Developing Practice-Based Evidence into Evidence-Based Practices: Lessons Learned from Community-Engaged Violence Prevention Research

Background: Social work practitioners often develop meaningful and potentially robust interventions in community-based settings that are never rigorously evaluated. Relatedly, social work researchers based in university settings develop and test interventions that, despite their strong research base, often do not hold up to the challenges of "real world" program delivery. As a result, research-developed programs and practices may not be adopted, implemented, or sustained by community-based practitioners. Accordingly, social work practice can benefit tremendously from research on community-developed interventions and programs. Unfortunately, little guidance exists on how researchers and practitioners can work together to translate community-based, "home-grown" programs (i.e., practice-based evidence) into "research-ready" interventions (i.e., to develop evidence-based practice).

Wise Guys: The Next Level (WGNL) is a practitioner-developed program that aims to prevent dating, relationship, and sexual violence perpetration among young men through a nine-lesson, interactive, group-based curriculum focused on healthy relationships and positive masculinity. Given that young men are at risk of perpetrating these forms of violence, programs aimed at this population appear to be an especially promising focus for prevention. Although WGNL has been successfully delivered in community-based settings for more than ten years, it has not yet been rigorously evaluated. University researchers partnered with the community-based practitioners who currently implement WGNL to conduct a randomized controlled study of this intervention. Before launching the study, however, our collaborative practitioner-researcher team determined that the WGNL curriculum needed to be standardized in order to be implemented with consistency and fidelity. This presentation will describe the process of revising and standardizing the WGNL curriculum, and then provide recommendations for social work practitioners and researchers engaging in such efforts in their own work.

Methods: Our practitioner-researcher team accomplished a multistage revision and standardization process. First, we completed a preliminary curriculum review, which resulted in initial curriculum adjustments. Second, we collected data on the revised curriculum as it was delivered in two community settings using both fidelity logs (completed by practitioners) and observation forms (completed by researchers). Third, we synthesized data from the fidelity logs and observation forms into reports. Fourth, we revised the curriculum a second time using report findings. Then we conducted a final revision through a series of practitioner-research team meetings.

Results: As a result of this process, our team produced a "research-ready" version of the WGNL curriculum that that can be delivered consistently across community sites and that infuses violence prevention content throughout all nine sessions. The revised curriculum also includes updated activities and content that are inclusive and meaningful to contemporary young men, including GBTQ youth. Last, to ensure standardized and measurable delivery, we added enhanced program-delivery instructions in each session as well as field-tested fidelity instruments to the curriculum.

Implications: In addition to presenting our approach to transforming a "home-grown" program into a "research-ready" intervention, our team will offer lessons-learned and practical recommendations for social work researchers and practitioners who are revising or adapting existing, community-generated intervention programs for research, replication, and dissemination. Accordingly, this presentation both offers community-based intervention research guidance and fits the conference theme well.