title: Evaluating health promotion: a tale of three errors.
abstract: The main purpose of this article is to question the relevance of the Randomised Controlled Trial for the evaluation of health promotion programmes. In its concern to manage Type 1 error, the RCT underestimates or virtually ignores Type 2 and 3 errors. Because of the peculiar complexities of health promotion programmes and the importance of gaining insights into the effect of interventions--rather than merely recording whether or not they achieve their goals--a new kind of validity is needed. The central assertion here is that we should adopt a principle of "judicial review" which is based on a broad spectrum of triangulated evidence.
authors.affiliation: Leeds Metropolitan University, UK.
authors.forename: K
authors.initials: K
authors.lastname: Tones
mesh_terms: D015982:Bias; D003627:Data Interpretation, Statistical; D006293:Health Promotion / Q000592:standards*; D006801:Humans; D015397:Program Evaluation / Q000592:standards*; D019984:Quality Indicators, Health Care; D016032:Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic / Q000592:standards*; D015203:Reproducibility of Results; D012107:Research Design / Q000592:standards*