Cited by 41Health Policy Implementation ScienceEvaluation and Performance AssessmentChild and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional Development

Strategies to Avoid Replication Failure With Evidence-Based Prevention Interventions: Case Examples From the Strengthening Families Program

Kumpfer, Karol L., Scheier, Lawrence M., Brown, Jaynie·2020·Evaluation & the Health Professions

Abstract

Research has found disturbing long-term effects of poor parenting on children’s behavioral health including addiction, delinquency, depression/anxiety, and poorer health as adults. Poor parenting practices thus contribute substantially to the health crisis in America. However, skilled, nurturing parents, or caretakers can help youth avoid these developmental problems. A number of family and parenting evidence-based interventions (EBIs) that teach parenting skills are now available for dissemination. Unfortunately, replications of EBIs do not always produce the original positive results. Organizations that seek to use family EBIs to improve parenting and family skills need to avoid practices that create replication failure. We examine several possible factors that contribute to replication failure using examples from five replications of the EBI “Iowa Strengthening Families Program for ages 10–14.” We then share six strategies conducive to avoid replication failures including (1) choosing the right program and implementation strategy for the population, (2) administering the right “dosage,” (3) choosing and properly training implementers, (4) maintaining program integrity and adherence, (5) ensuring cultural sensitivity, and (6) ensuring accurate and complete reporting of evaluation results. These guidelines can advance prevention science to meet the demands of a growing public health agenda.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/0163278718772886

Cites

12 of 12 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, 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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Kumpfer, K. L., Scheier, L. M., & Brown, J.
Affiliations
  • Strengthening Families Program, LLC, Salt Lake City, UT, USA
  • Lars Research Institute (US)
  • Strengthening Families Program, Salt Lake City, UT, USA
Corresponding author
Kumpfer, Karol L.
Venue
Evaluation & the Health Professions
Published
2018-05-02
Volume
43
Issue
2
Pages
75-89
ISSN
  • 0163-2787 (ISSN-L)
  • 1552-3918
OpenAlex
W2800429320
Cited by
41
References
12
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 1
FWCI
7.28
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Evaluation & the Health Professions (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
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
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Child and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional Development
Keywords
replication failure, Strengthening Families Program, parenting support, family intervention, intervention dissemination, program dosage, program integrity, cultural sensitivity, evaluation reporting, child behavioral health
MeSH terms
Humans, Parents, Program Evaluation, Cultural Competency, Evidence-Based Practice

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