Skip to main content

Currently Skimming:

7 Assessing the Evidence on Interventions
Pages 213-216

The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.

From page 213...
... Much of it has been synthesized in meta-analyses of research including randomized controlled trials and other strong study designs, and in many cases research that has tracked potential effects across long time periods. Looking across Chapters 3 through 6, we note, for example, strong evidence for the efficacy of programs to support and promote effective parenting and family bonding, screen pregnant women and mothers for depression and offer effective treatments, and teach children from preschool through grade 12 social and emotional skills and mindfulness.
From page 214...
... A robust effect size would be 0.5 or above, which means that many study participants did not show an expected benefit, even when the outcome for the study group was statistically significant. Effect sizes are usually lower in effectiveness and dissemination than in efficacy studies, which suggests that in scaled interventions, expectations for effect sizes should be relatively low, even if the intervention is faithfully implemented.
From page 215...
... It is also worth noting that strictly controlled laboratory experiments often lack generalizability to real-world settings (external validity) , whereas intervention trials conducted in unmodified settings (pragmatic trials)
From page 216...
... . Parents in prevention: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials of parenting interventions to prevent internalizing problems in children from birth to age 18.

This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More information on Chapter Skim is available.