Standards of Evidence: Criteria for Efficacy, Effectiveness and Dissemination
By B. Flay, A. Biglan, Robert F. Boruch, F. Castro, D. Gottfredson, S. Kellam, E. Mościcki, S. Schinke, J. Valentine, Peter Ji. Prevention Science, 2005
1,410 citations recorded by the source corpus.
Subfields: General Health Professions
View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/018b373eadc594f1f7957c42098af31b81b303fb
How researchers see this paper
The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.
In General Health Professions
- Catherine P. Bradshaw
- R. Horner
- M. Sanders
- G. Sugai
- Mark T. Greenberg
- D. Vella‐Brodrick
- K. Diamond
- Philip J Cook
Citations in the corpus
- Synthesizing Single-Case Research to Identify Evidence-Based Practices: Some Brief Reflections (2012, background): “At another level, however, concern remains that (a) the standards for documenting what constitutes a ‘‘practice’’ that is ‘‘evidence-based’’ remain loosely defined (Flay et al. 2005), and (b) the role of single-case methods in contributing to this process is tenuous at best (Horner et al.”
- Single-Case Intervention Research Design Standards (2013, background): “Third, SCDs have contributed greatly to the “evidencebased practice” movement (Flay et al., 2005), and we deemed that inclusion of these methodologies was important for advancing the scientific knowledge base on educational practices in schools.”
- Engaging parents in parenting programs: Lessons from research and practice (2012, methodology): “Evidence-based programs are methods of improving child outcomes that have been shown to work when researched rigorously, and often repeatedly, by experimental studies (Allen, 2011; Elliott, 2009; Flay et al., 2005).”
- The Effectiveness of Acceptance and Commitment Therapy for Adolescent Mental Health: Swedish and Australian Pilot Outcomes (2015, background): “Another distinction that is often used in clinical research is the difference between efficacy and effectiveness trials (Flay et al. 2005).”
- Promoting Educators’ Use of Culturally Responsive Practices: A Systematic Review of Inservice Interventions (2018, methodology): “Specifically, we sought to analyze the quality of the empirical studies identified using relevant standards of evidence for quantitative and qualitative research (Creswell & Miller, 2000; Flay et al., 2005; Gottfredson et al., 2015).”
- The Influence of Attrition in Evaluating the Efficacy and Effectiveness of Mindfulness-Based Interventions (2016, background): “Testing treatment efficacy is ideally conducted in highly controlled experimental conditions to ensure a high degree of internal validity for the intervention (Flay 1986; Flay et al. 2005; Glasgow et al. 2003).”
- Examining the Evidence Base for School-Wide Positive Behavior Support (2010, background): “A major conversation is currently going on about the standards of evidence that should be used to define a practice as evidence-based (Flay et al., 2005).”
- Treatment for School Refusal Among Children and Adolescents (2018, neutral): “Replication studies are an often-cited requirement for classifying specific treatments as empirically supported (Chambless & Hollon, 1998; Flay et al., 2005).”
- Bullying in school: evaluation and dissemination of the Olweus Bullying Prevention Program. (2010, background): “, without special efforts in terms of staff input or other resources) in the context of large-scale dissemination (Flay et al., 2005).”
- Toward a Blueprint for Trauma-Informed Service Delivery in Schools (2016, background): “Despite their promise, isolated interventions and programs are difficult to sustain, even with high-quality, evidence-based programs (Cole, Eisner, Gregory, & Ristuccia, 2013; Domitrovich et al., 2010; Flay et al., 2005).”
- A Qualitative Review of Literature on Peer Review of Teaching in Higher Education (2014, methodology): “This is supported by Flay et al. (2005), who outlined several criteria for the selection of effective interventions: (a) rigorous research design, (b) high quality of program implementation under optimal conditions (i.e., sufficient resources and well-trained reviewers) and naturalistic conditions…”