Skip to main content

Knowledge to Practice or Knowledge of Practice? A Comparison of Two Approaches to Bringing Science to Service

  • 7411 Accesses

Part of the Handbooks of Sociology and Social Research book series (HSSR)

This chapter examines the struggles to get everyday clinical treatment to utilize empirically supported or tested theories in guiding treatment practice. It does not cover the findings of treatment studies themselves. These topics are covered in a variety of other print and electronic sources (e.g., Campbell Collaboration; Cochrane Collaboration; Cullen & Gendreau, 2000; Lipsey, 1992, 1995; Lipsey, Wilson, & Cothern, 2000). Instead, this chapter reviews the literature on how evidence about treatment process and outcomes is applied to practice. In some types of treatment research, the distinction between studying treatment and using the results is relatively fuzzy. In others, the difference between creating knowledge and applying it is more distinct. The research practice that draws firmer boundaries is probably more familiar in the field of criminology.

Keywords

  • Child Welfare
  • Juvenile Justice
  • Developmental Strategy
  • Adoption Strategy
  • Residential Treatment Center

These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

The author is deeply grateful for helpful comments from Bonnie E. Carlson, Michael Shafer, and Gina Penly Hall. Remaining errors are my own.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Buying options

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • DOI: 10.1007/978-1-4419-0245-0_18
  • Chapter length: 31 pages
  • Instant PDF download
  • Readable on all devices
  • Own it forever
  • Exclusive offer for individuals only
  • Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout
eBook
USD   89.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • ISBN: 978-1-4419-0245-0
  • Instant PDF download
  • Readable on all devices
  • Own it forever
  • Exclusive offer for individuals only
  • Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout
Softcover Book
USD   119.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)

References

  • Aarons, G. A. (2004). Mental health provider attitudes toward adoption of evidence-based practice attitude scale (EBPAS). Mental Health Services Research, 6(2), 61–74.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Aarons, G. A. (2005). Measuring provider attitudes towards evidence based practice: Consideration of organizational context and individual differences. Child and Adolescent Psychiatric Clinics of North America, 14(2), 255–271.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Aarons, G. A., & Sawitzky, A. C. (2006). Organizational culture and climate and mental health provider attitudes toward evidence-based practice. Psychological Services, 3(1), 61–72.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Addis, M. E., & Krasnow, A. D. (2000). A national survey of practicing psychologists' attitudes toward psychotherapy treatment manuals. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 68(2), 331–339.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • American Friends Service Committee (1970). The struggle for justice. New York: Hill and Wang.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson-Butcher, D., Lawson, H., Fallara, L., & Furano, G. (2002). Eliciting theories of change from youth care workers and youth participants. Journal of Child and Youth Care Work, 17, 130–150.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aos, S., Lieb, R., Mayfield, J., Miller, M., & Pennucci, A. (2004). Benefits and costs of prevention and early intervention programs for youth. Olympia, WA: Washington State Institute for Public Policy. Retrieved October 17, 2007 from http://www.wsipp.wa.gov/rptfiles/04-07-3901.pdf.

    Google Scholar 

  • Argyris, C. (1970). Intervention theory and method. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Armelius, B-A., & Andreassen, T. H. (2007). Cognitive-behavioral treatment for antisocial behavior in youth in residential treatment. Retrieved March 1, 2008, from http://www.campbellcollaboration.org.

  • Bartholomew, N. G., Joe, G. W., Rowan-Szal, G. A., & Simpson, D. D. (2007). Counselor assessments of training and adoption barriers. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 33(2), 193–199.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Bedell, J. R., Ward, C., Jr., Archer, R. P., & Stokes, M. K. (1985). An empirical evaluation of a model of knowledge utilization. Evaluation Review, 9(2), 109–126.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Benbenishty, R. (1996). Integrating research and practice: Time for a new agenda. Research on Social Work Practice, 6(1), 77–82.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Bennis, W. G., Benne, K. D., & Chin, R. (1961). The planning of change. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.

    Google Scholar 

  • Biglan, A., Mrazek, P. J., Carnine, D., & Flay, B. R. (2003, June/July). The integration of research and practice in the prevention of youth problem behaviors. American Psychologist, 433–440.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blakely, C. H., Mayer, J. P., Gottschalk, R. G., Schmitt, N., Davidson, W., Roitman, D., et al. (1987). The fidelity-adaptation debate: Implications for the implementation of public sector social programs. American Journal of Community Psychology, 15, 253–268.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Blamey, A., & Mackenzie, M. (2007). Theories of change and realistic evaluation: Peas in a pod or apples and oranges? Evaluation, 13(4), 439–455.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Blome, W. W., & Steib, S. (2004). Whatever the problem, the answer is “evidence-based practice” – Or is it? Child Welfare, 83(6), 611–615.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blythe, B. J., & Briar, S. (1985). Developing empirically based models of practice. Social Work, 30, 483–488.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bogue, B., Campbell, N., Carey, M., Clawson, E., Faust, D., Florio, K., et al. (2004, April 22). Implementing evidence-based principles in community corrections: Leading organizational change and development. Washington DC: National Institute of Corrections and Crime and Justice Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bogue, B., Woodward, B., Campbell, N., Carey, M., Clawson, E., Faust, D., et al. (2005, November 9). Implementing effective correctional management of offenders in the community, Outcome and process measures. Washington, DC: National Institute of Correction and Crime and Justice Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brandon, P. R. (1998). Stakeholder participation for helping ensure evaluation validity: Bridging the gap between collaborative and non-collaborative evaluation. American journal of evaluation, 19(3), 325–337.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brickmeyer, J. D., & Weiss, C. H. (2000). Theory-based evaluation in practice: What do we learn? Evaluation Review, 24(4), 407–431.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Bushway, S., & Weisburd, D. (2006). Acknowledging the centrality of quantitative criminology in criminology and criminal justice. The Criminologist, 31(4), 1, 3–4.

    Google Scholar 

  • Camasso, M. J. (2004). Treatment evidence in a non-experimenting environment: Some recommendations for increasing supply and demand. In A. R. Roberts & K. R. Yeager (Eds.), Evidence-based practice manual (pp. 233–246). New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Campbell Collaboration. Available at: http://www.cambellcollaboration.org.

  • Card, J. (2001). The sociometrics program archives: Promoting the dissemination of evidence-based practices through replication kits. Research on Social Work Practice, 11(4), 521–526.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Carlson, B. E., Barr, W. B., & Young, K. W. (2004). Factors associated with treatment outcomes of male adolescents. In G. Northrup (Ed.), Applied research in residential treatment (pp. 39–58). Binghamton, NY: The Haworth Press, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chen, H., & Rossi, P. H. (1989). Issues in the theory-driven perspective. Evaluation and Program Planning, 12, 299–306.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Chorpita, B. F., Daleiden, E. L., & Weisz, J. R. (2005). Identifying and selecting the common elements of evidence based interventions: A distillation and matching model. Mental Health Services Research, 7(1), 5–20.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Cochrane Collaboration. Available at: http://www.cochrane.org

  • Cole, G. (1999). Advancing the development and application of theory-based evaluation in the practice of public health. American Journal of Evaluation, 20(3), 453–470.

    Google Scholar 

  • Council on Accreditation of Services for Families and Children (COA). (2005). Standards G2.5 and G2.7. New York: COA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cournoyer, B. R., & Powers, G. T. (2002). Evidence-based social work: The quiet revolution continues. In A. R. Roberts & G. Greene (Eds.), The social worker’s desk reference (pp. 798–806). New York: Oxford UniversityPress.

    Google Scholar 

  • Courtney, K. O., Joe, G. W., Rowan-Szal, G. A., & Simpson, D. D. (2007). Using organizational assessment as a tool for program change. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 33(2), 131–137.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Cousins, J. B., Donohue, J. J., & Bloom, G. A. (1996). Collaborative evaluation in North America: Evaluators’ self-reported opinions, practices and consequences. Evaluation Practice, 17(3), 207–226.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Cousins, J. B., & Earl, L. M. (1992). The case for participatory evaluation. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 14(4), 397–418.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cousins, J. B., & Leithwood, K. A. (1986). Current empirical research on evaluation utilization. Review of Educational Research, 56(3), 331–364.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cozens, W. R. (1999). Data, data everywhere and not a program improvement in sight! Residential Treatment for Children and Youth, 17(1), 65–85.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Crime and Justice Institute. (2004, April 24). Implementing effective correctional management of offenders in the community: An integrated model. Washington DC: National Institute of Corrections.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cullen, F. T., & Gendreau, P. (2000). Assessing correctional rehabilitation: Policy, practice and prospects. In J. Horney, J. Martin, D. L. Mackenzie, R. Peterson, & D. Rosenbaum (Eds.), Policies, processes, and decisions of the criminal justice system: Vol. 3. Criminal justice (pp. 109–175). Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cunningham, S. & Duffee, D. E. (2009). Styles of evidence-based practice in the child welfare system. Evidence-Based Social Work, 6(2), 176–197.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dewey, J. (1933). How we think (Rev. ed.). New York: Heath.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dobmyer, T. W., Woodward, B., & Olson, L. (2002). Factors supporting the development and utilization of an outcome-based performance measurement system in a chemical health case management program. Administration in Social Work, 26(4), 25–44.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Duffee, D. E. (1980) Correctional management: Change and control in systems of control. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Duffee, D. E., & Carlson, B. E. (1996). Competing value premises for the provision of drug treatment to probationers, Crime and Delinquency, 42(4), 574–592.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Dunn, W. N., & Swierczek, F. W. (1977). Planned organizational change: Toward grounded theory. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 13(2), 135–157.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Englebrecht, C., Peterson, D., Scherer, A., & Naccarato, T. (2008). “It’s not my fault”: Acceptance of responsibility as a component of engagement in juvenile residential treatment. Children and Youth Services Review, 30, 466–484.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Fairweather, W., & Tornatzky, L. (1977). Experimental methods for social policy research. Elmsford, NY: Pergamon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Farrington, D. P., & Weisburd, D. L. (2007). The Campbell Collaboration Crime and Justice Group. The Criminologist, 32(1), 1, 3–5.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fawcett, S. B., Suarez-Balcazar, Y., Balcazar, F. E., White, G. W., Paine, A. L., Blanchard, K. A., et al. (1994). Conducting intervention research: The design and development process. In J. Rothman & E. J. Thomas (Eds.), Intervention research: Design and development for human service (pp. 25–53). New York: The Haworth Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ferguson, J. L. (2002). Putting the “what works” research into practice: An organizational perspective, Criminal Justice and Behavior, 29(4), 472–492.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Fixsen, D. L., Naoom, S. F. Blasé, K. A., Friedman, R. M., & Wallace, F. (2005). Implementation research: A synthesis of the literature. Tampa, FL: University of South Florida, Louis de la Parte Florida Mental Health Institute, The National Implementation Research Institute. Retrieved March 1, 2008, from http://nirn.fmhi.usf.edu/resources/publications/Monograph/.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fortune, A. E., & Reid, W. J. (1998). Research in social work (3rd ed.). New York: Columbia University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frambach, R. T., Schillewaert, N. (2002). Organizational innovation adoption. A multi-level framework of determinants and opportunities for future research. Journal of Business Research, 55, 163–176.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • French, W. L., & Bell, C. H., Jr. (1995). Organization development: Behavioral science interventions for organization improvement (5th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garland, A. F., Kruse, M., & Aarons, G. A. (2003). Clinician’s and outcome measurement: What’s the use? Journal of Behavioral Health Services & Research, 301(4), 393–405.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Gira, E. C., Kessler, M. L., & Poertner, J. (2001). Evidence-based practice in child welfare: Challenges and opportunities. Urbana, IL: University at Urbana-Champaign.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gira, E. C., Kessler, M. L., & Poertner, J. (2004). Influencing social workers to use research evidence in practice: Lessons from medicine and the allied health professions. Research on Social Work Practice, 14(2), 68–79.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Glisson, C. (2007). Assessing and changing organizational culture and climate for effective services. Research on Social Work Practice, 17(6), 736–747.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Goldstein, H. (1979). Improving policing: A problem oriented approach. Crime and Delinquency, 25, 236–258.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Grella, C. E., Hser, Y., Teruya, C., & Evans, E. (2005). How can research-based findings be used to improve practice? Perspectives from participants in a statewide outcomes monitoring study. Journal of Drug Issues, 35(3), 469–484.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Hair, H. J. (2005). Outcomes for children and adolescents after residential treatment: A review of research from 1993 to 2003. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 14(4), 551–575.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Hanrahan, P., & Reid, W. J. (1984, June). Choosing effective interventions. Social Service Review, 245–257.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hartnett, H. P., & Kapp, S. A. (2004). Establishment of quality programming. In A. R. Roberts & K. R. Yeager (Eds.), Evidence-based practice manual (pp. 939–945). New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hatry, H. P. (1997). Outcome measurement and social services: Public and private sector perspectives. In E. J. Mullen & J. L. Magnabosco (Eds.), Outcomes measurement in the human services: Cross-cutting issues and methods (pp. 3–19). Washington DC: National Association of Social Workers Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Havelock, R. G., & Havelock, M. C. (1973). Training for change agents. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Institute for Social Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hernandez, M. (2000). Using logic models and program theory to build outcome accountability. Education and Treatment of Children, 23(1), 24–40.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hernandez, M., & Hodges, S. (2003). Building upon the theory of change for systems of care. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 11(1), 19–26.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Howe, M., & Joplin, L. (2005). Implementing evidence-based practice in community corrections: Quality assurance manual. Washington, DC: National Institute of Corrections, Community Corrections Division.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kahn, A. J., & Kamerman, S. B. (1999). Contracting for child and family services: A mission sensitive guide. Baltimore: Annie E. Casey Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kendall, P. C., & Beidas, R. S. (2007). Smoothing the trial for dissemination of evidence-based practices for youth: Flexibility within fidelity. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 38(1), 13–19.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Kerlinger, F. N. (1973). Foundations of behavioral research. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kessler, M. L., Gira, E., & Poertner, J. (2005). Moving best practice to evidence-based practice in child welfare. Families in Society, 86(2), 244–250.

    Google Scholar 

  • King, J. A. (1998). Making sense of participatory evaluation practice. In E. Whitmore (Ed.), Understanding and practicing participatory evaluation (pp. 57–67). San Francisco: Josey-Bass Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klein, K. J., & Sorra, J. S. (1996). The challenge of innovation implementation. Academy of Management Review, 21(4), 1055–1080.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klinger, J., Ahwee, S., Pilonieta, P., & Menendez, R. (2003). Barriers and facilitators in scaling up research-based practices. Exceptional Children, 69(4), 411–429.

    Google Scholar 

  • Knorth, E. J., Harder, A. T., Zandberg, T., & Kendrick, A. J. (2008). Under one roof: A review and selective meta-analysis on the outcomes of residential child and youth care. Children and Youth Services Review, 30, 123–140.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Krisberg, B. (1980). Utility of process evaluation – Crime and delinquency programs. In M. W. Klein & K. S. Teilman (Eds.), Handbook of criminal justice evaluation (pp. 217–236). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lerman, P. (2002). Twentieth century developments in American institutional systems for youth in trouble. In M. K. Rosenheim, F. E. Zimring, D. S. Tanenhaus, & B. Dohrn (Eds.), A century of juvenile justice (pp. 74–109). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Liddle, H. A., Rowe, C. L., Quille, T. J., Dakof, G. A., Mills, D. S., Sakran, E., et al. (2002). Transporting a research-based adolescent drug treatment into practice. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 22,231–243.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Lipsey, M. W. (1992). Juvenile delinquency treatment: A meta-analysis inquiry into the variability of effects. In T. D. Cook, H. Cooper, D. S. Cordray, H. Hartmann, L. V. Hedges, R. J. Light, et al. (Eds.), Meta-analysis for explanation: A casebook (pp. 83–127). New York: Russell Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lipsey, M. W. (1995). What do we learn from 400 research studies on the effectiveness of treatment with juvenile delinquents? In J. McGuire (Ed.), What works? Reducing reoffending (pp. 63–78). New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lipsey, M. W., Wilson, D. B., & Cothern, L. (2000). Effective intervention for serious juvenile offenders. Washington, DC: United States Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

    Google Scholar 

  • MacKenzie, D. L., Styve, G. J, & Gover, A. R. (1998). Performance-based standards for juvenile corrections. Corrections Management Quarterly, 2(2), 28–35.

    Google Scholar 

  • Magill, M. (2006). The future of evidence in evidence-based practice: Who will answer the call for clinical relevance? Journal of Social Work, 62, 101–115.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Mann-Feder, V. R. (1996). Adolescents in therapeutic communities. Adolescence, 31, 17–29.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mark, M. M., & Henry, G. T. (2004). The mechanisms and outcomes of evaluation influence. Evaluation, 10(1), 35–57.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Martin, L. L. (1998). The rush to measure performance. Journal of Sociology and Social Welfare, 25(3), 63–74.

    Google Scholar 

  • Martin, D. J., Garske, J. P., & Davis, M. K. (2000). Relation of the therapeutic alliance with outcome and other variables: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 68(3), 438–450.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Martinson, R. (1974, Spring). What works? Questions and answers about prison reform. The Public Interest, 35, 22–54.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mason, P., & Barnes, M. (2007). Constructing theories of change. Evaluation, 13(2), 151–170.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • McClintock, C. (2004). Integrating program evaluation and organizational development. In A. R. Roberts & K. R. Yeager (Eds.), Evidence-based practice manual (pp. 598–606). New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • McNeill, T. (2006). Evidence-based practice in an age of relativism: Toward a model for practice. Social Work, 51(2), 147–156.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • McNiff, J., & Whitehead, J. (2006). All you need to know about action research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, J. W., & Rowan, B. (1977). Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 83(2), 599–615.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mihalic, S., Irwin, K, Fagan, A., Ballard, D., & Elliott, D. (2004, July). Successful program implementation: Lessons from blueprints. Juvenile Justice Bulletin. Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller, T. I., Kobayashi, M. M., & Noble, P. M. (2006). Insourcing, not capacity building, a better model for sustained program evaluation. American Journal of Evaluation, 27(1), 83–94.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Moore, T. D., Rapp, C. A., & Roberts, B. (2000). Improving child welfare performance through supervisory use of client outcome data. Child Welfare, 79, 475–497.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mowbray, C. T., Holter, M. C., Teague, G. B., & Bybee, D. (2003). Fidelity criteria: Development, measurement, and validation. American Journal of Evaluation, 24(3), 315–340.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moynihan, D. P. (2005). Impact of managing for results mandates in corrections: Lessons from three states. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 16(1), 18–37.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • National Institutes of Health Council for Training on Evidence-Based Behavioral Practice. (2008, March). Definition and competencies for evidence-based behavioral practice. Washington, DC: National Institutes ofHealth.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Institute of Justice (2008) Solicitation: Crime and justice research. Washington, DC: United States Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, National Institute of Justice Funding Opportunity No. 2008-NIJ-1730.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Leary, V., Duffee, D., & Wenk, E. (1977). Developing relevant data for a prison organization development program. Journal of Criminal Justice, 5(2), 85–104.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Osborne, D., & Gaebler, T. (1992). Reinventing government: How the entrepreneurial spirit is transforming the public sector. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Sullivan, R. G., & D’Agostino, A. (2002). Promoting evaluation through collaboration: Findings from community-based programs for youth children and their families. Evaluation, 8(3), 372–387.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Patton, M. Q. (1989). A context and boundaries for a theory-driven approach to validity. Evaluation and Program Planning, 12, 375–377.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Patton, M. Q. (1997). Utilization focused evaluation, The new century text (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pawson, R. (2003). Nothing as practical as a good theory. Evaluation, 9(4), 471–490.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Pressman, J. L., & Wildavsky, A. (1973). Implementation. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reid, W. J. (1987). Evaluating an intervention in developmental research. Journal of Social Service Research, 11(1), 17–37.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Reid, W. J. (1990). Change-process research: A new paradigm? In L. Videka-Sherman & W. J. Reid (Eds.), Advances in clinical social work research (pp. 130–148). Silver Spring, MD: NASW Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rein, M., & White, S. H. (1981). Knowledge for practice. Social Service Review, 55, 1–41.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Renger, R., & Hurley, C. (2006). From theory to practice: Lessons learned in the application of the ATM approach to developing logic models. Evaluation and Program Planning, 29, 106–119.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Renger, R., & Titcomb, A. (2002). A three-step approach to teaching logic models. American Journal of Evaluation, 23(4), 493–503.

    Google Scholar 

  • Richters, J. E. (1997). The Hubble hypothesis and the developmentalist’s dilemma. Development and Psychopathology, 9, 193–229.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Rosas, S. R. (2005). Concept mapping as a technique for program theory development: An illustration using family support programs. American Journal of Evaluation, 26(3), 389–401.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Roscoe, T. (2002). Driving and resisting forces in rationalizing probation: A case study of probation in New York State. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University at Albany, SUNY, Albany, NY.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosen, A. (1983). Barriers to utilization of research by social work practitioners. Journal of Social Service Research, 6, 1–15.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Rosen, A. (1992). Facilitating clinical decision making and evaluation. Families in Society: The Journal of Contemporary Human Services, 73, 522–530.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosen, A. (1994). Knowledge use in direct practice. Social Service Review, 68, 561–577.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Rosen, A. (2003). Evidence-based social work practice: challenges and promise. Social Work Research, 27(4), 197–208.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Rossi, P. H. (1997). Program outcomes: Conceptual and measurement issues. In E. J. Mullen & J. L. Magnabosco (Eds.), Outcomes measurement in the human services: Cross-cutting issues and methods (pp. 20–34). Washington DC: National Association of Social Workers Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rossi, P. H., Lipsey, M. W., & Freeman, H. E. (2004). Evaluation: A systematic approach (7th ed.). E. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rothman, J., Teresa, J. G., Kay, T. L. & Morningstar, G. C. (1983). Marketing human services innovations. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schoenwald, S., Sheidow, A. J., & Letourneau, E. J. (2004). Toward effective quality assurance in evidence-based practice: Links between expert consultation, therapist fidelity and child outcomes. Journal of Child and Adolescent Psychology, 33(1), 94–104.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Senge, P., Cambron-McCabe, N., Lucas, T., Smith, B., Dutton, J., & Kleiner, A. (2000). Schools that learn. New York: Doubleday.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shirk, S. R., & Karver, M. (2003). Prediction of treatment outcome from relationship variables in child and adolescent therapy: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 71(3), 452–464.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Simpson, D. D. (2002). A conceptual framework for transferring research to practice. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 22, 171–182.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Simpson, D. D., & Flynn, P. M. (2007). Moving innovations into treatment: A stage-based approach to program change. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 33(2), 111–120.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, B. D., Duffee, D. E., Steinke, C. M., Huang, Y., & Larkin, H. (2008). Outcomes in residential treatment for youth. Children and Youth Services Review, 30(12), 1425–1436.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stame, N. (2004). Theory-based evaluation and types of complexity. Evaluation, 10(1), 58–76.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Steib, S. (2004). Whatever the problem, the answer is “evidence-based practice,” Or is it? Child Welfare, 83(6), 611–615.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stevens, M., Liabo, K., Frost, S., & Roberts, H. (2005). Using research in practice: A research information service for social care practitioners. Child and Family Social Work, 10, 67–75.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (2008). National registry of evidence-based programs and practices, Retrieved September 3, 2008 from http://www.nrepp.samhsa.gov/submit.htm.

  • Sullivan, H., & Stewart, M. (2006). Who owns the theory of change? Evaluation, 12(2), 179–199.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Susman, G. I., & Evered, R. D. (1978). An assessment of the scientific merits of action research. Administrative Science Quarterly, 23, 582–603.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Taxman, F. S., & Bouffard, J. A. (2002). Assessing therapeutic integrity in modified therapeutic communities for drug-involved offenders. Prison Journal, 82, 189–212.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Thomas, E. J. (1980). Mousetraps, developmental research, and social work education. Social Service Review, 52, 468–488.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Thomas, E., & Rothman, J. (1994). An integrative perspective on intervention research. In J. Rothman & E. J. Thomas (Eds.), Intervention research: Design and development for human service (pp. 3–23). New York: The Haworth Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Toch, H. (1969). Violent men. Chicago: Aldine.

    Google Scholar 

  • Toch, T. & Grant, D. T. (1982). Reforming human services: Change through participation. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Toch, H., Grant, J. D., & Galvin, R. T. (1975). Agents of change: A study in police reform. Cambridge, MA: Schenkman.

    Google Scholar 

  • United Way of America (1996). Measuring program outcomes: A practical approach. Alexandria, VA: United Way of America.

    Google Scholar 

  • Usher, C. L. (1995). Improving evaluability through self-evaluation. Evaluation Practice, 16(1), 59–68.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Von Hirsch, A. (1976). Doing justice. New York: Hill and Wang.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wakefield, J. C., & Kirk, S. A. (1996). Unscientific thinking about scientific practice: Evaluating the scientist-practitioner model. Social Work Research, 20, 83–95.

    Google Scholar 

  • Webster, D., Needell, B., & Wildfire, J. (2002). Data are your friends: Child welfare agency self-evaluation in Los Angeles County with the family to family initiative. Children and Youth Services Review, 24(6), 471–484.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Weiss, C. H. (1997). Theory-based evaluation: Past, present, and future. New directions for evaluation, 76, 41–55.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Wholey, J. S. (1987). Evaluability assessment: Developing program theory. In L. Bickman (Ed.), Using program theory in evaluation (pp. 77–82). San Francisco: Jossey Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams, W. (1980). The implementation perspective: A guide for managing social service delivery programs. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wulczyn, F. (2005). Monitoring the performance of the child welfare system. In Rockefeller Institute of Government’s, Performance management in state and local government (pp. 54–62). Albany, NY: Rockefeller Institute of Government.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yampolskaya, S., Nesman, M., Hernandez, M., & Koch, D. (2004). Using concept mapping to develop a logic model and articulate a program theory: A case example. American Journal of Evaluation, 25(2), 191–207.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yin, R. K. (2000). Rival explanations as an alternative to reforms as ‘experiments.’ In L. Bickman (Ed.), Validity and social experimentation: Donald Campbell’s legacy (pp. 239–266). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Young, D., Moline, K., & Farrell, J. (2006). Best implementation practices: Disseminating new assessment technologies in a juvenile justice agency. Crime & Delinquency, 52, 135–158.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

Copyright information

© 2009 Springer Science+Business Media, LLC

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Duffee, D.E. (2009). Knowledge to Practice or Knowledge of Practice? A Comparison of Two Approaches to Bringing Science to Service. In: Krohn, M., Lizotte, A., Hall, G. (eds) Handbook on Crime and Deviance. Handbooks of Sociology and Social Research. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-0245-0_18

Download citation