An attempt was made to confirm the validity of citizen judgments of the utility of community interventions by establishing that such judgments are related to (a) process outcome measures, (b) community need for the intervention, and (c) the amount of change agent support provided. A stepwise-multiple regression analysis of data collected in four rural school districts employing the same community change intervention found that citizen judgments were unrelated to these three factors. The inability to identify empirical correlates of citizen judgments of intervention utility casts doubt on the meaningfulness of such judgments as a criterion of intervention impact.
The judgments of local citizens are increasingly being used in evaluations of community interventions. Citizen opinions are being sought based both on evidence that citizens can make the difference between success and failure in a community innovation (Bridge, 1976). and on the hope that increased consumer input will help make public agencies more responsive to local needs (Love, Caid & Davis, 1979).
Citizen judgments of intervention utility have high face validity for many individuals. The validity of these measures apparently rests on the grounds that the judgments of community members, who are the designated primary beneficiaries of community interventions, serve as prima facie evidence of the utility of such interventions. But how could an empirical basis for the validity of these judgments be established? One way that confidence in the validity of these judgments could be strengthened would be to show that they are related to other aspects of the intervention process, such as to (a) more immediate process outcome variables associated with the intervention, (b) community need for the intervention, and (c) the amount of change agent support provided during the intervention.