Encyclopedia of Criminology and Criminal Justice

2014 Edition
| Editors: Gerben Bruinsma, David Weisburd

Multisite Trials in Criminal Justice Settings

  • Faye S. Taxman
  • Anne Giurianna Rhodes
Reference work entry
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-5690-2_55



This entry describes the issues associated with conducting multisite trials in criminal justice settings, including how to determine the interventions to be tested, the selection of control groups, and the potential threats to internal validity of the trial, and gives two real-world examples of trials conducted and how they were managed and analyzed.


Researchers conducting an experiment must decide on the type of design and the number of sites to include. The latter decision is one that receives little attention. As previously argued by Weisburd and Taxman (2000), multicenter trials have many advantages, including the opportunity to test a new protocol or innovation within various settings. Single-site trials provide a starting point to test out the feasibility of a new innovation, but multisite trials have a clear advantage in testing the innovation under varied conditions. The multisite trial may...

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



This entry was funded in part under a cooperative agreement from the US Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, National Institutes of Health, and National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIH/NIDA) to George Mason University (Grant U01 DA016213-01, Action Research to Advance Drug Treatment in the CJS). The funding for this cooperative agreement was supplemented by the Center for Substance Abuse Treatment, Bureau of Justice Assistance, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism. The authors acknowledge the collaborative contributions by federal staff from NIDA and the other nine research center grantees of the NIH/NIDA CJDATS Cooperative. The contents are solely the responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official views of NIH/NIDA or other participants in CJDATS.

Recommended Reading and References

  1. Balas EA, Austin SM, Ewigman BG, Brown GD, Mitchell JA (1995) Methods of randomized controlled clinical trials in health services research. Med Care 33(7):687–699Google Scholar
  2. Bond G, Evans L, Saylers M, Williams J, Kim H (2000) Measurement of fidelity in psychiatric rehabilitation. Ment Heal Serv Res 2(2):75–87Google Scholar
  3. Boutron I, Moher D, Altman DG, Schulz KF, Ravaud P (2008) Extending the CONSORT statement to randomized trials of nonpharmacologic treatment: explanation and elaboration. Ann Intern Med 148(4):295–309Google Scholar
  4. Campbell DT, Stanley JC (1966) Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for research. Houghton Mifflin, BostonGoogle Scholar
  5. Carroll C, Patterson M, Wood S, Booth A, Rick J, Balain S (2007) A conceptual framework for implementation fidelity. Implement Sci 2:40–48Google Scholar
  6. Cohen J (1988) Statistical power analysis for the social sciences, 2nd edn. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  7. Dennis ML, Perl HI, Huebner RB, McLellan AT (2000) Twenty-five strategies for improving the design, implementation and analysis of health services research related to alcohol and other drug abuse treatment. Addiction 95:S281–S308Google Scholar
  8. Djulbegovic B, Cantor A, Clarke M (2003) The importance of the preservation of the ethical principle of equipoise in the design of clinical trials: relative impact of the methodological quality domains on the treatment effect in randomized controlled trials. Account Res 10(4):301–315Google Scholar
  9. Downs S, Black N (1998) The feasibility of creating a checklist for the assessment of the methodological quality both of randomised and non-randomised studies of health care interventions. J Epidemiol Commun Health 52(6):377–384Google Scholar
  10. Friedmann PD, Katz EC, Rhodes AG, Taxman FS, O’Connell DJ, Frisman LK, Burdon WM, Fletcher BW, Litt MO, Clarke J (2008) Collaborative behavioral management for drug-involved parolees: rationale and design of the step’n out study. J Offender Rehabil 47(3):290–318Google Scholar
  11. Inciardi JA, Surratt HL, Martin SS (2007) Developing a multimedia HIV and hepatitis intervention for drug-involved offenders reentering the community. Prison J 87(1):111–142Google Scholar
  12. MacKenzie D, Browning K, SKroban S, Smith D (1999) The impact of probation on the criminal activities of offenders. J Res Crime Delinq 36(4):423–453Google Scholar
  13. Meredith W, Tisak J (1990) Latent curve analysis. Psychometrika 47:47–67Google Scholar
  14. Moher D, Schulz KF, Altman DG (2001) The CONSORT statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel-group randomised trials. Lancet 357(9263):1191Google Scholar
  15. National Institute on Drug Abuse (2000) The NIDA community-based outreach model: a manual to reduce the risk of HIV and other blood-borne infections in drug users. National Institute on Drug Abuse, Rockville, Report nr (NIH Pub. No. 00-4812)Google Scholar
  16. Olivo SA, Macedo LG, Gadotti IC, Fuentes J, Stanton T, Magee DJ (2008) Scales to assess the quality of randomized controlled trials: a systematic review. Phys Ther 88(2):156–175Google Scholar
  17. Raudenbush SW (2001) Comparing personal trajectories and drawing causal inferences from longitudinal data. Annual Reviews, Palo AltoGoogle Scholar
  18. Weinberger M, Oddone EZ, Henderson WG, Smith DM, Huey J, GiobbieHurder A, Feussner JR (2001) Multisite randomized controlled trials in health services research: scientific challenges and operational issues. Med Care 39(6):627–634Google Scholar
  19. Weisburd D (2003) Ethical practice and evaluation of interventions in crime and justice: the moral imperative for randomized trials. Eval Rev 27(3):336–354Google Scholar
  20. Weisburd D, Taxman FS (2000) Developing a multicenter randomized trial in criminology: the case of HIDTA. J Quant Criminol 16(3):315–340Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Criminology, Law and SocietyGeorge Mason UniversityFairfaxUSA
  2. 2.Department of Criminology, Law and SocietyGeorge Mason UniversityRichmondUSA