Cited by 154Health Policy Implementation ScienceEvaluation and Performance AssessmentCommunity Health and Development

The Getting To Outcomes Demonstration and Evaluation: An Illustration of the Prevention Support System

Open access
Chinman, Matthew, Hunter, Sarah B., Ebener, Patricia, Paddock, Susan M., Stillman, Lindsey, Imm, Pamela, Wandersman, Abraham·2008·American Journal of Community Psychology

Abstract

Communities are increasingly being required by state and federal funders to achieve outcomes and be accountable, yet are often not provided the guidance or the tools needed to successfully meet this challenge. To improve the likelihood of achieving positive outcomes, the Getting To Outcomes (GTO) intervention (manual, training, technical assistance) is designed to provide the necessary guidance and tools, tailored to community needs, in order to build individual capacity and program performance. GTO is an example of a Prevention Support System intervention, which as conceptualized by the Interactive Systems Framework, plays a key role in bridging the gap between prevention science (Prevention Synthesis and Translation System) and prevention practice (Prevention Delivery System). We evaluated the impact of GTO on individual capacity and program performance using survey‐ and interview‐based methods. We tracked the implementation of GTO and gathered user feedback about its utility and acceptability. The evaluation of GTO suggests that it can build individual capacity and program performance and as such demonstrates that the Prevention Support System can successfully fulfill its intended role. Lessons learned from the implementation of GTO relevant to illuminating the framework are discussed.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s10464-008-9163-2

Cites

59 of 59 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Outcomes of capacity-building strategies focus on individual and collective self-efficacy and motivation to execute implementation process strategies and on actual completion (extent, quality, timeliness) of those implementation process strategies.

    “The outcomes of capacity building strategies focus on individual and collective self-efficacy and motivation to execute implementation process strategies and on their actual completion (extent, quality, timeliness) of those implementation process strategies [6, 35, 36].”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 60 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 15

  1. Backer TE. Finding the balance: program fidelity and adaptation in substance abuse prevention: a state-of-the art review. Rockville, MD: Center for Substance Abuse Prevention; 2001. [Google Scholar]
  2. Chinman M, Anderson C, Imm P, Wandersman A, Goodman RM. The perception of costs and benefits of high active versus low active groups in community coalitions at different stages in coalition development. The Journal of Community Psychology. 1996;24(3):263–274. [Google Scholar]
  3. CSAP. Prevention works through community partnerships: findings from SAMHSA/CSAP’s national evaluation. Rockville, MD: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services; 2000. [Google Scholar]
  4. Fetterman DM, Wandersman A, editors. Empowerment evaluation principles in practice. New York, NY: Guilford Press; 2005. [Google Scholar]
  5. Fishbein M, Ajzen I. Atitudes toward objects as predictive of single and multiple behavioral criteria. Psychological Review. 1974;81:59–74. [Google Scholar]
  6. Fishbein M, Ajzen A. Beliefs, attitudes, intentions, and behavior: An introduction to theory and research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley; 1975. [Google Scholar]
  7. Hall GE, Hord SM. Implementing change. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon; 2001. [Google Scholar]
  8. Keener DC, Snell-Johns J, Livet M, Wandersman A. Lessons that influenced the current conceptualization of empowerment evaluation. In: Fetterman DM, Wandersman A, editors. Empowerment evaluation principles in practice. New York, NY: Guilford Press; 2005. pp. 73–91. [Google Scholar]
  9. Livet M, Wandersman A. Organizational functioning: Facilitating effective interventions and increasing the odds of programming success. In: Fetterman DM, Wandersman A, editors. Empowerment evaluation principles in practice. New York: Guilford Press; 2005. pp. 123–154. [Google Scholar]
  10. Rapkin B, Trickett EJ. Comprehensive dynamic trial designs for behavioral prevention research with communities: Overcoming inadequacies of the randomized controlled trial paradigm. In: Trickett EJ, Pequenaut W, editors. Community intervention and AIDS. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press; 2005. [Google Scholar]
  11. Rothman J, Thomas E, editors. Intervention research: design and development for human services. Binghamton, NY: Haworth Press; 1994. [Google Scholar]
  12. SAS Institute, Inc. SAS 9.1.3 for Windows. Cary, NC: SAS Institute Inc; 2002. [Google Scholar]
  13. Silvia ES, Thorne J. School-based drug prevention programs: a longitudinal study in selected school districts. North Carolina: Research Triangle Institute; 1997. [Google Scholar]
  14. Wandersman A. Results oriented grant making and grant implementation. Orlando, FL: American Evaluation Association Annual Conference; 1999. [Google Scholar]
  15. Yost J. Empowerment evaluation and results oriented grant making in foundations. Chicago, IL: American Evaluation Association Annual Conference; 1998. [Google Scholar]

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Chinman, M., Hunter, S. B., Ebener, P., Paddock, S. M., Stillman, L., Imm, P., & Wandersman, A.
Affiliations
  • RAND Corporation (US)
  • University of South Carolina (US)
Corresponding author
Chinman, Matthew
Venue
American Journal of Community Psychology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2008-02-16
Volume
41
Issue
3-4
Pages
206-224
ISSN
  • 0091-0562 (ISSN-L)
  • 1573-2770
OpenAlex
W1968888222
Cited by
154
References
60
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 14 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 10 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 8 · 2014: 15 · 2013: 8 · 2012: 14
FWCI
12.20
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • American Journal of Community Psychology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • U.S. Public Health Service (R06/CCR921459)
  • National Institute on Drug Abuse (R01DA023277)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Policy Implementation Science
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Evaluation and Performance Assessment
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Community Health and Development
Keywords
Interactive Systems Framework, prevention science, prevention practices, community-based prevention, program performance, technical assistance, prevention training, program accountability, implementation evaluation, user feedback
MeSH terms
Adult, California, Female, Humans, Interviews as Topic, Male, Middle Aged, Outcome and Process Assessment, Health Care, Preventive Health Services, Program Evaluation, Community Networks, Evidence-Based Medicine, Health Care Surveys, Substance-Related Disorders

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review