In recent years, a wide range of psychosocial health interventions have been implemented among military service members and their families. However, there are questions over the evaluative rigor of these interventions. We conducted a systematic review of this literature, rating each relevant study (k = 111) on five evaluative rigor scales (type of control group, approach to participant assignment, outcome quality, number of measurement time points, and follow-up distality). The most frequently coded values on three of the five scales (control group type, participant assignment, and follow-up distality) were those indicating the lowest level of operationally defined rigor. Logistic regression results indicate that the evaluative rigor of intervention studies has largely remained consistent over time, with exceptions indicating that rigor has decreased. Analyses among seven military sub-populations indicate that interventions conducted among soldiers completing basic training, soldiers returning from combat deployment, and combat veterans have had, on average, the greatest evaluative rigor. However, variability in mean scores across evaluative rigor scales within sub-populations highlights the unique methodological hurdles common to different military settings. Recommendations for better standardizing the intervention evaluation process are discussed.
Vanhove, A.J., Brutus, T. and Sowden, K.A. (2018), "Psychosocial Health Prevention Programs in Military Organizations: A Quantitative Review of the Evaluative Rigor Evidence", Harms, P.D. and Perrewé, P.L. (Ed.) Occupational Stress and Well-Being in Military Contexts (Research in Occupational Stress and Well Being, Vol. 16), Emerald Publishing Limited, pp. 129-156. https://doi.org/10.1108/S1479-355520180000016010Download as .RIS
Emerald Publishing Limited
Copyright © 2018 Emerald Publishing Limited