{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.01818181818181818, 'fraction_numerical': 0.003305785123966942, 'mean_word_length': 5.581521739130435, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
The Three Faces of Evaluation

Evaluations of intervention programs have concentrated on the adequacy of research design and the specification of outcome, while tending to ignore the integrity of the programs being evaluated. This third face of evaluation, assessing program integrity, involves information as to the adequacy of the conceptualization of the treatment, the duration and intensity of the program, the quality and quantity of personnel, and the match of treatment, treater and treated. The study by Kassebaum, Ward, and Wilner (1971), which utilizes an exemplary research design and provides considerable information on program integrity, is analyzed in detail to demonstrate that the almost complete lack of program integrity rendered the drawing of conclusions about the efficacy of group counseling in the correctional setting impossible from the results reported in this research. Continued lack of attention to the question of program integrity can only lead to further, and generally unproductive, debate about "what works." It is suggested that techniques be developed for the objective assessment of the elements of program integrity for commonly used treatment strategies in corrections.