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...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Evaluation review 1983-10, Vol.7 (5), p.635-658 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , |
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 & 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 & 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 & 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 & Build (Plan A) - APAC</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - Canada</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - West</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - EMEALA</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - Northeast</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - Midwest</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - North Central</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - Northeast</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - South Central</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & 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 |