U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government, Department of Justice.

NCJRS Virtual Library

The Virtual Library houses over 235,000 criminal justice resources, including all known OJP works.
Click here to search the NCJRS Virtual Library

Doing Prevention Science: A Response to Dennis M. Gorman and a Brief History of the Quasi-Experimental Study Nested Within the Seattle Social Development Project

NCJ Number
210367
Journal
Journal of Experimental Criminology Volume: 1 Issue: 1 Dated: Spring 2005 Pages: 79-86
Author(s)
J. David Hawkins; Richard F. Catalano
Date Published
2005
Length
8 pages
Annotation
In response to Dennis Gorman's contention that evaluations of the Seattle Social Development Project (SSDP), a longitudinal study of the development of positive and antisocial behaviors in youth, have not been scientific, this paper identifies and assesses threats to internal validity associated with the study design.
Abstract
In response to Gorman's criticism that widespread praise for the SSDP ignores the nonsignificant evaluation findings while emphasizing the favorable results, the authors respond that they have accurately reported both statistically significant and nonsignificant findings. Gorman apparently believes that since the SSDP intervention has not uniformly produced the same positive results for all participants, then factors other than the program must have produced the positive outcomes. Gorman fails to appreciate that any program that involves the variable response of individuals to program conditions and methods must finally measure its worth through a reliable cost-effectiveness analysis. Such an independent analysis of SSDP was conducted, and it concluded that SSDP's reduction of lifetime violence yielded benefits to society well worth program costs. This paper also responds to Gorman's argument that attrition from the SSDP was misrepresented in evaluation reports. In addressing this issue, the authors note that the reviewers who have recognized the significant positive findings from the SSDP have also noted that the study design opens it to threats to validity. There is no misrepresentation of the design or findings of SSDP. Rather than rejecting the SSDP as a failed program because of threats to evaluation validity, the authors view it as a promising program that is a work in progress, as it continues to test revisions of program components and develop a randomized controlled trial to test revised hypotheses. 31 references