Designs for Testing Group-Based Interventions with Limited Numbers of Social Units: The Dynamic Wait-Listed and Regression Point Displacement Designs
Open accessAbstract
The dynamic wait-listed design (DWLD) and regression point displacement design (RPDD) address several challenges in evaluating group-based interventions when there is a limited number of groups. Both DWLD and RPDD utilize efficiencies that increase statistical power and can enhance balance between community needs and research priorities. The DWLD blocks on more time units than traditional wait-listed designs, thereby increasing the proportion of a study period during which intervention and control conditions can be compared, and can also improve logistics of implementing intervention across multiple sites and strengthen fidelity. We discuss DWLDs in the larger context of roll-out randomized designs and compare it with its cousin the Stepped Wedge design. The RPDD uses archival data on the population of settings from which intervention unit(s) are selected to create expected posttest scores for units receiving intervention, to which actual posttest scores are compared. High pretest-posttest correlations give the RPDD statistical power for assessing intervention impact even when one or a few settings receive intervention. RPDD works best when archival data are available over a number of years prior to and following intervention. If intervention units were not randomly selected, propensity scores can be used to control for non-random selection factors. Examples are provided of the DWLD and RPDD used to evaluate, respectively, suicide prevention training (QPR) in 32 schools and a violence prevention program (CeaseFire) in two Chicago police districts over a 10-year period. How DWLD and RPDD address common threats to internal and external validity, as well as their limitations, 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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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?
Other roll-out designs are available for implementation.
“Other roll-out designs can be used for implementation (111).”
From An Overview of Research and Evaluation Designs for Dissemination and Implementation (2017) · cites this paper as [111]
A pairwise enrollment roll-out design resembles the original design of a roll-out randomized effectiveness trial of an HIV community-based intervention.
“A pairwise enrollment roll-out design (111) differs from the two we previously discussed and is similar to the original design for a roll-out randomized effectiveness trial of an HIV community-based intervention.”
From An Overview of Research and Evaluation Designs for Dissemination and Implementation (2017) · cites this paper as [111]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 28 · Cited by 42
- Authors
- Wyman, P. A., Henry, D., Knoblauch, S., & Brown, C. H.
- Affiliations
- University of Rochester Medicine (US)
- University of Illinois Chicago (US)
- Northwestern University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Wyman, Peter A.
- Venue
- Prevention Science
- Published
- 2014-12-07
- Volume
- 16
- Issue
- 7
- Pages
- 956-966
- ISSN
- 1389-4986 (ISSN-L)
- 1573-6695
- PMC
- PMC4458455
- OpenAlex
- W2066401745
- Cited by
- 42
- References
- 28
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 4
- FWCI
- 3.87
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
- Licence
- www.springer.com/tdm (tdm)
- Locations
- Prevention Science (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
- Funders
- National Institutes of Health
- U.S. Public Health Service (R13040610)
- National Institute of Mental Health (R34MH071189, R01MH091452)
- National Institute on Drug Abuse (P30DA027828)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Advanced Causal Inference Techniques
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Evaluation and Performance Assessment
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Policy Implementation Science
- Keywords
- group intervention, stepped wedge design, statistical power, archival data, propensity score, suicide prevention training, violence prevention programs, ceasefire, internal and external validity, intervention fidelity
- MeSH terms
- Regression Analysis, Research Design, Waiting Lists
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
