Assessing Mental Health Program Effectiveness: A Comparison of Three Client Follow-Up Methods

In order to assess the advantages and disadvantages of face-to-face interviews, telephone interviews, and mailed questionnaires, 1100 clients were randomly assigned to one of these follow-up methods. All participating clients were contacted approximately 180 days after intake using a well-documented...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Evaluation review 1983-10, Vol.7 (5), p.635-658
Hauptverfasser: Warner, Jack L., Berman, John J., Weyant, James M., Ciarlo, James A.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 658
container_issue 5
container_start_page 635
container_title Evaluation review
container_volume 7
creator Warner, Jack L.
Berman, John J.
Weyant, James M.
Ciarlo, James A.
description In order to assess the advantages and disadvantages of face-to-face interviews, telephone interviews, and mailed questionnaires, 1100 clients were randomly assigned to one of these follow-up methods. All participating clients were contacted approximately 180 days after intake using a well-documented treatment outcome measure. Response rates for the telephone interview and mailed questionnaire were approximately one-half as high as the face-to-face interview, yet for each method very few client background variables were related to whether or not clients responded. The mailed questionnaire was least affected by socially desirable responses, and also cost less to administer than either of the interview methods.
doi_str_mv 10.1177/0193841X8300700503
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_61599070</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sage_id>10.1177_0193841X8300700503</sage_id><sourcerecordid>1761720375</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c245t-e510adda7350c9aaa8f20ad7e0f12ec9dc892ea8cb6f355e9606320b190d17803</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp90FFLwzAQB_AgCs7pF_CpIIgvdXdJ0ySPY0wnTPRBwbeSpdfZ0bUz6QS_vRnzQRR9Ojh-_-PuGDtHuEZUagRohM7wRQsABSBBHLABSslTYXh-yAY7kO7EMTsJYQUACJkasHQcAoVQt8vkntreNsmMbNO_Jo--W3q7TqZVRa6v36mN7JQdVbYJdPZVh-z5Zvo0maXzh9u7yXieOp7JPiWJYMvSKiHBGWutrnhsKIIKOTlTOm04We0WeSWkJJNDLjgs0ECJSoMYssv93I3v3rYU-mJdB0dNY1vqtqHIURoTD43w6l-IKkfFQSgZ6cUPuuq2vo1nFMhN3Bgyo6Pie-V8F4Knqtj4em39R4FQ7F5d_H51DI32oWCX9G3s34lPNMp8Rg</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1295100498</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Assessing Mental Health Program Effectiveness: A Comparison of Three Client Follow-Up Methods</title><source>Access via SAGE</source><source>Sociological Abstracts</source><source>Periodicals Index Online</source><source>Alma/SFX Local Collection</source><creator>Warner, Jack L. ; Berman, John J. ; Weyant, James M. ; Ciarlo, James A.</creator><creatorcontrib>Warner, Jack L. ; Berman, John J. ; Weyant, James M. ; Ciarlo, James A.</creatorcontrib><description>In order to assess the advantages and disadvantages of face-to-face interviews, telephone interviews, and mailed questionnaires, 1100 clients were randomly assigned to one of these follow-up methods. All participating clients were contacted approximately 180 days after intake using a well-documented treatment outcome measure. Response rates for the telephone interview and mailed questionnaire were approximately one-half as high as the face-to-face interview, yet for each method very few client background variables were related to whether or not clients responded. The mailed questionnaire was least affected by socially desirable responses, and also cost less to administer than either of the interview methods.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0193-841X</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1552-3926</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1177/0193841X8300700503</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications</publisher><subject>Mental health</subject><ispartof>Evaluation review, 1983-10, Vol.7 (5), p.635-658</ispartof><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c245t-e510adda7350c9aaa8f20ad7e0f12ec9dc892ea8cb6f355e9606320b190d17803</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/0193841X8300700503$$EPDF$$P50$$Gsage$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0193841X8300700503$$EHTML$$P50$$Gsage$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,21819,27869,27924,27925,33775,43621,43622</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Warner, Jack L.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Berman, John J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Weyant, James M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ciarlo, James A.</creatorcontrib><title>Assessing Mental Health Program Effectiveness: A Comparison of Three Client Follow-Up Methods</title><title>Evaluation review</title><description>In order to assess the advantages and disadvantages of face-to-face interviews, telephone interviews, and mailed questionnaires, 1100 clients were randomly assigned to one of these follow-up methods. All participating clients were contacted approximately 180 days after intake using a well-documented treatment outcome measure. Response rates for the telephone interview and mailed questionnaire were approximately one-half as high as the face-to-face interview, yet for each method very few client background variables were related to whether or not clients responded. The mailed questionnaire was least affected by socially desirable responses, and also cost less to administer than either of the interview methods.</description><subject>Mental health</subject><issn>0193-841X</issn><issn>1552-3926</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>1983</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>K30</sourceid><sourceid>BHHNA</sourceid><recordid>eNp90FFLwzAQB_AgCs7pF_CpIIgvdXdJ0ySPY0wnTPRBwbeSpdfZ0bUz6QS_vRnzQRR9Ojh-_-PuGDtHuEZUagRohM7wRQsABSBBHLABSslTYXh-yAY7kO7EMTsJYQUACJkasHQcAoVQt8vkntreNsmMbNO_Jo--W3q7TqZVRa6v36mN7JQdVbYJdPZVh-z5Zvo0maXzh9u7yXieOp7JPiWJYMvSKiHBGWutrnhsKIIKOTlTOm04We0WeSWkJJNDLjgs0ECJSoMYssv93I3v3rYU-mJdB0dNY1vqtqHIURoTD43w6l-IKkfFQSgZ6cUPuuq2vo1nFMhN3Bgyo6Pie-V8F4Knqtj4em39R4FQ7F5d_H51DI32oWCX9G3s34lPNMp8Rg</recordid><startdate>198310</startdate><enddate>198310</enddate><creator>Warner, Jack L.</creator><creator>Berman, John J.</creator><creator>Weyant, James M.</creator><creator>Ciarlo, James A.</creator><general>Sage Publications</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>JILTI</scope><scope>K30</scope><scope>PAAUG</scope><scope>PAWHS</scope><scope>PAWZZ</scope><scope>PAXOH</scope><scope>PBHAV</scope><scope>PBQSW</scope><scope>PBYQZ</scope><scope>PCIWU</scope><scope>PCMID</scope><scope>PCZJX</scope><scope>PDGRG</scope><scope>PDWWI</scope><scope>PETMR</scope><scope>PFVGT</scope><scope>PGXDX</scope><scope>PIHIL</scope><scope>PISVA</scope><scope>PJCTQ</scope><scope>PJTMS</scope><scope>PLCHJ</scope><scope>PMHAD</scope><scope>PNQDJ</scope><scope>POUND</scope><scope>PPLAD</scope><scope>PQAPC</scope><scope>PQCAN</scope><scope>PQCMW</scope><scope>PQEME</scope><scope>PQHKH</scope><scope>PQMID</scope><scope>PQNCT</scope><scope>PQNET</scope><scope>PQSCT</scope><scope>PQSET</scope><scope>PSVJG</scope><scope>PVMQY</scope><scope>PZGFC</scope><scope>7U3</scope><scope>BHHNA</scope></search><sort><creationdate>198310</creationdate><title>Assessing Mental Health Program Effectiveness</title><author>Warner, Jack L. ; Berman, John J. ; Weyant, James M. ; Ciarlo, James A.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c245t-e510adda7350c9aaa8f20ad7e0f12ec9dc892ea8cb6f355e9606320b190d17803</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>1983</creationdate><topic>Mental health</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Warner, Jack L.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Berman, John J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Weyant, James M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ciarlo, James A.</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Periodicals Index Online Segment 32</collection><collection>Periodicals Index Online</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - West</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - International</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access &amp; Build (Plan A) - MEA</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - Midwest</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - Northeast</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - Southeast</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - North Central</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - Southeast</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - South Central</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access &amp; Build (Plan A) - UK / I</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - Canada</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - EMEALA</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - North Central</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - South Central</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access &amp; Build (Plan A) - International</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - International</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - West</collection><collection>Periodicals Index Online Segments 1-50</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - APAC</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - Midwest</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - MEA</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - Canada</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - UK / I</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - EMEALA</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access &amp; Build (Plan A) - APAC</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access &amp; Build (Plan A) - Canada</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access &amp; Build (Plan A) - West</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access &amp; Build (Plan A) - EMEALA</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - Northeast</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access &amp; Build (Plan A) - Midwest</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access &amp; Build (Plan A) - North Central</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access &amp; Build (Plan A) - Northeast</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access &amp; Build (Plan A) - South Central</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access &amp; Build (Plan A) - Southeast</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - UK / I</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - APAC</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - MEA</collection><collection>Social Services Abstracts</collection><collection>Sociological Abstracts</collection><jtitle>Evaluation review</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Warner, Jack L.</au><au>Berman, John J.</au><au>Weyant, James M.</au><au>Ciarlo, James A.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Assessing Mental Health Program Effectiveness: A Comparison of Three Client Follow-Up Methods</atitle><jtitle>Evaluation review</jtitle><date>1983-10</date><risdate>1983</risdate><volume>7</volume><issue>5</issue><spage>635</spage><epage>658</epage><pages>635-658</pages><issn>0193-841X</issn><eissn>1552-3926</eissn><abstract>In order to assess the advantages and disadvantages of face-to-face interviews, telephone interviews, and mailed questionnaires, 1100 clients were randomly assigned to one of these follow-up methods. All participating clients were contacted approximately 180 days after intake using a well-documented treatment outcome measure. Response rates for the telephone interview and mailed questionnaire were approximately one-half as high as the face-to-face interview, yet for each method very few client background variables were related to whether or not clients responded. The mailed questionnaire was least affected by socially desirable responses, and also cost less to administer than either of the interview methods.</abstract><cop>Thousand Oaks, CA</cop><pub>Sage Publications</pub><doi>10.1177/0193841X8300700503</doi><tpages>24</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0193-841X
ispartof Evaluation review, 1983-10, Vol.7 (5), p.635-658
issn 0193-841X
1552-3926
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_61599070
source Access via SAGE; Sociological Abstracts; Periodicals Index Online; Alma/SFX Local Collection
subjects Mental health
title Assessing Mental Health Program Effectiveness: A Comparison of Three Client Follow-Up Methods
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-19T08%3A10%3A49IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Assessing%20Mental%20Health%20Program%20Effectiveness:%20A%20Comparison%20of%20Three%20Client%20Follow-Up%20Methods&rft.jtitle=Evaluation%20review&rft.au=Warner,%20Jack%20L.&rft.date=1983-10&rft.volume=7&rft.issue=5&rft.spage=635&rft.epage=658&rft.pages=635-658&rft.issn=0193-841X&rft.eissn=1552-3926&rft_id=info:doi/10.1177/0193841X8300700503&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E1761720375%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1295100498&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_sage_id=10.1177_0193841X8300700503&rfr_iscdi=true