Cited by 199Evaluation and Performance AssessmentCommunity and Sustainable DevelopmentHealth Policy Implementation Science

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 24 of the 25 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Sustaining Community‐Based Programs for Families: Conceptualization and Measurement*

Mancini, Jay A., Marek, Lydia I.·2004·Family Relations

Abstract

A conceptual model for evaluating community‐based program sustainability is presented, along with a 53‐item Program Sustainability Index (PSI). Structural equation modeling (SEM) and principal axis factor analysis indicate strong support for each of the seven elements of the PSI. When considered as an overall model, six of the seven framework elements were retained. Internal consistency for each subscale was acceptable, and acceptable performance validity was demonstrated when the subscales were contrasted with middle‐range program results. These findings are discussed with regard to next steps in the conceptualization and measurement of program sustainability, as well as implications for planning and implementing community‐based programs for families.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.0197-6664.2004.00040.x

Cites

24 of 24 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Citations

Cites

Show all 25 references

Research works printed but not linked: 11

  1. Bentler P. M., 2003, EQS for Windows program manual
  2. Coulton C. J., 1995, New approaches to evaluating community initiatives: Concepts, methods, and contexts, 173
  3. The Finance Project, 2002, Sustaining comprehensive community initiatives: Key elements for success
  4. LaFond A. K., 1995, Improving the quality of investment in health: Issues on sustainability, Health Policy and Planning, 63
  5. Laken M. P., 1995, Building and sustaining systems of care for substance‐using pregnant women and their infants: Lessons learned
  6. Lerner R., 1995, America's youth in crisis
  7. Mancini J. A., 1998, Patterns of project survival and organizational support: The national youth at risk program sustainability study, 350
  8. Mancini J. A., Community‐based program research: Context, program readiness, and evaluation usefulness, Journal of Community Practice
  9. Marek L. I. &Mancini J. A.2001 March).Sustaining your community‐based program: Planning for Success.Workshop presented at the annual meeting of the USDA Children Youth and Families at Risk Initiative San Diego CA.
  10. Marek L. I., 1999, Continuity, success, and survival of community‐based projects: The national youth at risk program sustainability study
  11. 10.1002/(SICI)1520-6629(200005)28:3<257::AID-JCOP3>3.0.CO;2-L · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Mancini, J. A., & Marek, L. I.
Affiliations
Virginia Tech (US)
Corresponding author
Mancini, Jay A.
Venue
Family Relations
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2004-06-14
Volume
53
Issue
4
Pages
339-347
ISSN
  • 0197-6664 (ISSN-L)
  • 1741-3729
OpenAlex
W2153878215
Cited by
199
References
25
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 20 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 14 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 17 · 2014: 11 · 2013: 12 · 2012: 5
FWCI
5.78
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Family Relations (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Public Administration › Evaluation and Performance Assessment
  • Social Sciences › Development › Community and Sustainable Development
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Policy Implementation Science
Keywords
program sustainability, community-based programs, family programs, conceptual model, program evaluation, scale development, performance validity, program planning

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