From the web page http://www.ncddr.org/dsi/index.html

National Center for the Dissemination of Disability Research

     Dissemination
     Self-Inventory


     What is the Dissemination Self-Inventory
     AN INTRODUCTION

     This self-inventory has been developed to assist
     National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation
     Research (NIDRR) funded project staff in reviewing
     their dissemination practices. Use of this
     self-inventory is designed to assist project staff
     that want the best dissemination strategies possible
     but have limited time and resources.

     Dissemination is a process that has measurable
     components. The dissemination process should create
     anticipated and planned-for results or impact.

     In most cases, dissemination can be concretely
     measured, however, the timeframe for measurement may
     require a prolonged period depending upon the exact
     nature of the desired impact. Many times, the
     evaluation of dissemination never goes beyond "bean
     counting" of numbers of pieces of paper, numbers of
     contacts, or numbers of responses. This may occur
     because the "beans" are the easiest and most immediate
     measures available. Beans should be counted and can
     provide some valuable information. However, the issue
     of your NIDRR project's impact on intended audiences
     necessitates a broader analysis than simple "bean
     counting" exercises.


     Why a Self-Inventory
     The Spirit of Improvement

     The National Center for the Dissemination of
     Disability Research (NCDDR) believes that no matter
     how good a dissemination effort may be, it can still
     be improved. This is the spirit with which this
     self-inventory instrument was developed. It is
     designed to provide an aid to the principal
     investigator in analyzing relative strengths and
     weaknesses of current, actual dissemination strategies.

     The details of dissemination plans frequently differ
     from project to project. Utilization -- the use of
     information you disseminate -- should be the goal of
     your dissemination strategy. How to achieve this
     depends on your topical area, your identified target
     audience(s), your environment and its resources, and
     the resources available through your grant funding.

     Today, our challenge is to be more effective --
     produce more impact -- with the same or fewer
     resources. This is not easy but with a spirit of
     improvement and a notion that trying new strategies
     can be a very positive experience, it can be
     beneficially addressed. This self-inventory may help
     in providing some ideas in addressing this challenge.


     The Three Versions of the Self-Inventory

     Version One
     This is the first of three versions of this
     self-inventory. The content for this first-generation
     inventory is taken from the literature concerning
     dissemination, knowledge utilization, and the change
     process. This initial basis for the self-inventory is
     sound and provides "safe footing" in appraising
     dissemination practices and in designing new project
     approaches to increase impact.

     Version Two
     The second version of this self-inventory will include
     the results of a benchmarking effort to identify the
     "best examples" of dissemination and knowledge
     utilization. These benchmarking examples will not be
     drawn from the ranks of NIDRR grantees but rather,
     will come from business and industry. The rationale in
     looking for examples in business and industry, is that
     the identification of new strategies will require us
     to look in new places. Recognizing that NIDRR grant
     activity has significant differences from many
     business and industry efforts, care will be taken to
     identify models that seem to be most applicable in
     highlighting new practices that have great potential
     for working in human service settings such as those
     reflected by most NIDRR grantees.

     Version Three
     The third version of this self-inventory will link
     research and benchmarking practices, with special
     knowledge from both research and benchmarking
     concerning issues of multiculturalism and
     underservice. Benchmarking activity will identify
     "best practices" from public relations and marketing
     firms specializing in campaigns that successfully
     reach minority persons and persons with disabilities.
     This version will add new research and benchmarking
     examples that are aimed at increasing exposure and use
     of NIDRR grantee results by minority persons with
     disabilities and their families.

     Self Inventory Form:
     Relative Dissemination Strengths and Weaknesses

     Version One

     Instructions:
     Start by printing the Self-Inventory from your browser
     and filling it out at your convenience. Read through
     the following items for the five areas mentioned
     below. Score your response to each item on the scale
     provided. You may want to think in terms of your
     project's general dissemination efforts, or you may
     want to focus on dissemination strategies that you are
     using for a specific set of research results. Either
     is acceptable, but you should be consistent in your
     perspective.


Dissemination is influenced by project staff knowledge and
activities in five major areas:

  * User Group - user group(s) or potential users of the
    information or product to be disseminated

  * Information Source - your project/organization as an
    information source, that is, the agency, organization, or
    individual responsible for creating new knowledge or
    products, and/or for conducting dissemination activities

  * Content of Message - message content that is disseminated,
    such as, the new knowledge or product itself, and any
    supporting information or materials

  * Medium of the Message - the ways in which the knowledge or
    product is described, "packaged," and transmitted; and

  * Contextual Consideration for Implementation - context for
    use of the message, that is, the environmental, personal,
    and other supports needed to use the information or product.

When you finish, score your responses according to the scoring
directions at the end of the inventory. (See example below.)
Your scores can be transferred to the graph outline provided to
suggest visually relative strengths and weaknesses across the
five major categories: user groups, information source, content,
medium, and context.


D


Please e-mail us if you have any questions concerning the
Self-Inventory.

While this inventory is just that, an inventory, it has been
constructed to have instructional value. Chart your results on
the graph that is providied in the PDF format, "Thinking about
Your Results" for some ideas for improving your dissemination
practice related to each area. If you would like to read about a
certain category, click on the References section and you will
find citations for research serving as the basis of the
inventory items. By providing these suggestions and citations,
we hope to stimulate your thinking about your dissemination
efforts.

1. Does your research design clearly define the intended groups
of "users" or beneficiaries of your project's results?
Select One:
0 = Don't Know
1 = No
2
3 = Partially
4
5 = Yes

2. Does your project design include specific dissemination and
utilization activities targeting primary (and secondary, as
appropriate) user groups?
Select One:
0 = Don't Know
1 = No
2
3 = Partially
4
5 = Yes

3. Was your project's original proposal developed in
collaboration with your current intended user/beneficiary groups?
Select One:
0 = Don't Know
1 = No
2
3
4
5 = Yes

4. Has a representative sample of your intended user groups been
meaningfully involved in planning, implementing, and evaluating
the project's activities?
Select One:
0 = Don't Know
1 = No
2
3
4
5 = Yes

5. Do you have needs assessment data that identifies the extent
of motivation or readiness of your intended user groups to use
information in the project's topical area?
Select One:
0 = Don't Know
1 = No
2
3 = Somewhat
4
5 = Yes

6. Is information concerning the resources, knowledge, and
information needed for the intended user to implement project
results clear and a part of your dissemination plan?
Select One:
0 = Don't Know
1 = No
2
3 = Partially
4
5 = Yes

7. Is your dissemination strategy directly targeted to intended
users by name?
Select One:
0 = Don't Know
1 = No
2
3 = Sometimes
4
5 = Yes

8. Are your intended user groups known well enough that the
project can describe their dissemination-related characteristics
such as: average reading/comprehension level, dominant language,
level/extent of desired information, and accessibility
requirements?
Select One:
0 = Don't Know
1 = No
2
3
4
5 = Yes

9. Have you sampled your user groups regarding information
previously received from your project to determine their
satisfaction with its communication style, content of message,
and accessibility?
(Note: Projects in their initial stage may omit this question
and adjust scores/graph values accordingly.)
Select One:
0 = Don't Know
1 = No
2
3 = Partially
4
5 = Yes

10. Does your project design clearly describe measurable
outcomes to assess impact/use by user groups?
Select One:
0 = Don't Know
1 = No
2
3
4
5 = Yes

Category Score for User Group

Total Score for questions 1-10:

Divide Total Score by 50:

Multiply by 100 to get percentage:

D


These items refer to the degree to which project information is
perceived or known as a source of information.

11. Is the project perceived by user groups as an active
information dissemination resource?
Select One:
0 = Don't Know
1 = No
2
3
4
5 = Yes

12. Are your project staff regarded by users as highly
knowledgeable resources in the project's topical area?
Select One:
0 = Don't Know
1 = No
2
3
4
5 = Yes

13. Is your project collaborating with a nationally recognized
association, organization, institution of higher education, or
other entity in the scientific community?
Select One:
0 = Don't Know
1 = No
2
3
4
5 = Yes

14. Is your project collaborating with other organizations that
are equally or more highly visible or interactive with your
project's intended user groups?
Select One:
0 = Don't Know
1 = No
2
3
4
5 = Yes

15. Does your project provide technical assistance to facilitate
implementation of project information by the intended user
groups?
Select One:
0 = Don't Know
1 = No
2
3
4
5 = Yes

16. Does your project bring the project's researchers into
frequent personal dialogue with members of the intended user
groups?
Select One:
0 = Don't Know
1 = No
2
3
4
5 = Yes

17. Do you annually evaluate the impact of your dissemination
activities in terms of both process and outcome measures?
Select One:
0 = Don't Know
1 = No
2
3
4
5 = Yes

18. Do you provide periodic feedback to your user groups
regarding your dissemination-related impact evaluation data?
Select One:
0 = Don't Know
1 = No
2
3
4
5 = Yes

19. Do you measure the cost-effectiveness of various
dissemination-related strategies you may have used?
Select One:
0 = Don't Know
1 = No
2
3
4
5 = Yes

20. Has an assessment been conducted within the last two years
of the intended/actual user groups' perceived information needs?
Select One:
0 = Don't Know
1 = No
2
3
4
5 = Yes

21. Is the project's "host" organization well-known among user
groups?
Select One:
0 = Don't Know
1 = No
2
3 = Somewhat
4
5 = Yes

22. Do users frequently (three or more times each work week)
contact the project for information in your topical area?
Select One:
0 = Don't Know
1 = No
2
3
4
5 = Yes

23. Does your project share your research results and related
information with potential user groups?
Select One:
0 = Don't Know
1 = No
2
3
4
5 = Yes

24. Does your project use past dissemination impact evaluation
data to guide new plans for dissemination?
Select One:
0 = Don't Know
1 = No
2
3
4
5 = Yes

Category Score for Information Source

Total Score for questions 11-24:

Divide Total Score by 70:

Multiply by 100 to get percentage:

D


25. Is the reading/comprehension level required to understand
your project's information analyzed and matched to the
characteristics of your intended user groups?
Select One:
0 = Don't Know
1 = No
2
3
4
5 = Yes

26. Does the content of project information match the expressed
informational needs of the intended user groups?
Select One:
0 = Don't Know
1 = No
2
3
4
5 = Yes

27. Does your project information contain examples or
demonstrations of how to use, and the implications of use, of
the information?
Select One:
0 = Don't Know
1 = No
2
3 = Sometimes
4
5 = Yes

28. Is the content of your project information reviewed through
a quality control mechanism to assure accuracy and relevance?
Select One:
0 = Don't Know
1 = No
2
3 = Sometimes
4
5 = Yes

29. Have your user groups been involved in developing content
and in field-testing (or other review) and revision of your
project information?
Select One:
0 = Don't Know
1 = No
2
3 = Sometimes
4
5 = Yes

30. Is your project information available in languages that are
dominant among your intended user groups?
Select One:
0 = Don't Know
1 = No
2
3
4
5 = Yes

31. Do you provide your project information in alternate formats
that are accessible to all members of the intended user groups?
Select One:
0 = Don't Know
1 = No
2
3
4
5 = Yes

32. Is the amount of technical information included in your
project materials responsive to expressed technical information
needs of your user groups?
Select One:
0 = Don't Know
1 = Never
2 = Seldom
3 = Sometimes
4 = Frequently
5 = All the Time

33. Does your project information include "real world" examples
and illustrations to communicate to non-technical user groups?
Select One:
0 = Don't Know
1 = No
2
3
4
5 = Yes

34. Do you share and allow requests for information through
multiple means, for example, telephone, fax, mail, e-mail, and
other modes upon request?
Select One:
0 = Don't Know
1 = No
2
3 = Sometimes
4
5 = Yes

Category Score for Content of Message

Total Score for questions 25-34:

Divide Total Score by 50:

Multiply by 100 to get percentage:

D


35. Does your project make information available in any
alternate format requested by individual users?
Select One:
0 = Don't Know
1 = No
2
3
4
5 = Yes

36. Does your dissemination strategy include opportunities for
person-to-person contact with users?
Select One:
0 = Don't Know
1 = No
2
3 = Sometimes
4
5 = Yes

37. Have your project staff conducted a needs assessment to
determine user"s general accessibility requirements?
Select One:
0 = Don't Know
1 = No
2
3
4
5 = Yes

38. Are you providing information to users through channels
(visual, auditory, etc.) they are known to prefer?
Select One:
0 = Don't Know
1 = No
2
3 = Sometimes
4
5 = Yes

39. Is your project information delivered directly to intended
users?
Select One:
0 = Don't Know
1 = No
2
3
4
5 = Yes

40. Is your project information delivered through existing (not
developed by grantee) networks, communication channels,
associations/organizations, meetings/conferences, and other
venues?
Select One:
0 = Don't Know
1 = No
2
3
4
5 = Yes

41. Is your project information available through the Internet?
Select One:
0 = Don't Know
1 = No
2
3
4
5 = Yes

42. Place a check by the formats and modes your project has used
to disseminate information in the last twelve months:
  * Internet
  * Press Releases
  * Newspapers
  * Books
  * Chapters
  * Magazines
  * Radio
  * Television
  * Brochures
  * Monograph
  * Internet/Elec. Files
  * Information Manuals
  * Paper Presentation
  * Journal Articles
  * Audio Tape
  * Braille
  * Large Print
  * Compact Disk
  * Popular Press
  * Non-English Language

Select One:
0 = No Items Checked
1-3 = Items Checked
4-8 = Items Checked
9-13 = Items Checked
14-17 = Items Checked
18-21 = Items Checked

Category Score for Medium of the Message

Total Score for questions 35-42:

Divide Total Score by 40:

Multiply by 100 to get percentage:

D



43. Do you treat dissemination as a process that requires time
and personal support to be effective?
Select One:
0 = Don't Know
1 = No
2
3 = Sometimes
4
5 = Yes

44. Does your project develop a written plan with objectives as
a guide in delivering technical assistance to user groups?
Select One:
0 = Don't Know
1 = No
2
3 = Sometimes
4
5 = Yes

45. Does your project design clearly describe dissemination
goals, strategies, and expected outcomes?
Select One:
0 = Don't Know
1 = No
2
3
4
5 = Yes

46. Does your project periodically sample recipients of project
information to determine their perceptions and the extent to
which they may have recommended your project (or project
information) to others?
Select One:
0 = Don't Know
1 = No
2
3
4
5 = Yes

47. Has your disseminated information been evaluated by users in
terms of its ease of use?
Select One:
0 = Don't Know
1 = No
2
3 = Sometimes
4
5 = Yes

48. Does your project periodically sample to determine the
manner in which users learn about the availability of your
project's information?
Select One:
0 = Don't Know
1 = No
2
3
4
5 = Yes

49. Has your project clarified what user organizational changes
are necessary to successfully implement your project's
information?
Select One:
0 = Don't Know
1 = No
2
3 = Sometimes
4
5 = Yes

50. Is a range of ways to use your project information provided
for users?
Select One:
0 = Don't Know
1 = No
2
3 = Sometimes
4
5 = Yes

51. Does your project conduct personal follow-up with users to
assess how useful project information was and how easily it
could be applied?
Select One:
0 = Don't Know
1 = No
2
3 = Sometimes
4
5 = Yes

52. Does your project provide a variety of ways for potential
users to discuss implementation of project information with
project researchers or content experts?
Select One:
0 = Don't Know
1 = No
2
3 = Sometimes
4
5 = Yes

53. Does your project dissemination plan address motivational
factors that may promote use of your disability research
information?
Select One:
0 = Don't Know
1 = No
2
3
4
5 = Yes

54. Does your project staff that engage in discussions with user
groups have both technical knowledge and effective communication
skills?
Select One:
0 = Don't Know
1 = No
2
3
4
5 = Yes

Total Score for questions 43-54:

Divide Total Score by 60:

Multiply by 100 to get percentage:

D


R E F E R E N C E S

References by Category
  * User Group
  * Information Source
  * Content of Message
  * Medium of the Message
  * Contextual Consideration for Implementation
  * General References for Further Reading

----------
     REFERENCES

     USER GROUP

     Duarte, J.A., & Rice, B.D. (1992, October). Cultural
     diversity in rehabilitation. Nineteenth Institute on
     Rehabilitation Issues. Hot Springs, AR: Arkansas
     Research and Training Center in Vocational
     Rehabilitation.

     Edwards, L. (1991). Using knowledge and technology to
     improve the quality of life of people who have
     disabilities: A prosumer approach. Philadelphia:
     Pennsylvania College of Optometry.

     Fuhrman, S. (1994, April). Uniting producers and
     consumers: Challenges in creating and utilizing
     educational research and development. In Tomlinson &
     Tuijnman (Eds.), Education research and reform: An
     international perspective (pp. 133-147). Washington,
     DC: U.S. Department of Education.

     Hall, G. & Hord, S. (1987). Change in schools:
     Facilitating the process. Albany, NY: State University
     of New York Press.

     Huberman, M. (1990, Summer). Linkage between
     researchers and practitioners: A qualitative study.
     American Educational Research Journal, 363-391.

     Leung, P. (1992, June). Translation of knowledge into
     practice. In Walcott & Associates, NIDRR National CRP
     Panel final report. Washington, DC: Walcott &
     Associates.

     Louis, K.S. (1983). Dissemination systems: Some
     lessons from programs of the past. In W.J. Paisley &
     M. Butler (Eds.), Knowledge uilization systems in
     education. Beverly Hills: Sage.

     Pollard, J. & Rood, M. (1989). Design and development
     of an emerging-issues tracking system for state-level
     educational policy and decisionmakers. Paper presented
     at SIG/Futures Research and Strategic Planning
     Symposium of the American Educational Research
     Association, San Francisco.

     Sanderson, P.R. (1994, June). Beyond research data and
     demographics for American Indians with disabilities.
     In Dew, D. (Ed.), Disability, diversity, and change:
     In rehabilitation (pp. 48-53). Proceedings of the 1994
     National Symposium. San Diego: Rehabilitation Cultural
     Diversity

     Initiative. Steinke, J. (1995, June). Reaching
     readers: Assessing readers' impressions of science
     news. Science Communication, 432-453.

     Westbrook, J. (1994). Promoting change through
     information dissemination and utilization. Regional
     Rehabilitation Exchange Update 2(1) Austin, TX:
     Southwest Educational Development Laboratory.

     INFORMATION SOURCE

     Crandall, D.P. & Loucks, S.F. (1983). A roadmap for
     school improvement, people, policies, and practices:
     Examining the chain of school improvement. Volume 10.
     Andover, MA: The NETWORK.

     Donabedian, A. (1966). Evaluating the quality of
     medical care. Milbank Medical Fund Quarterly,
     44,166-206.

     Fuhrman, S. (1994, April). Uniting producers and
     consumers: Challenges in creating and utilizing
     educational research and development. In Tomlinson &
     Tuijnman (Eds.), Education research and reform: An
     international perspective (pp. 133-147). Washington,
     DC: U.S. Department of Education.

     Huberman, M. (1987, June). Steps toward an integrated
     model of research utilization.  Knowledge, 586-611.

     Leung, P. (1992, June). Translation of knowledge into
     practice. In Walcott & Associates, NIDRR National CRP
     Panel final report. Washington, DC: Walcott &
     Associates.

     Peterson, G.M. & Emrich, V.A. (1983). Advances in
     practice. In W.J. Paisley & M. Butler (Eds.),
     Knowledge utilization systems in education. Beverly
     Hills: Sage.

     Sechrest, L., Backer, T.E., & Rogers, E.M. (1994).
     Synthesis of ideas for effective dissemination. In L.
     Sechrest, T.E. Backer, E.M. Rogers, T.F. Campbell, &
     M.L. Grady (Eds.), Effective dissemination of clinical
     and health information: Conference summary (pp.
     187-196). AHCPR Pub. No. 95-0015. Rockville, MD:
     Agency for Health Care Policy and Research.

     Westbrook, J., Botterbusch, K. (1989). Characteristics
     of technical assistance.The provisions of technical
     assistance for vocational rehabilitation, 16th
     Institute for Rehabilitation Issues. Menomonie, WI:
     University of Wisconsin.

     Yin, R.K., & Moore, G.B. (1984). The utilization of
     research: Lessons from a multi-disciplined field.
     Washington, DC: Cosmos Corporation.

     CONTENT OF MESSAGE

     Fuhrman, S. (1994, April). Uniting producers and
     consumers: Challenges in creating and utilizing
     educational research and development. In Tomlinson &
     Tuijnman (Eds.), Education research and reform: An
     international perspective (pp. 133-147). Washington,
     DC: U.S. Department of Education.

     Patton, M.Q. (1986). Utilization focused evaluation.
     Beverly Hills: Sage.

     Pollard, J. (1989). Educational choice-thinking it
     through. INSIGHTS on educational policy and practice.
     No. 8. Austin, TX: Southwest Educational Development
     Laboratory.

     Scriven, M. (1967). The methodology of evaluation. In
     Ralph W. Tyler et al. (Eds.) Perspectives in
     curriculum evaluation. AERA Monograph. Chicago: Rand
     McNally.

     Seidel, A.D. (1981, December). Underutilized research:
     Researchers' and decision makers' conceptions of
     information quality. Knowledge, 233-248.

     University of Wisconsin-Stout (1989). The provisions
     of technical assistance for vocational rehabilitation.
     Menomonie, WI: Author.

     MEDIUM OF THE MESSAGE

     Edwards, L. (1991). Using knowledge and technology to
     improve the quality of life of people who have
     disabilities: A prosumer approach. Philadelphia:
     Pennsylvania College of Optometry.

     Paisley, W.J. 1993, May). Knowledge utilization: The
     role of new communications technologies. Journal of
     the American Society for Information Science, 222-234.

     Regional Information Exchange (1993). Overview of the
     information exchange process. Washington, DC: NIDRR.

     University of Wisconsin-Stout (1989). The provisions
     of technical assistance for vocational rehabilitation.
     Menomonie, WI: Author.

     CONTEXTUAL CONSIDERATION FOR IMPLEMENTATION

     Crandall, D.P. (1984). Principles for effective
     networking and program improvement. Andover, MA: The
     NETWORK.

     Crandall, D.P. & Loucks, S.F. (1983). A roadmap for
     school improvement, people, policies, and practices:
     Examining the chain of school improvement. Volume 10.
     Andover, MA: The NETWORK.

     Dentler, R.A., Kell, D., & Louis, K.S. (1983). Putting
     knowledge to work: An examination of an approach to
     improvement in education, (Second Synthesis Report).
     Cambridge, MA: Abt Associates. Edwards, L. (1991).
     Using knowledge and technology to improve the quality
     of life of people who have disabilities: A prosumer
     approach. Philadelphia: Pennsylvania College of
     Optometry.

     Fullan, M. (1991). The new meaning of educational
     change. New York: Teachers College Press/Columbia
     University.

     Glaser, E.M., Abelson, H.H., & Garrison, K.N. (1983).
     Putting knowledge to use: Facilitating the diffusion
     of knowledge and the implementation of planned change.
     San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

     Leung, P. (June 1992). Translation of knowledge into
     practice. In Walcott & Associates, NIDRR National CRP
     Panel final report. Washington, DC: Walcott &
     Associates.

     Louis, K.S., Dentler, R.A., & Kell, D.G. (1984).
     Putting knowledge to work: Issues in educational
     dissemination. Cambridge, MA: Abt Associates.

     Majunder, R.K., Walls, R.T., Fullmer, S.L., & Dowler,
     D.L. (1994, June). Information flow in vocational
     rehabilitation. Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin,
     332-346.

     Peterson, G.M. & Emrich, V.A. (1983). Advances in
     practice. In W.J. Paisley & M. Butler (Eds.),
     Knowledge utilization systems in education Beverly
     Hills: Sage.

     Westbrook, J., Lumbley, J. (1990, Spring).
     Consumer-driven supported employment: A way to improve
     supported employment services and outcomes. Bulletin
     of the National Model for Supported Employment and
     Independent Living. Austin, TX: Southwest Educational
     Development Laboratory.


     General References for Futher Reading

     Anderson, R.H., Bikson, T.K., Law, S.A., & Mitchell,
     B.M. (1995). Universal access to e-mail: Feasibility
     and societal implications. Santa Monica, CA: Rand
     Corporation.

     Backer, T.E. (1988, April/May/June). Research
     utilization and managing innovation in rehabilitation
     organizations. Journal of Rehabilitation, 18-22.

     Blasiotti, E.L. (1992, March). Disseminating research
     information to multiple stakeholders: Lessons from the
     experience of the National Institute on Disability and
     Rehabilitation Research. Knowledge, 305-319.

     Brown-McGowan, S. & Eichelberger, R.T. (1993, June).
     The utility of a knowledge use system in a higher
     education evaluation setting. Knowledge, 401-416.

     Buchman, M. (1982, July). The use of knowledge:
     Conceptual problems and empirical confusion.
     Occasional Paper No. 57. East Lansing, MI: Institute
     for Research on Teaching.

     Buttolph, D. (1992, June). A new look at adaptation.
     Knowledge, 460-480. Crandall, D.P. (1984). Principles
     for effective networking and program improvement.
     Andover, MA: The NETWORK.

     Crandall, D.P. & Loucks, S.F. (1983). A roadmap for
     school improvement, people, policies, and practices:
     Examining the chain of school improvement. Volume 10.
     Andover, MA: The NETWORK.

     Dentler, R.A., Kell, D., & Louis, K.S. (1983). Putting
     knowledge to work: An examination of an approach to
     improvement in education (Second Synthesis Report).
     Cambridge, MA: Abt Associates.

     Donabedian, A. (1966). Evaluating the quality of
     medical care. Milbank Medical Fund Quarterly, 44,
     166-206.

     Edwards, L. (1991). Using knowledge and technology to
     improve the quality of life of people who have
     disabilities: A prosumer approach. Philadelphia:
     Pennsylvania College of Optometry.

     Fuhrman, S. (1994, April). Uniting producers and
     consumers: Challenges in creating and utilizing
     educational research and development. In Tomlinson &
     Tuijnman (Eds.), Education research and reform: An
     international perspective (pp. 133-147). Washington,
     DC: U.S. Department of Education.

     Fullan, M. (1982). The meaning of educational change.
     New York: Teachers College Press/Columbia University.

     Hall, G. & Hord, S. (1987). Change in schools:
     Facilitating the process. Albany, NY: State University
     of New York Press.

     Hutchinson, J.R. (1995, September). A multimethod
     analysis of knowledge use in social policy: Research
     use in decisions affecting the welfare of children.
     Science Communication, 90-106.

     Indyk, D., & Rier, D.A. (1993, September). Grassroots
     AIDS knowledge: Implications for the boundaries of
     science and collective action. Knowledge, 3-47.

     Kennedy, M.M. (1989, Summer). Studying smoking
     behavior to learn about dissemination. Knowledge,
     107-115.

     Leung, P. (1992, June). Translation of knowledge into
     practice. In Walcott & Associates, NIDRR National CRP
     Panel final report. Washington, DC: Walcott &
     Associates.

     Louis, K.S. (1983). Dissemination systems: Some
     lessons from programs of the past. In W.J. Paisley &
     M. Butler (Eds.), Knowledge utilization systems in
     education. Beverly Hills: Sage.

     Louis, K.S., Dentler, R.A., & Kell, D.G. (1984).
     Putting knowledge to work: Issues in educational
     dissemination. Cambridge, MA: Abt Associates.

     Miguel, R.J., Izzo, M.V., Lankard, B.A., & Riffey, G.
     (1985). Knowledge development and utilization: Getting
     employability research into public use. Columbus, OH:
     National Center for Research in Vocational Education.
     National Center for the Dissemination of Disability
     Research (1995). Dissemination, utilization and the
     NCDDR. [Online] Available:
     http://www.ncddr.org/du/ncddrdu.html

     National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation
     Research. (1994). Access to computers and electronic
     equipment. Rehab BRIEF, 16(3).

     Newman, S., & Vash, C. (1994). Gray matter:
     Utilization of rehabilitation research results.
     Rehabilitation Education, 8(4), pp. 380-385.

     Patton, M.Q. (1986). Utilization focused evaluation.
     Beverly Hills: Sage.

     Peterson, G.M. & Emrich, V.A. (1983). Advances in
     practice. In W.J. Paisley & M. Butler (Eds.) Knowledge
     utilization systems in education. Beverly Hills: Sage.

     Pollard, J. (1989). Educational choice-thinking it
     through. INSIGHTS on educational policy and practice.
     No. 8. Austin, TX: Southwest Educational Development
     Laboratory.

     Pollard, J. & Rood, M. (1989). Design and development
     of an emerging-issues tracking system for state-level
     educational policy and decisionmakers. Paper presented
     at SIG/Futures Research and Strategic Planning
     Symposium of the American Educational Research
     Association, San Francisco.

     Regional Information Exchange (1993). Overview of the
     information exchange process. Washington, DC: NIDRR.

     Scriven, M. (1967). The methodology of evaluation. In
     Ralph W. Tyler et al. (Eds.), Perspectives in
     curriculum evaluation. AERA Monograph. Chicago: Rand
     McNally.

     University of Wisconsin-Stout (1989). The provisions
     of technical assistance for vocational rehabilitation.
     Menomonie, WI: Author.

     Westbrook, J. (1994). Promoting change through
     information dissemination and utilization. Regional
     Rehabilitation Exchange Update 2(1) Austin, Texas:
     Southwest Educational Development Laboratory.

     Westbrook, J.D. & Boethel, M. (1996). The
     dissemination and utilization of disability research:
     The National Center for the Dissemination of
     Disability Research approach [Online]. Available:
     http://www.ncddr.org/du/ncddrapproach.html

     Westbrook, J. & Boethel, M. (1996). General
     characteristics of effective dissemination and
     utilization [Online]. Available:
     http://www.ncddr.org/du/characteristics.html

     Westbrook, J., Botterbusch, K. (1989). Characteristics
     of technical assistance. The provisions of technical
     assistance for vocational rehabilitation, 16th
     Institute for Rehabilitation Issues. Menomonie, WI:
     University of Wisconsin.

     Westbrook, J., Lumbley, J. (1990, Spring).
     Consumer-driven supported employment: A way to improve
     supported employment services and outcomes. Bulletin
     of the National Model for Supported Employment and
     Independent Living. Austin, TX: Southwest Educational
     Development Laboratory.

     Yin, R.K., & Moore, G.B. (1984). The utilization of
     research: Lessons from a multi-disciplined field.
     Washington, DC: Cosmos Corporation.


Updated June 17, 1997

----------
End of Document