.png){kind=icon}
Return
Evaluating offending behaviour programmes
.png){kind=icon}
PRE
AI
DOI：10.1177/1748895807085871.png)
.png){kind=icon}
Original request for help.png){kind=icon}
Share.png){kind=icon}
Save
Abstract
En 中文
Despite considerable investment there has been a marked reluctance by the Home Office to publish the evaluations of the various Pathfinder Programmes. Arguably, this reluctance stems from the `official' view that the commissioned researchers conducted the wrong type of research, specifically in not using randomized control trials (RCTs). The utility of RCTs is considered here with particular reference to the evaluation of the Offending Behaviour Pathfinder Programmes. It is argued that the Home Office `Reconviction Scale', favouring RCTs, is seriously flawed and is used to present a misleading view of the extant research. An overview of the wider literature shows that RCTs are not uniformly agreed to be the single design of choice in evaluating complex interventions such as offending behaviour programmes. The trend in disciplines such as the clinical sciences, with a history steeped in RCTs, is to utilize a range of research designs, both quantitative and qualitative, to evaluate complex interventions.
AI Summary
Key information extracted from the uploaded paper, including a brief overview, abstract, background, key highlights, visual analysis, and future outlook.
Journal
No journal information available
Organization
No organization information available
Cited Papers
No cited papers available