Lawson Jennifer, Berrick Jill Duerr
School of Social Welfare, University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, CA 94720, USA.
J Evid Based Soc Work. 2013;10(4):321-37. doi: 10.1080/15433714.2012.663674.
In this article the authors examine the evidentiary status of the Court Appointed Special Advocates (CASA) program through a review of current research findings and a critical analysis of the study methodologies used to produce those findings. Due to the equivocal research findings and widespread methodological weaknesses (most notably selection bias) in the literature base, it is determined that there is not currently enough evidence to establish CASA as an evidence-based practice. In spite of the challenges to the feasibility of such research, a future research agenda is suggested that calls for the execution of large randomized controlled trials in order to produce findings that will inform a deeper understanding of CASA effectiveness in improving child outcomes.
在本文中，作者通过回顾当前的研究结果以及对用于得出这些结果的研究方法进行批判性分析，审视了法庭指定特别辩护人（CASA）项目的证据状况。鉴于文献库中研究结果模棱两可且研究方法存在普遍的薄弱之处（最显著的是选择偏差），确定目前没有足够的证据将CASA确立为一种循证实践。尽管此类研究的可行性存在挑战，但仍提出了一个未来研究议程，呼吁开展大型随机对照试验，以便得出能加深对CASA在改善儿童结局方面有效性理解的结果。
