Measuring Program Outcomes: Using Retrospective Pretest Methodology

By C. Pratt, W. McGuigan, Aphra R. Katzev. 2000

606 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Clinical Psychology, Education, Social Psychology

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/ff8f4b51944c84d526718030a41905b6d5e2011a

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Clinical Psychology

In Education

In Social Psychology

Citations in the corpus

The Impact of Relationship Education on Adolescents of Diverse Backgrounds (2007, methodology): “Pratt et al. (2000) demonstrated that the post 1 retrospective pretest produced a more valid assessment of their program outcomes than did the traditional pretest-posttest evaluation method.”
Measuring the Outcomes of Leadership Development Programs (2009, background): “Pratt et al. (2000) state that retrospective designs produce a more legitimate assessment of program outcomes than traditional pretest–posttest methodology.”
A Comparison of Three Retrospective Self-reporting Methods of Measuring Change in Instructional Practice (2003, background): “Recently, Pratt, McGuigan, and Katzev (2000)showed both that using the pretest–posttest design to measure program effects can result in an underestimation if response-shift is present and that such bias can be avoided with the post+ retrospective pretest methodology.”
The retrospective pretest–posttest design redux: On its validity as an alternative to traditional pretest–posttest measurement (2019, methodology): “…include memory-related problems (e.g., memory distortion, selective perception, and poor memory; Howard, Schmeck, et al., 1979; Lam & Bengo, 2003; Pratt et al., 2000), social desirability (Howard, Schmeck, et al., 1979), and impression management and response bias (Lam & Bengo, 2003; Taylor,…”
Controlling response shift bias: the use of the retrospective pre‐test design in the evaluation of a master's programme (2008, neutral): “…(Umble et al. 2000, Farel et al. 2001) courses in statistics and research methods (Pohl 1982, Townsend et al. 1998, Townsend and Wilton 2003), a healthy start programme designed to prevent child abuse (Pratt et al. 2000), and communication skills training for medical students (Sprangers 1989a).”
Measures of Program Effectiveness Based on Retrospective Pretest Data: Are All Created Equal? (2011, methodology): “In support of the first research question, an objective pretest measure was incorporated across each of the four designs to validate participants’ responses to then items, following Umble, Upshaw, Orton, and Matthews (2000) and Pratt, McGuigan, and Katzev (2000).”
Measuring bias in self-reported data (2011, background): “…potential for recalibration of self-rating bias as a function of material or skills learned in an intervention has long been a concern to programme evaluators as it may result in underestimates of programme effectiveness (Howard and Dailey, 1979; Norman, 2003; Pratt et al., 2000; Sprangers, 1989).”
Measuring Change in a Short-Term Educational Program Using a Retrospective Pretest Design (2009, methodology): “Pratt et al. (2000) used a retrospective pretest as one measure in a battery of assessments to determine the effectiveness of the Oregon Healthy Start (OHS) program.”
Addressing Response-shift Bias: Retrospective Pretests in Recreation Research and Evaluation (2007, background): “Pratt et al. (2000) posit that memoir-is a greater problem when the questions are more genet-al in focus.”
Does Relationship and Marriage Education for Lower-Income Couples Work? A Meta-Analytic Study of Emerging Research (2010, background): “Evaluation researchers differ on how valid retrospective pre-post evaluations are, with some arguing that they overestimate the effects of behavioral change and should be limited to self-assessment of learning and subjective sense of change (Hill & Betz, 2005), but others argue that retrospective pr”