On 6 Nov 2005 at 9:33, Jean-Marc Perreault wrote: > I've just finished meeting with a colleague and the > police. For the past six years, a local RCMP (Royal Canadian > Mounted Police) officer has been running a recreation program for > youth at risk <snip> > > We have been asked by the RCMP to conduct an evaluation > of their project. < snip> > We are requesting assistance in the initial development of the > evaluation for these programs. We are searching for the following: > > 2. Survey instruments used to measure attitudes and behaviour of > youth involved in similar programs.
Paper-and-pencil test outcomes won't be persuasive. Hard data in the form of court and school records and other such objective indices would be more convincing. Joan McCord's 30-year follow-up of the Cambridge-Somerville programme for at-risk youth (1978) provides an example of what can be done. > 3. Suggestions for the research design It's undoubtedly too late for this but because the subjects of Sgt. Renfrew and his colleagues' intervention are self-selected, it will be impossible to tell whether the programme is worthwhile or not. Because of the self-selection, providing contrast data from comparable kids not participating won't help (because, for example, it's likely that those willing to hang out with the cops would have more favourable outcomes regardless). The only way to tell is with a randomized design. For example, at- risk kids could be invited to take part in the programme, but warned that they might not be selected. Those randomly not selected are the control group (perhaps they might be compensated for not being chosen). If the original Cambridge-Somerville study way back in the 1940's (see McCord, 1978 again) could do this, surely it could be done today if the Mounties really want a meaningful evaluation rather than a public-relations exercise. Incidentally, the surprising conclusion of the Cambridge-Somerville intervention (which has some similarity to what the Mounties are doing) and a number of more recent ones (see McCord, 2003) is that well-intentioned interventions may actually cause more harm than good. Her 2003 paper also has good references to the recent literature on the topic of interventions for at-risk youth. Jean-Marc might also find McCord's impressive publication list helpful. It's at http://www.unc.edu/~gsmunc/JoanMcCord/PUBLICATIONS.htm, with quite a few of them available on-line. Stephen References McCord, J. (1978). A thirty-year follow-up of treatment effects. American Psychologist, 33, 284-89. McCord, J. (2003). Cures that harm: Unanticipated outcomes of crime prevention programs. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 587, 16-30. [on-line at http://www.unc.edu/~gsmunc/JoanMcCord/CuresThatHarm2003.pdf] --------------------------------------------------------------------- Stephen L. Black, Ph.D. tel: (819) 822-9600 ext 2470 Department of Psychology fax:(819) 822-9661 Bishop's University e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Lennoxville, QC J1M 1Z7 Canada Dept web page at http://www.ubishops.ca/ccc/div/soc/psy TIPS discussion list for psychology teachers at http://faculty.frostburg.edu/psyc/southerly/tips/index.htm ---------------------------------------------------------------------- - --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [email protected] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
