Unit 7 Intervention and Evaluation*
Structure
7.0 Objectives
7.1 Introduction
7.2 Meaning and Nature of Intervention
7.3 Types of Intervention
7.3.1 Definition of Program
[Link] Trial intervention
[Link] Types of Trial Intervention
7.4 Intervention Design and Delivery
7.4.1 The Steps in Intervention Design and Delivery
7.4.2 Evaluation of Intervention Program
[Link] An ineffective Intervention
7.5 Types of Program Evaluation
7.6 Evidence-Based Interventions
7.6.1 Issues in intervention
7.7 Let us Sum up
7.8 Unit End Questions
7.9 Glossary
7.10 Answers to Self- Assessment Questions
7.11 Suggested Readings and References
7.0 OBJECTIVES
After reading this unit you will be able to:
● Explain the meaning of intervention and evaluation;
● Describe the parameters of intervention and evaluation;
● Elucidate the process of intervention and evaluation; and
● Discuss the issues involved in intervention.
7.1 INTRODUCTION
This unit is about interventions implied in the field of applied social psychology and their
evalutions. After going through this unit, you will be aware of the various intervention and
evaluation strategies in the field of applied social psychology. Understanding the application
of social psychology in solving problems of the society is extremely important. Again,
* Dr. Babita Prusty, Amity University, Noida
77
Introduction to Applied assessing and evaluating the intervention strategies are even more important as through
Social Psychology this the application aspect of intervention programs used in social psychology gets clearly
understood. These intervention strategies contribute towards understanding and modifying
human behaviour in a society which is also one of the basic features of applied social
psychology. At the end of the unit, you will be explained about the relevance of interventions
in applied social psychology.
7.2 MEANING AND NATURE OF INTERVENTION
An intervention can be explained as a planned strategy or procedure to influence the
existing behaviour of individual with an aim to improve their functioning in a society.
Interventions are the actions performed to bring about a change in the existing behaviour of
people. Interventions may or may not target people’s behaviour directly, for example, certain
interventions are designed to create awareness (e.g., taking polio drops eradicates polio) or are
designed to change attitudes (e.g., becoming more supportive of taking children under 5 years
to take to polio booth and get polio drops.). However, the ultimate goal of most interventions
is behaviour change (e.g., decreasing the prevalence rate of polio). Interventions can be
conducted at different levels of analysis (e.g., individual, group, organization, community).
The ultimate goal of intervention is to bring the desired change in human being , mass or
society at large.
7.3 TYPES OF INTERVENTION
Intervention in applied social psychology can be of two types, Personal and Programmatic.
Personal interventions refer to the intervention which aims at bringing the required changes
which are needed for the wellbeing of the individual in a society.
A programmatic intervention is any program, strategy or policy implemented in a society that
prevents and reduces the social atrocities. For example. youth crime, violence, harassment,
bullying, and the illegal use of drugs, alcohol, and tobacco etc.
7.3.1 Definition of Program
Program is a set of related measures or activities with a particular long-term aim. Royse,
Thyer, Padgett, and Logan (2006) defined a program as “an organized collection of activities
designed to reach certain objectives”. In applied social psychology a program refers to a social
or community issue with the objective of preventing or eliminating its negative consequences.
In some specific context, a programme intervention may be directed towards strengthening
a positive situation (e.g., improving the productivity of an already effective organisation).
For example, one program involved the procedures and activities that Hodges, Klaaren, and
Wheatley (2000) employed in getting female college students to engage in comfortable safe-
sex discussions, and another example entailed the set of procedures and activities that Sherif
(1966b) used to get groups of boys to work cooperatively toward superordinate goals. We also
can identify some interventions as trial interventions.
[Link] Trial Intervention
Trial interventions intends to verify the positive impact of the intervention, Crano, W. D., &
Brewer, M. B. (2002). Such kind of intervention are typically associated with programmatic
interventions.
[Link] Types of Trial Intervention
There are two basic kinds of trial interventions. One is when a researcher examines the
efficacy of an intervention strategy. The interventions of Sherif (1966b) and Hodges and
78
colleagues (2000) represent this type of trial intervention. The example of second type Intervention and
of trial intervention is when an organization conducts to a pilot program to check its Evaluation
effectiveness before implementing. For example, the medical personnel from renowned
medical organisations have tested the efficacy of Corona virus vaccine on small groups
of people then with significant good results only the vaccine has been applied on bigger
population.
7.4 Intervention Design and Delivery
The effectiveness of an intervention depends primarily upon the structure and function of the
intervention. The structure of an intervention here refers to the Design and the function of
the intervention refers to the Delivery.
The process and implementation of the intervention design follows four steps that reflect the
general problem-solving approach adopted by many areas of applied psychology and are
applicable whether the recipient of the intervention is an individual or a group. The below
given are the steps in an intervention design and delivery.
7.4.1 The Steps in Intervention Design and Delivery
1) Identifying a problem
2) Finding the solution
3) Setting goals and designing the intervention
4) Implementing the intervention (Oskamp& Schultz, 1997).
Step 1: Identifying a problem
The primary objective of any programs is to identify a social or practical problem. The first
step in program design is to identify the existence, severity, and the magnitude of need of
addressing problem. A problem usually is identified and defined by stakeholders.
Stakeholders are the individuals or group of individuals who have some vested interest
in the possible development of a program in such a way that they may get affected by it
in some way or the other. Stakeholders include not only the participants of the program
but also the people who grant funds for the programme, frontline workers, programme
managers etc. However, there are probabilities of controversies amongst the different
stakeholders regarding the existence or severity of the problem, thus a need assessment
should be done in such situations.
Need assessment refers to the process of assessment which aims at investigating the need of
invention and specific assessment to sufficiently warrant the development of a program. A
needs assessment may be formal or informal depending on the situation. The example of a
formal need assessment will be the development of a policy in HR in an organisation also it
may be informal in nature, for example, when a manager decides that his/her department needs
a workshop on sexual harassment after overhearing some of his/her staff members making
sexually inappropriate remarks. Though people have more confidence in the conclusions
of a formal need assessment that relies on scientific and systematic research procedures
for collecting data that are relevant to problem severity and prevalence. Problems may be
investigated by using a variety of qualitative and/or quantitative procedures, for example, by
interviewing representatives of various stakeholder groups or administering questionnaires
to them. Also, a formal need assessment indicates the availability of existing programs or
services as well as possible barriers to or flaws in services.
79
Introduction to Applied Step 2: Finding the solution
Social Psychology
Solution depends on the cause of the problem as, the best way to solve any problem is to
find out what has caused the problem. Causal factors may be predisposing, precipitating, or
maintaining in nature.
Predisposing factors are those that put a person at risk of developing a problem, the
factors that increase a client's vulnerability to drug usage such as having parents who used
drugs, having a mental health disorder, and holding certain core beliefs about themselves.
Precipitating factors refer to a specific event or trigger to the onset of the current problem. For
example, the depression in a patient deteriorated after the death of parents. So here the death
of the parents worked as a trigger to the mental health condition of depression among the
patient. Maintaining factors always remain (maintain) in the life of the people and is difficult
to avoid. For example, if the cognitive deficits of an adolescent is attributed to the parenting
style of his/her parents, then whatever intervention that adolescent will get will ultimately be
futile. Only with parent management the adolescent will improve.
Once the causal factors have been identified, the next step is to find out the appropriate
interventions. Such interventions can be used to guide the development of a solution to the
current problem. The intervention should be very carefully chosen after reviewing a lot of
literatures so that ineffective or less effective intervention from the past can be avoided. When
possible, solutions should be based on relevant social psychological theory and research
evidence as well as theory and evidence from any other field that may contribute to a solution.
Ross and his colleague Nisbett (1991) cautioned against the development of interventions based
on conventional methods lay understanding and intuition because ‘‘predictions are often both
wrong and too confidently made’’. Consider the following example of an ineffective smoking
prevention intervention that was based on McGuire’s (1964) research on the “inoculation
effect.” McGuire found that just as it is possible to be immunized against a disease, such
as polio, by being inoculated with a vaccine containing a weak strain of the virus, so too is
it possible for people to be immunized against attacks on their beliefs, intervention and the
expected outcomes.
Step 3: Setting goals and designing the intervention
Once the need and the proposed solution has been decided, it is eminent to develop
the program activities, which contain specific strategies and procedures of the program.
Setting goals and objectives is the primary step of the intervention. Knowledge of goals
and objectives serves to guide the selection of program activities. Goals refer to the
ultimate or long-term outcomes that one wish to accomplish through an intervention.
For example, a goal for a community-based rehabilitation program might be, to have the
resource persons who hails from rehabilitation area to help in community-based rehabilitation
programmes.
Once programme goals have been decided the next step is to define program objectives.
Objectives are short-term outcomes and intermediate-term changes that occur as a result of
the intervention and are needed for the achievement of the program goals. In other words, it
can said that where goals refer to the ends, objectives refer to the means or steps by which
the ends are achieved. For instance, if the goal for clients having substance abuse problems
to remain abstinent, one objective might be for them to understand primarily why they
take drugs. Once the goals and objectives have been decided, the next step in designing an
intervention is to determine the program activities. While planning activities, one of the most
important question is the following: What objective will the proposed activity help to meet?
For example, for clients to learn the reasons for their drug use (objective), they might need
to have individual counselling sessions with a certified counsellor. The process of specifying
the various components of a program — goals, objectives, and activities — requires a sound
rationale, often referred to as a program logic model.
80
A program logic model gives us an idea about how the program activities lead to the attainment Intervention and
of the program objectives and, in turn, how the objectives logically and operationally contribute Evaluation
to the eventual achievement of the program goal(s), (Wholey,1983). Logic models may vary
in complexity and detail, but all of them emphasize a “cause and effect” flow. Program
logic holds the activities, objectives, and goals together. That means a logic model should
be based on a theoretical framework that explains the causal connections among its various
components, for example, why rehearsing rebuttals will induce resistance to peer pressure to
smoke. From the point of view of intervention design, this means that one should be able to
point to any component of the intervention and indicate not only what its contribution is but
also why the effect should occur. The use of a program logic model enhances the chance of
likelihood of its success. This, of course, helps to ensure that program resources are used as
effectively as possible.
Step 4: Implementing the intervention
Implementing the intervention refers to the real execution of the intervention activities, that
means, of delivering them to the participants of the intervention. Here it is important that
many preparations are needed to be done prior to the final execution of any intervention.
Based on the nature of an intervention, determined by factors such as its size and structure,
practical details might include securing an appropriate facility, hiring staff members, ensuring
adequate training, and developing things such as operating budgets, management structures,
job descriptions, performance appraisal methods, promotional strategies, and cross agency
referral protocols. Moreover, an intervention always should be designed and implemented in
such a way that its degree of effectiveness can be evaluated.
Self-Assessment Questions (SAQ I)
Fill in the following blanks:
1) An intervention can be explained as a planned strategy ………………………………
2) Intervention in applied social psychology can be of two types, ……………………
and .....................................
3) Trial interventions intends to verify ......................................................
4) The first step in intervention design and delivery is ……………………………………….
5) Implementing the intervention refers to...............................
7.4.2 Evaluation of Intervention
Programme intervention which is so important for bringing about a behavioural channge
both at individual as well as societal level, needs to be evaluated properly. Unless and until
programme intervention is evaluated properly, we will not be able to program understand
its effectiveness. Experimental design is the method of choice for establishing whether
social interventions have the intended effects on the population they are presumed to benefit.
Donald Campbell has raised the need for program evaluation. More than 40 years ago,
Campbell (1969) called for a culture of evaluation. Let’s understand the role of evaluation of
intervention through some of the example of ineffective interventions.
[Link] An Ineffective Intervention
Programs must be subjected to evaluation. From the review of literature on program
evaluation it was found that the intervention world is filled with ineffective programs. For
example, one systematic review of “Scared Straight” programs that involve organized visits
to prison facilities by juvenile delinquents or children at risk of becoming delinquent found
81
Introduction to Applied that not only do the programs not deter criminal behaviour, but they actually lead to an
Social Psychology increase in offending behaviour (Petrosino, Turpin-Petrosino, & Buehler, 2002).
For example, in Operation Pawan, in 1987 political and diplomatic miscalculation that went
into India signing the 1987 peace accord with Srilanka pitch – forked the twenty thousand
strong Indian Peace Keeping Force against the very LTTE, it had trained to fight with the
Lankan forces. “India Today” in 1987 had written “Operation Pawan is a chapter of Indian
military history that will contain none of the honour and glory of a victorious campaign”.
(India Today, 1987).
7.5 Types of Program Evaluation
In assessing the effectiveness of an intervention program, there are two main types of program
evaluation: process and outcome (Posavac& Carey, 2007). Process evaluation (also known as
formative evaluation) is undertaken to determine whether the program has reached its target
audience (as identified in the intervention hypothesis) and whether the program activities
(as outlined in the program’s logic model) have been implemented in the prescribed manner.
Basically, one wants to answer the following question: Is the program being implemented in
the way in which it was planned? For instance, if an alcohol addiction programs or desgins
activities that involves providing of five individual counselling sessions to the addicted
people,then the process evaluation would ensure that the clients were in fact addicted to
alcohol and did indeed receive the prescribed number and types of counselling sessions.
Outcome evaluations typically are conducted after process evaluations. An outcome evaluation
(also known as summative evaluation) assesses how well a program meets its objectives (i.e.,
short-term outcomes as described in the program logic model), and in a more comprehensive
evaluation, it also assesses how well the program is achieving its goals (i.e., long-term
outcomes, also part of the logic model). Basically the purpose of an outcome evaluation is to
find out whether the expected improvement in functioning occurs among the participants of
the program as a result of exposure to its activities. For example, an outcome evaluation of an
alcohol treatment program might assess whether participants publicly (e.g., among all other
participants) express strong commitment to long-term abstinence by the end of the program.
Evaluation of the goal of actual long-term abstinence would occur after a specified period of
time (e.g., 1 year) following completion of the program.
As suggested previously, program evaluation is an important part of program development.
The results of a program evaluation often will lead us to revisit and revise the program logic
model and, accordingly, to make changes in the goals, objectives, and activities. For example,
the logic model for an alcohol addiction program might have to be amended to include the
important role of family support, thereby necessitating the inclusion of new program activities
(e.g., family counselling) and objectives that emphasize family involvement.
Evaluation has a significant role to play in innovation and learning in any organisation. Such
type of evaluation can be called as developmental evaluation (Patton, 1994) and can be
used when interventions are in an early stage or the cause and effect as well as solutions of
problems are unclear, like poverty or homelessness, where the causes and solutions to the
problem are unclear.
7.6 Evidence-Based Interventions
Evidence-based interventions are practices or programs that have peer-reviewed, documented
empirical evidence of effectiveness. Evidence-based interventions use a continuum of
integrated policies, strategies, activities, and services whose effectiveness has been proven
or informed by research and evaluation.
82
Gone are the days where people only work for intervention. This is the time of competition Intervention and
and challenges, so there is an absolute need for evidence-based intervention. For example, the Evaluation
increasing rate of non communicable diseases (NCDs) in India leads to a comprehensive public
health intervention which can effectively combat and control them before they peak and cause
damage to health, economic, and social condition of people in our country. Interventions
influencing behavioural risk factors (like unhealthy diet, physical inactivity, tobacco, and
alcohol consumption) through policy, public education, or a combination of both have been
demonstrated to be effective in reducing the NCD risk in populations. Policy interventions
are also effective in reducing the levels of several major biological risk factors linked to
NCDs like high blood pressure; overweight and obesity; diabetes etc. Secondary prevention
programs along the lines of combination pills and ensuring evidenced based clinical care are
also critical. Though the evidence for health promotion and primary prevention are weaker,
policy interventions and secondary prevention when combined with these are likely to have a
greater impact on reducing national NCD burden.
7.6.1 Issues in intervention
The focus of this unit has been on programmatic intervention. We have described the basic
processes in the designing of interventions, and although these steps are necessary to the
development of effective programs, there are certain issues faced by the team of intervention
also. The most prevalent issue is budgetary. Following are three most common issues. First,
interventions must be paid for, and funding typically is rooted in policy directions. Second,
intervention design is a product of a teamwork, where the different stake holders share
different responsibility. Here each professional group will contribute a unique experience
and perspective on the design of the intervention. To be effective, therefore, an intervention’s
designer(s) must be able to take into account a wide range of stakeholder ideas while at
the same time ensuring that the key elements of the design remain linked with one another
both logically and operationally to form a cohesive and integrated whole. Third, issue in
intervention that are specified by the law, and by various organizational policies and
established procedures, also exist. Organizational constraints that must be accommodated
include restrictions to access, availability of facilities, hours of operation, staffing availability,
and scheduling restrictions. None of these constraints can be ignored, so all must be addressed
in the process of designing intervention and their eventual implementations.
Self-Assessment Questions (SAQ II)
State whether the following are ‘True’ or ‘False’:
1) From the review of literature on program evaluation it was found that the intervention
world is filled with ineffective programs. ( )
2) In assessing the effectiveness of an intervention, there are two main types of program
evaluation: Introductory and outcome. ( )
3) Evidence-based interventions are practices or programs that have peer-reviewed,
documented empirical evidence of effectiveness. ( )
4) Lack of human resources is one of the issue in carrying out inventions. ( )
7.7 LET US SUM UP
An intervention can be explained as a planned strategy or procedure to influence the existing
behaviour of individual or society with an aim to improve their functioning. Intervention in
applied social psychology can be of two types, Personal and Programmatic. The Steps in
83
Introduction to Applied Intervention design and delivery are identifying a problem, finding a solution, setting goals
Social Psychology and designing the intervention and implementing the intervention. Evaluation of intervention
is necessary for checking the quality of intervention. In assessing the effectiveness of an
intervention, there are two main types of program evaluation, these are process and outcome.
Evidence-based interventions use a continuum of integrated policies, strategies, activities,
and services whose effectiveness has been proven or informed by research and evaluation.
There are three main issues in intervention. First, interventions must be paid for, and funding
typically is rooted in policy directions. Second, intervention design is a product of a teamwork,
where the different stake holders share different responsibility. Third, issue in intervention that
are specified by the law, and by various organizational policies and established procedures,
also exist.
7.8 UNIT END QUESTIONS
1) Describe the meaning, nature and types of interventions.
2) What are the different steps involved in intervention design and delivery?
3) Explain the need of evaluation of intervention?
4) Explain the various types of program evaluation of applied social psychology?
5) What are the issues in interventions in applied social psychology?
6) Explain the Evidenced based intervention
7.9 GLOSSARY
Intervention:An intervention refers to a planned strategy or procedure to influence the
existing behaviour of individual with an aim to improve their functioning in a society
Programme: Programme is a set of related measures or activities with a particular long-term
aim.
Trial intervention: Trial interventions intends to verify the positive impact of the intervention.
Evidence based intervention: Evidence-based interventions are practices or programs that
have peer-reviewed, documented empirical evidence of effectiveness.
7.10 Answers to Self- Assessment Questions
SAQ I
1.) or procedure to influence the existing behaviour of individual with an aim to improve
their functioning in a society.
2.) Personal and Programmatic.
3.) the positive impact of the intervention.
4.) Identifying a problem.
5.) the real execution of the intervention activities, that means, of delivering them to the
participants of the intervention.
84
SAQ II Intervention and
Evaluation
1.) True
2.) False
3.) True
4.) False
7.11 SUGGESTED READING AND REFERENCES
Campbell, D. T. (1969). Reforms as experiments. American Psychologist, 24, 409–429.
Crano, W. D., & Brewer, M. B. (2002). Principles and methods of social research (2nd ed.).
Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum
Hodges, S. D., Klaaren, K. J., & Wheatley, K. (2000). Talking about safe sex: The role of
expectations and experience. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 30, 330–349.
Oskamp, S., & Schultz, P. W. (1997). Applied social psychology (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle
River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Patton, M. Q. (1994). Developmental evaluation. Evaluation Practice, 15, 311–319.
Petrosino, A., Turpin-Petrosino, C., & Buehler, J. (2002). “Scared Straight” and other juvenile
awareness programs for preventing juvenile delinquency. Cochrane Database of Systematic
Reviews, Issue 2.
Posavac, E. J., & Carey, R. G. (2007). Program evaluation: Methods and case studies (7th
ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Ross, L., & Nisbett, R. E. (1991). The person and the situation: Perspectives of social
psychology. New York: McGraw-Hill
Royse, D., Thyer, B., & Padgett, D. (2010). Program Evaluation: An Introduction. Belmont,
CA: Wadsworth Cengage Learning.
Sherif, M. (1966b). In common predicament: Social psychology of intergroup conflict and
cooperation. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Wholey, J. S. (1983). Evaluation and effective public management. Toronto, ON: Little,
Brown.
85
86