, L., West, S. G., Phillips, M., Redner, R., and Yeaton, W. H. (1979). Some neglected problems in evaluation research: strength and integrity of treatments. In L. Sechrest and associates (Eds.),Evaluation studies review annual (Vol. 4). Beverly Hills: Sage Publications, pp. 15–35.Google Scholar
  9. Smith, B. H., & Sechrest, L. (1991). Treatment of aptitude × treatment interactions.Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 59, 233–244.PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 1993

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lee B. Sechrest
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyUniversity of ArizonaTucson

Personalised recommendations