Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Rejoinder to Mordock's Critique of the Fort Bragg Evaluation Project: The Sample Is Generalizable and the Outcomes Are Clear

  • Published:
Child Psychiatry and Human Development Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The Fort Bragg Evaluation Project (FBEP) showed that children in a well implemented and expensive continuum of care had no better clinical outcomes than those experiencing more traditional and fragmented services. In an article published in this journal that was critical of the evaluation, Mordock argued that the FBEP results be viewed with skepticism because of what he perceived to be methodological, design, measurement, and analytic failures of this study. We think it is important to respond to Mordock's critique since it contributes to the great reluctance to seriously consider the study's findings and their implications.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Bickman L, Guthrie PR, Foster EM, Lambert EW, Summerfelt WT, Breda CS, Heflinger CA: Evaluating Managed Mental Health Services: The Fort Bragg Experiment. New York: Plenum, 1995.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Heflinger CA: Final Report of the Fort Bragg Evaluation: The Implementation Study. Nashville: Vanderbilt University Center for Mental Health Policy, 1993.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Summerfelt WT, Foster EM, Saunders RC: Mental health services utilization in a children's mental health managed care demonstration. J Mntl Hlth Admin 23:80–91, 1996.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Heflinger CA, Sonnichsen SE, Brannan AM: Parent satisfaction with children's mental health services in a children's mental health managed care demonstration. J Mntl Hlth Admin 23:69–79, 1996.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Bickman L: A managed continuum of care: more is not better. Amer Psycholog 51:689–701, 1996.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Lambert EW, Guthrie PR: Clinical outcomes of a children's mental health managed care demonstration. J Mntl Hlth Admin 23:51–68, 1996.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Foster EM, Summerfelt WT, Saunders RC: The costs of mental health services under the Fort Bragg Demonstration. J Mntl Hlth Admin 23:92–106, 1996.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Bickman L, Summerfelt WT, Noser K: Comparative outcomes of emotionally disturbed children and adolescents in a system of services and usual care. Psychiatric Services, 48(12), 1543–1548, 1997.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Hamner K, Lambert E, Bickman L: Children's mental health in a continuum of care: clinical outcomes at 18 months for the Bragg Demonstration. Journal of Mental Health Administration, 24(4), 664–670, 1997.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Salzer MS, Bickman L: Delivering effective children's services in the community: Reconsidering the benefits of system interventions. App Prev Psychol 6:1–13, 1997.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Mordock JB: The Fort Bragg Continuum of Care Demonstration Project: The population served was unique and the outcomes are questionable. Child Psychiat Human Dev, 27:241–254, 1997.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Behar L: The Fort Bragg Evaluation: A snapshot in time, Am Psychology, 52:557–559, 1997.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Burchard JD: Evaluation of the Fort Bragg managed care experiment. J Child Fam Studies 5:173–176, 1996.

    Google Scholar 

  14. DeLeon PW, Williams, JG: Evaluation research and public policy formation: are we collectively willing to accept unpopular findings? Am Psycholog, 52:551–552, 1997.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Evans ME, Banks SM: The Fort Bragg managed care experiment. J Child Fam Studies 5:169–172, 1996.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Feldman S: The Fort Bragg Demonstration and Evaluation: a commentary. Am Psycholog, 52:560–561, 1997.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Friedman RM: The Fort Bragg study: what can we conclude? J Child Fam Studies 5:161–168, 1996.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Friedman RM, Burns BJ: The evaluation of the Fort Bragg Demonstration Project: an alternative interpretation of the findings. J Men Hlth Admin 23:128–136, 1996.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Henggeler SW, Schoenwald SK, Munger RL: Families and therapists achieve clinical outcomes, systems of care mediate the process. J Child Fam Studies 5:177–183, 1996.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Hoagwood K: Interpreting nullity: the Fort Bragg Experiment—A comparative success or failure? Amer Psycholog, 52:546–550, 1997.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Kingdon DW, Ichinose CK: The Fort Bragg managed care experiment: what do the results mean for publicly funded systems of care? J Child Fam Studies 5:191–195, 1996.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Saxe L, Cross TP: Interpreting the Fort Bragg Children's Mental Health Demonstration: the cup is half full. Amer Psycholog, 52:553–559, 1997.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Sechrest L, Walsh M: Dogma or data: bragging rights. Am Psycholog, 52:536–540, 1997.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Weisz JR, Han SS, Valeri SM: What can we learn from Fort Bragg. J Child Fam Studies 5(2):185–190, 1996.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Weisz JR, Han SS, Valeri SM: More of what? Issues raised by Fort Bragg. Amer Psycholog, 52:541–545, 1997.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Bickman L: Reinterpreting the Fort Bragg Evaluation findings: the message does not change. J Mntl Health Admin 23:137–45, 1996.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Bickman L: Resolving issues raised by the Fort Bragg Evaluation: new directions for mental health services research. Amer Psycholog, 52:562–565, 1997.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Bickman L, Lambert EW, Summerfelt WT, Heflinger CA: Rejoinder to questions about the Fort Bragg Evaluation. J Child Fam Studies 5:197–206, 1996.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Bickman L, Summerfelt WT, Firth JM, Douglas SM: The Stark County Evaluation Project: baseline results of a randomized experiment. In Evaluating Mental Health Services. How Do Programs for Children “Work” in the Real World? Nixon, CT., Northrup, DA, eds. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 1997.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Campbell DT, Stanley JC: Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for research. Chicago, IL: Rand McNally, 1966.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Bickman L, Rog D (eds.): Handbook of Applied Social Research Methods, Newbury Park, CA: Sage, 1997.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Breda CS: Methodological issues in evaluating mental health outcomes of a children's mental health managed care demonstration. J Mntl Hlth Admin 23:40–50, 1996.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Foster EM, Bickman, L. Attrition from the Fort Bragg study: implications for measured effectiveness. Eval Rev 20:695–723, 1996.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Bickman L, Guthrie PR, Foster EM, Lambert EW, Summerfelt WT, Breda CS, Heflinger CA: Final report of the outcome and cost/utilization studies of the Fort Bragg Evaluation Project (Vol 1). VIPPS, Center for Mental Health Policy. Nashville, TN, 1994.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Kazdin AE, Mazurick JL, Siegel TC: Treatment outcome among children with externalizing disorder who terminate prematurely versus those who complete therapy. J Amer Acad Child Adol Psychiat 33:549–557, 1994.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Mordock JB: Utilization rates in children's mental health systems: more evidence for the “clinician's illusion?” Clin Child Psychology Psychiat, in press.

  37. Summerfelt WT, Salzer M, Bickman L: Interpreting differential rates of service use: avoiding myopia. Clin Child Psycholog Psychiat 2(4), 591–595, 1997.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Lipsey MW, Wilson DB: The efficacy of psychological, educational, and behavioral treatment: confirmation from meta-analysis. Am Psycholog 48:1181–1209, 1993.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Orlinsky DE, Grawe K, Parks BK: Process and outcome in psychotherapy. In Bergin, AE, Garfield, SL: Handbook of Psychotherapy and Behavior Change (4th ed., pp.270–376). New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1994.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Fonagy P, Target M: The efficacy of psychoanalysis for children with disruptive disorders. J Amer Acad of Child Adoles Psychiat 33:45–55, 1994.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Target M, Fonagy P: The efficacy of psychoanalysis for children with emotional disorders. J Amer Acad Child Adol Psychiatr 33:361–371, 1994.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Target M, Fonagy P: The efficacy of psychoanalysis for children: Prediction of outcome in a developmental context. J Amer Acad Child Adol Psychiatr 33:1134–1144, 1994.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Smyrnios KX, Kirby RJ: Long-term comparison of brief versus unlimited psychodynamic treatments with children and their parents. J Cons Clin Psycholog 61:1020–1027, 1993.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Kazdin AE, Siegel TC, Bass D: Cognitive problem-solving skills training and parent management training in the treatment of antisocial behavior in children. J Cons Clin Psycholog 60:733–747, 1992.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Salzer MS, Bickman L: The errors of using retention in services as an indicator of quality. Poster presented at the NIMH International Conference on Mental Health Services Research. Washington, DC, September, 1995.

  46. Lambert W, Salzer MS, Bickman L: Clinical outcome, consumer satisfaction, and ad hoc ratings of improvement. J Consulting Clin Psycholog 66(2), 270–279, 1998.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Center for Mental Health Policy, Vanderbilt University, Tennessee, 37212

    Leonard Bickman

  2. Vanderbilt University, USA

    Mark S. Salzer, E. Warren Lambert, Robert Saunders, W. Thomas Summerfelt, Craig Anne Heflinger & Karl Hamner

Authors
  1. Leonard Bickman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Mark S. Salzer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. E. Warren Lambert
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Robert Saunders
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. W. Thomas Summerfelt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Craig Anne Heflinger
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Karl Hamner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Bickman, L., Salzer, M.S., Lambert, E.W. et al. Rejoinder to Mordock's Critique of the Fort Bragg Evaluation Project: The Sample Is Generalizable and the Outcomes Are Clear. Child Psychiatry Hum Dev 29, 77–91 (1998). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022687331435

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022687331435

Search

Navigation