Search results

My warm thanks to Dean James Hunt, Provost, and Professor Jacqueline Muir-Broaddus, Chair of the Psychology Department, for making a home at Southwestern University, Georgetown, Texas, for cultural ergonomics and the International Center of Cultural Ergonomics, and for facilitating preparation of this book. Southwestern students Kendra Francisco, Staci Benson, and Ellen Gass contributed helpful assistance. At Elsevier, Fiona Barron, Publishing Editor, has been extraordinarily helpful, and the consideration and support there from Becky Lewsey and Deborah Raven have been particularly noteworthy. Dr. Pierre Falzon, Conservatoire des Arts et Metiers in Paris, made possible the acquisition of documents written by Professor Alain Wisner, who died recently. Computer advice and assistance provided by Richard H. Troxell have been invaluable. Communication and interchange of documents and information with Dr. Eduardo Salas at the University of Central Florida were facilitated by Marcella Maresco and Diana Furman.

The purpose of this paper is to evaluate the efficacy of good lives model (GLM) interventions on the recidivism outcomes of convicted offenders.

The review adhered to preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analysis and Cochrane guidelines. Digital databases were searched and articles reporting outcomes of the GLM amongst convicted offenders and outcomes including recidivism data and pre-post measures of dynamic risk were included in a narrative synthesis.

Of 1,791 articles screened, only six studies met the criteria for review. Key findings were: in half the reviewed studies, GLM did not increase recidivism risk; in half the reviewed studies, only when the correct treatment dosage was applied that some evidence of risk reduction was found; there was limited support for GLM increasing or sustaining motivation for resistance from reoffending. Research for the review was limited and support for the GLM in reducing recidivism rates was not established.

In this 2021 review, the authors examined the efficacy of the GLM in reducing recidivism. This addresses a gap in the literature. The authors found that there is insufficient evidence to suggest that the GLM can reduce recidivism. This has implications for practitioners who wish to deliver evidence-based practices in prison/community settings. There is currently not enough peer-reviewed evidence to unequivocally confirm the efficacy of the GLM. The authors recommended additional quality programme outcome research be carried out.

To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this study is the first to assess quantitative and qualitative studies on the efficacy of the GLM and provides foundations for future research.

This paper aims to analyse individual experiences of learning evaluation in UK Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) and identify areas for improvement as part of an HEFCE LGM funded project.

Eight focus groups were included in two universities with staff in similar roles. After transcription, the data were analysed using template analysis to identify and compare key themes from across both universities.

The context of UK higher education is clearly important due to the diverse job roles and on-going sectoral changes. Three key themes emerged; first was a lack of clarity from the learners on learning evaluation. The second key theme centres on the format, method and timing of capturing evaluation data and the perception that a “one size fits all” approach is not appropriate. The third finding suggests that line managers do not currently fulfil their critical roles in the process.

Small number of research participants and a focus on two universities. In addition, participants were relying on their memories of past evaluation experiences.

Ensuring learners understand reasons for evaluating their learning is important. HEIs should utilise a more diverse range of tools at the design stage to collect evaluation data. All stakeholder roles need to be clarified, and line managers require additional support.

First, we address a gap in the existing sector-specific literature identified by Burgoyne et al. (2009) who contend that there is a lack of research in this area. Second, we contribute to the development of research in the journal by analysing evaluation from the perspective of the participants, and third, we offer recommendations for practice.