a Department of Knowledge Based Policy and Guidance , National Board of Health and Welfare.
b Department of Research Synthesis, Intervention, and Evaluation, Institute of Psychology , Friedrich-Schiller-University.
J Clin Child Adolesc Psychol. 2016 Nov-Dec;45(6):784-796. doi: 10.1080/15374416.2015.1020540. Epub 2015 Apr 11.
One of the major dilemmas in intervention and implementation research is adaptation versus adherence. High fidelity to an intervention protocol is essential for internal validity. At the same time, it has been argued that adaptation is necessary for improving the adoption and use of interventions by, for example, improving the match between an intervention and its cultural context, thus improving external validity. This study explores the origins of intervention programs (i.e., novel programs, programs adopted from other contexts with or without adaptation) in two meta-analytic intervention data sets from two European countries and compares the effect sizes of the outcomes of the interventions evaluated. Results are based on two samples of studies evaluating German child and youth preventative interventions (k = 158), and Swedish evaluations of a variety of psychological and social interventions (k = 139). The studies were categorized as novel programs, international adoption and contextual adaptation, with a total of six subcategories. In the German sample, after statistically controlling for some crucial methodological aspects, novel programs were significantly more effective than adopted programs. In the Swedish sample, a trend was found suggesting that adopted programs were less effective than adapted and novel programs. If these results are generalizable and unbiased, they favor novel and adapted programs over adopted programs with no adaptation and indicate that adoption of transported programs should not be done without considering adaptation.
干预和实施研究中的一个主要困境是适应与坚持。高度遵循干预方案对于内部有效性至关重要。同时，有人认为，为了提高干预措施的采用和使用，例如，通过提高干预措施与其文化背景之间的匹配程度，从而提高外部有效性，适应是必要的。本研究探讨了两个欧洲国家的两项荟萃分析干预数据集的干预计划的起源（即新颖计划、从其他背景采用的计划，有或没有适应），并比较了评估干预措施结果的效应大小。结果基于两个评估德国儿童和青年预防干预措施的研究样本（k=158）和瑞典各种心理和社会干预措施的评估（k=139）。这些研究被归类为新颖的方案、国际采用和背景适应，共有六个子类别。在德国样本中，在统计控制了一些关键的方法学方面后，新颖的方案明显比采用的方案更有效。在瑞典样本中，发现了一种趋势，表明采用的方案不如适应和新颖的方案有效。如果这些结果具有普遍性且没有偏见，它们将有利于新颖和适应的方案，而不是没有适应的采用方案，并表明在不考虑适应的情况下，不应采用运输方案。
