This article presents the findings from a careful examination of evaluation studies funded by the U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare in 1974 and 1975. Particular attention is paid to their methodological adequacy and potential applicability to the development of child-relevant policies and practice procedures. The conclusion is that persons interested in developing a cohesive, national policy for children's welfare or for research on children will find little useful information in evaluation studies of the seventies.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
1. L. B. Schorr, “Issues in the Formulation of a National Child Health Policy” (Paper presented at a special session on “Assuring Basic Health Care for Children and Families in the United States,” Annual Meeting of the American Public Health Association, New York, Nov. 1979).
2.
2. P. H. Rossi, H. E. Freeman, S. R. Wright, Evaluation: A Systematic Approach (Beverly Hills: Sage, 1979).
3.
3. J. G. Abert, Program Evaluation at HEW: Research versus Reality, pt. 1: Health; pt. 2: Education; pt. 3: Welfare (New York: Marcel Dekker, 1979).
4.
4. C. Abt, “Current and Future Prospects for Interdisciplinary Social Policy Research” (Institute for Social Science Research Seminar, University of California, Los Angeles, 1979).
5.
5. L. B. Bourque, “The Role of Evaluation Research in the Federal Government” (Unpublished manuscript, Institute for Social Science Research, University of California, Los Angeles, 1980).
6.
6. Designs of impact studies were categorized as to whether they were experiments, quasi-experiments, or something else; process studies were categorized as to whether they were qualitative, quantitative, or mixed in research approach. Of all impact studies, 18 percent were true experiments and 57 percent were quasi-experiments; these categories were combined and equated with “better quality.” Of the process studies, 54 percent used exclusively qualitative approaches; 36 percent used quantitative approaches; and 6 percent used a combination. For process studies, the latter two categories were equated with “better quality.”
7.
7. N. Zill, “Reports on American Family Life from a National Sample of Children and Parents” (Paper presented at the 1977 Biennial Meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development, New Orleans, Mar. 1977).
8.
8. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, “Report and Recommendations of the National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research, P.L. (93-348), Regulations on Research Involving Children, pt. 3,”Federal Register, 43: 2084 (13 Jan. 1978).
9.
9. J. J. Gallagher, “Research Centers and Social Policy,”American Psychologist, 34:997 (1979).
10.
10. Schorr, “Issues in the Formulation of A National Child Health Policy.”
11.
11. M. Useem and P. DiMaggio, “An Example of Evaluation Research as a Cottage Industry: The Technical Quality and Impact of Arts Audience Studies,”Sociological Methods & Research, 7:55 (1978).
