< Prev		CONTENTS		Source		Next >

Design #2: Non-Randomized Comparison (C) Group

Following completion of the Design #1 evaluation (or prior to planning), program leadership may ask the coordinator of Health Promotion and Education Programs (MPH-CHES) for their agency to present a 20-minute meta-evaluation report at the next monthly staff meeting. This person may be asked describe “best practice (BP)” client assessment and intervention methods for pregnant smokers. Design #2 might be considered by leadership, if they decide, after reading the meta-evaluation, that the 5% cessation rate is significantly lower than a rate from BP methods.

If program leadership decides to introduce a new “best practice” program to significantly increase the cessation rate, data and methods from the Design #1 Formative Evaluation can be used to plan Design # 2. The agency can compare the existing program (X1), now referred to as the (C) group, versus a new, proposed program, X1 + X2 + X3 + X4, for an E group of patients. The original sample of 100 pregnant smokers used in Design #1 can be called either a Standard Treatment group or a Historical Comparison (C) group. The bracketed comparison (C) group notation confirms the creation of the group by a method other than randomization. The group that receives the new best practice intervention would be called an experimental (E) group.

Source

< Prev		CONTENTS		Source		Next >

A Non-Randomized Comparison (C) Group Design for a State-Wide Program
R. Clark Windsor, J. Cleary, et al., “Evaluation of the Effectiveness of AHRQ Recommended Practice Guidelines and the Smoking Cessation and Reduction In Pregnancy Treatment (SCRIPT) Program: A Science to Primary Care Practice Partnership,” Maternal and Child Health Journal (2013) (see publication...
(Evaluation of health promotion and disease prevention programs : improving population health through evidence-based practice)
Establishing a Non-Randomized Comparison (C) Group
A non-randomized comparison (C) group may represent the only feasible alternative if an agency establishes a policy to deliver the HP-DP program to all participants at all sites. The Design #2 example provides one method to create a (C) group. In using a (C) group, an evaluator is attempting to replicate...
(Evaluation of health promotion and disease prevention programs : improving population health through evidence-based practice)
Roll Pass Design of Roughing and Intermediate Group
Roughing group of Billet mill consists of 6 number of stands, out of that 1 and 2 are of 1000 mm horizontal stands and there is a filter in between 01 and 02 stands to tilt the stock 90°C. Input bloom is of size of 325 x 325 nun (hot dimensions). The intermediate group has 4 number of stands of 700...
(Steel Rolling: Principle, Process & Application)
Criterion and predictive validity: One-way analysis of variance in SPSS, including comparisons between groups
If you are comparing scores on your measure, with scores on some other measure, you should carry out correlations, as described earlier (Appendix 6.3). If however you are looking at whether scores on your measure relate to ‘group membership’, then you need a t-test if there are two...
(An Introduction to Psychological Tests and Scales)
Comparison Group Analysis
The most accurate and credible approach to isolate the effects of a learning program is a comparison group analysis, known as the control group arrangement. This approach involves the use of an experimental group that participates in the learning program and a control group that does not. The composition...
(Measuring the Success of Learning Through Technology)
Issues and Opportunities With Comparison Groups
Some issues surface with control group arrangement, which may make it difficult to apply in practice. When addressed properly the issues become opportunities. The first major issue is that the process is inappropriate for some situations. For some programs, it may not be proper to withhold the program...
(Measuring the Success of Learning Through Technology)
Adaptive Group Sequential Design
Classic group sequential design is a study design that has the option to (1) review accumulating data (either safety or efficacy or both) at interim, (2) stop the trial early due to safety, futility, or efficacy after review of the interim data, and (3) perform SSRE at interim to determine whether the...
(Quantitative Methods for HIV/AIDS Research)
Comparisons between IWs and other patient groups
The most convincing evidence for adverse effects associated with participation in WC systems comes from studies comparing patients with WC to patients without WC regarding response to treatment. A recent meta-analysis performed by Harris et al. (2005) included 211 studies. In 175 of them, it was found...
(From acute to chronic back pain : risk factors, mechanisms, and clinical implications)
Methods for Lowering the Type I Error (a), the Group Sequential Method with Adaptive Designs
So far decisions were limited to stopping or continuing a trial. Other decisions may be useful as well, e.g., change in sample size, in primary outcome parameter, in population, in treatments, in allocation rules. As long as blinding is maintained, many changes are allowed (using protocol-amendments),...
(Understanding Clinical Data Analysis: Learning Statistical Principles from Published Clinical Research)