Date of Award

4-1-2023

Degree Name

Doctor of Philosophy

Department

Evaluation

First Advisor

Stephen Magura, Ph.D.

Second Advisor

Bradley Watts, Ph.D.

Third Advisor

Michael Harnar, Ph.D.

Keywords

Clearinghouses, evidence-based, evidence-based clearinghouses, evidence-based practice, evidence-based programs, evidence-based registers

Abstract

Decision makers in the behavioral health disciplines are under increasing pressure to identify and implement evidence-based practices (EBPs). These decision makers often do not have the time or expertise to assess primary studies of program efficacy or effectiveness. They could benefit from tools to assist them in identifying and implementing EBPs. One tool is an evidence-based practice register (EBPR). Prior studies have documented that when multiple EBPRs rate a given program, they may come to seemingly conflicting program ratings. The prior research concerning the reason for these conflicts is sparse. The purpose of the present study is to understand how programs are rated by EBPRs and the sources of agreement and disagreement between EBPRs when rating the same program.

EBPRs may disagree about program ratings because they either use different rating paradigms or they use different studies as evidence of program effectiveness (or both). The results of the present study show that the reasons for different ratings between EBPRs can be attributed to differences in how those EBPRs rate programs (statistically significant), and not in what evidence they use in their evaluations (statistically non-significant).

This study also hypothesized that EBPRs with more rigorous evaluation criteria are less likely to rate a program in their higher rating categories (statistically significant). Based on these results, this dissertation presents possible recommendations for how EBPRs can strengthen their ability to rate programs accurately and consistently.

Access Setting

Dissertation-Open Access

Download

Share

COinS