Program Evaluation 1. Program. Evaluation 1. Contributed by. Robin Puett, MP Definition of Program Evaluation Evaluation is the systematic application of scientific methods to assess. Rossi. & Freeman, 1. Short, Hennessy, & Campbell, 1. Purposes for Program Evaluation. Demonstrate. program effectiveness to funders Improve the. Selecting an Appropriate Evaluation Design; T/TA Tools; Videos. But, the degree of influence a program has on the evaluation findings is largely dependent on the research design used. Available Resources for the Evaluation.Better manage. limited resources. Document program. Justify current. program funding. Support the. need for increased levels of funding Satisfy ethical. Short, Hennessy, & Campbell, 1. Document program. Barriers Program evaluations require funding, time and technical skills: requirements. Overcoming Barriers Collaboration is the key to successful program evaluation. Curriculum/program evaluation. Course time frame: semester vs. Participate in Curriculum Design and Evaluation of program Outcomes (19%). Types of Evaluation Designs. Complementary guide and checklist for successfully including health equity in program design. Using Case Studies to do Program Evaluation valuation of any kind is designed to. Like any other evaluation design, the case study should suit the project to which it is applied and must be well executed for maximum bene While program evaluation first focuses around this. The steps described are: engage stakeholder, describe the program, focus the evaluation design, gather credible. Was the design well executed? These six steps to program evaluation can help put your organization on the right track for continuous. Program planning and evaluation go. Focus the design of your evaluation. Evaluations can focus on. In evaluation. terminology, stakeholders are defined as entities or individuals that. Rossi & Freeman, 1. CDC, 1. 99. 9). Stakeholders include but are not limited to. A participatory. approach to evaluation based on respect for one another's roles and equal. Burt, Harrell, Newmark, Aron, & Jacobs, 1. Chalk &. King, 1. Identifying an evaluator with the necessary technical skills. Programs. have several options for identifying an evaluator. Health departments. Additionally, several companies. Selecting an evaluator entails finding an individual who. CDC, 1. 99. 2). Types of Evaluation Various types of evaluation can be used to assess different aspects. As terminology and definitions of evaluation. This type of evaluation could. Publications/evalhdbk/default. Sample question: Who. Sample. question: Was the program administered as planned? Some evaluators limit these changes. Green & Kreuter, 1. Sample question. What are the long- term positive effects of program participation? Evaluation Standards and Designs Evaluation should be incorporated during the initial stages of program. An initial step of the evaluation process is to describe. This collaborative activity can create a mutual. Developing a program description also helps ensure. In general, the evaluation should be feasible. CDC, 1. 99. 9). Data should. Rossi & Freeman, 1. Evaluations of programs aimed at. Experimental designs are defined by the random. These ideal experimental conditions. A possible solution to blending the need for a comparison group. However, the use of this design. While non- experimental designs may be easiest to implement. Logic Models. Logic models are flowcharts that depict program components. These models. can include any number of program elements, showing the development of. Infrastructure, inputs. The process of developing logic. By depicting the sequence and logic of inputs, processes. CDC, 1. 99. 9). Communicating Evaluation Findings. Preparation, effective communication and timeliness in order to ensure. Questions that should be answered. The target audience must be identified and the report. National Committee for Injury Prevention and. Control, 1. 98. 9). Policy makers, current and potential funders, the media. Evaluation reports describe the process. Publications/evalhdbk/default. Some of these recommendations. Chalk & King, 1. Y., & Jacobs. L. Evaluation guidebook: Projects funded by S. T. O. P. Handbook for evaluating. HIV education. Division of Adolescent and School Health, Atlanta. Framework for program evaluation in public health. MMWR Recommendations. Reports 1. 99. 9; 4. RR1. 1): 1- 4. 0. Chalk, R., & King, P. Violence in Families. Assessing prevention and treatment programs. Washington DC: National. Academy Press. Evaluating. AIDS prevention programs: Expanded edition. Washington DC: National. Academy Press. Green, L. W., & Kreuter, M. Health promotion planning. An educational and environmental approach (2nd ed.). Mountain View. CA: Mayfield Publishing Company. National Committee for Injury Prevention and Control. Injury. prevention: Meeting the challenge. American Journal of Preventive Medicine. Suppl. Evaluation: A systematic. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. Short, L., Hennessy, M., & Campbell, J. Kellogg evaluation handbook.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. Archives
December 2016
Categories |