Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
HS 490
Chapter 14
This chapter focuses on evaluation approaches, an evaluation framework, and
evaluation designs. Houses (1980) taxonomy of eight evaluation approaches was
presented. No one approach is useful in all situations; therefore, evaluators should select
an approach or parts of approaches to structure the evaluation based on the needs of the
stakeholders involved with each program. The Framework for Program Evaluation in
Public Health presents a process that is adaptable to all health promotion programs, yet is
not prescriptive in nature.
The steps for selecting an evaluation design were also presented with a discussion
about quantitative and qualitative methods. Evaluation design should be considered early
in the planning process. Planners/evaluators need to identify what measurements will be
taken as well as when and how. In doing so, a design should be selected that controls for
both internal and external validity.
Evaluation Framework
The evaluation framework can be thought of as the skeleton of a plan that can
be used to conduct an evaluation. It puts in order the steps to be followed.
Evaluation Design
An evaluation design is used to organize the evaluation and to provide for
planned, systematic data collection, analysis, and reporting. A well-planned evaluation
design helps ensure that the conclusions drawn about the program will be as accurate as
possible.
Evaluation Approaches
Categorizing the different evaluation approaches. A brief description of each is
presented here:
Systems analysis uses output measures, such as test scores, to determine if the
program has demonstrated the desired change. It also determines whether funds have
been efficiently used, as in cost analysis.
Decision Making focuses on the decision to be made and presents evidence about
the effectiveness of the program to the decision maker (manager or administrator).
Evaluation Approaches
Goal-free evaluation does not base the evaluation on program goals; instead, the
evaluator searches for all outcomes, often finding unintended side effects.
Art criticism uses the judgment of an expert in the area to increase awareness and
appreciation of the program in order to lead to improved standards and better
performance.
Evaluation Approaches
Quasi-legal evaluation uses a panel to hear evidence considering the arguments
for and against the program; a quasi-legal procedure is used for both evaluating and
policy making.
Case study uses techniques such as interviews and observations to examine how
people view the program.
Economic Evaluations
analysis, because a dollar value does not have to be placed on the outcomes of the
program. Instead, a cost-effectiveness analysis will indicate how much it costs to
produce a certain effect. For example, based on the cost of a program, the effect of years
of life saved, number of smokers who stop smoking, or morbidity or mortality rates can
be determined.
Approaches using this type of goal-directed focuses are also known as goal
attainment and goal based.
In the behavioral objective approach, the program goals serve as the standards for
evaluation. This type of evaluation was first used in education, to assess student
behaviors. Competency testing is an example of goal-attainment evaluation, determining
whether a student is able to pass an exam or advance to the next grade.
Objective-Oriented Approaches
Objective- oriented approaches are probably the most commonly used approaches
to health promotion program evaluation. They specify program goals and objectives have
been reached. Success or failure is measured by the relationship between the outcome of
the program and the stated goals and objectives. This type of approach is based on action,
and the dependent variable is defined in terms of outcomes the program participant
should be able to demonstrate at the end of the intervention.
Identification of the performances that are critical to the achievement of the goal.
Decision-Making Approach
There are three steps to the evaluation process: delineating (focusing of
information), obtaining (collecting, organizing, and analyzing information), and
providing (synthesizing information so it will be useful).
Product evaluation is to measure and interpret attainments during and after the
program.
Goal-Free Approach
Suggests that evaluation should not be based on goals in order to enable the
evaluator to remain unbiased. The evaluator must search for all outcomes, including
unintended positive or negative side effects. Thus, the evaluator does not base the
evaluation on reaching goals and remains unaware of the program goals.
Goal-Free Approach
The goal-free approach is not often used in evaluation. It is difficult for
evaluators to determine what to evaluate when program objectives are not to be used.
One concern is that evaluators will substitute their own goals, since there is a lack of
clear methodology as to how to proceed.
Management-Oriented Approaches
Management-oriented approaches focus on identifying and meeting the
informational needs of managerial decision makers. That is, good decision making is
best made on good evaluative information. In this approach, the evaluators and managers
work closely together to identify the decisions that must be made and the information
needed to make them. The evaluators then collect the necessary data about the
advantages and disadvantages of each decision alternative to allow for fair judgment
based on specified criteria. The success of the evaluation rests on the quality of the
teamwork between evaluators and decision makers.
CIPP
The acronym CIPP stands for the four type decisions facing managers, context,
input, process, and product. Context evaluation describes the conditions in the
environment, identifies unmet needs and unused opportunities, and determines why these
occur. The purpose of input evaluation is to determine how to use resources to meet
program goals. Process evaluation provides feedback to those responsible for program
implementation. The purpose of product evaluation is to measure and interpret
attainments during and after the program. It is the decision maker, not the evaluator, who
uses this information to determine the worth of the program.
Consumer-Oriented Approaches
Consumer-oriented approaches focus on developing evaluative information on
products, broadly defined, and accountability, for use by consumers in choosing among
competing products. This approach gets its label of consumer-oriented, in part, from
the fact that its an evaluation approach that helps protect the consumer by evaluating
products used by the consumer. The consumer-oriented approach, which is summative
in nature, primarily uses checklists and criteria to allow the evaluator to collect data that
can be used to rate the product. This is the approach used by: Consumer Reports when
evaluating various consumer products, principals when evaluating their teachers, and
instructors when they are evaluating the skill of their students to perform cardiorespiratory resuscitation (CPR). It is an approach that has been used extensively in
evaluating educational materials and personnel.
Goal-Attainment Approach
Have the objectives been reached?
Has the program met the needs of the target population?
How can the objectives be reached?
Are the needs of the program administrators and funding source being met?
Goal-Free Approach
What is the outcome of the program?
Who has been reached by the program?
How is the program operating?
What has been provided?
Expertise-Oriented Approaches
Expertise-oriented approaches, which are probably the oldest of the approaches to
evaluation, rely primarily on the direct application of professional expertise to judge the
quality of whatever endeavor is evaluated. Most of these approaches can be placed in
one of three categories, formal professional review systems, or informal professional
reviews, and individual reviews. Formal professional reviews are characterized by
having:
Expertise-Oriented Approaches
In all of the approaches presented so far in this chapter, the primary focus of each has
been on something other than serving the needs of the priority population. It is not that
those who use the previous approaches are unconcerned about the priority population, but
the valuation process does not begin with the priority population. The participantoriented approaches are different. They focus on a process in which involvement of
participants (stakeholders in that which is evaluated) are central in determining the
values, criteria, needs, data, and conclusions for the evaluation In addition, their
characteristics of less structure and fewer constraints, informal communication and
reporting, and less attention to goals and objectives may be a drawback for those who
want more formal, objective-type evaluation.
Fitzpatrick and colleagues (2004) have identified the following common elements of
participant-oriented approaches:
1. They depend on inductive reasoning. Understanding an issue or event or process
comes from grassroots observation an discovery. Understanding emerges; it is not
the end product of some preordinate inquiry plan projected before the evaluation
is conducted.
2. They use multiplicity of data. Understanding comes from the assimilation of data
from a number of sources. Subjective and objective, qualitative and quantitative
representations of the phenomena being evaluated are used.
3. They do not follow a standard plan. The evaluation process evolves as
participants gain experience in the activity. Often the important outcome of the
evaluation is a rich understanding of one specific entity with all the idiosyncratic
contextual influences, process variations, and life histories. It is important in and
of itself for what it tells about the phenomena that occurred.
4. They record multiple rather than single realties. People see things and interpret
them in different ways. No one knows everything that happens in a school, or in
the tiniest program. And no one perspective is accepted as the truth. Because only
an individual can truly know what she has experience, all perspectives are
accepted as correct, and a central task of the evaluator is to capture these realties
and portray them without sacrificing the programs complexity.
Conventional Evaluation
External experts
What
Predetermined indicators of
success, primarily cost and
health outcomes or gains
How
Focus on scientific
objectivity, distancing
evaluators from other
participants; uniform,
complex procedures;
delayed, limited access to
results
Usually completion;
sometimes also midterm
When
Why
Accountability, usually
summative, to determine if
funding continues
Participatory Evaluation
Community, project staff
facilitator
People identify their own
indicators of success, which
may include health
outcomes and gains
Self evaluation; simple
methods adapted to local
culture; open, immediate
sharing of results through
local involvement in
evaluation processes
Merging of monitoring and
evaluation; hence frequent
small-scale evaluations
To empower local people to
initiate, control, and take
corrective action
The early steps provide the foundation, and all steps should be
finalized before moving to the next step:
Step 1- Engaging stakeholders
This step begins the evaluation cycle. Stakeholders must be engaged to insure
that their perspectives are understood. The three primary groups of stakeholders are 1)
those involved in the program operations, 2) those served of affected by the program, and
3) the primary users of the evaluation results. The scope and level of stakeholder
involvement will vary with each program being evaluated.
In addition to the six steps of the framework, there are four standards of
evaluation. These standards are noted in the box at the center of Figure 14.1. The
standards provide practical guidelines for the evaluators to follow when having to decide
among evaluation options. For example, these standards help evaluators avoid
evaluations that may be accurate and feasible but not useful or one that would be useful
and accurate but it infeasible.
Accuracy standards ensure that the evaluation produces findings that are
considered correct.
There are few perfect evaluation designs, because no situation is ideal, and there
are always constraining factors, such as limited resources. The challenge is to devise an
optimal evaluation- as opposed to an ideal evaluation. Planners should give much
thought to selecting the best design for each situation.
Do you have the ability to randomize participants into experimental and control
groups?
There are four steps in choosing an evaluation design. These four steps are
outlined in
Figure 14.2.
Step 1
The first step is to orient oneself to the situation. The evaluator must identify
resources (time, personnel), constraints, and hidden agendas (unspoken goals). During
this step, the evaluator must determine what is to be expected from the program and what
can be observed.
Step 2
The second step involves defining the problem- determining what is to be
evaluated. During this step, definitions are needed for independent variables (what the
sponsors think makes the difference), dependent variables (what will show the
difference), and confounding variables (what the evaluator thinks could explain
additional differences).
Step 3
The third step involves making a decision about the design- that is, whether to use
qualitative or quantitative methods of data collection or both.
Quantitative Method
The quantitative method is destructive in nature (applying a generally accepted
principle to an individual case), so that the evaluation produces numeric (hard) data, such
as counts, ratings, scores, or classifications. Examples of quantitative data would be the
number of participants in a stress-management program, the ratings on a participant
satisfaction survey, and the pretest scores on a nutrition knowledge test. This approach is
suited to programs that are well defined and compares outcomes of programs with those
of other groups or the general population. It is the method most often used in evaluation
designs.
Qualitative Method
The qualitative method is an inductive method (individual cases are studied to
formulate a general principle) and produces narrative (soft) data, such as descriptions.
This is a good method to use for programs that emphasize individual outcomes or in
cases where other descriptive information from participants is needed.
Focus group interviewing- see Chapter 4 for an in-depth discussion of focus group
interviewing
Unobtrusive techniques- data collection techniques that do not require the direct
participation or cooperation of human subjects- page 236- and include such things as
unobtrusive observation, review of archival data, and study fo physical traces.
Control group- should be as similar to the experimental group as possible, but the
members of this group do not receive the program (intervention or treatment) that is to be
evaluated.
Without the use of a properly selected control group, the apparent effect of the
program could actually be due to a variety of factors, such as differences in participants
educational background, environment, or experience. By using a control group, the
evaluator can show that the results or outcomes are due to the program and not to those
other variables.
Since the main purpose of social programs is to help client, the clients viewpoint
should be the primary one. It is important to keep this in mind when considering ethical
issues in the use of control groups. Conner (1980) identifies four underlying premises for
the use of control groups in social program evaluation:
All individuals involved in the evaluation are informed about the purpose of the
study and the use of a control group.
Individuals have a right to new services, and random selection gives everyone a
chance to participate.
Comparison Group
When participants cannot be randomly assigned to an experimental or control
group, a nonequivalent control group may be selected.
Participant's age
Gender
Education
Location
Socioeconomic status
Experience
As well as any other variable that might have an impact on program results.
Evaluation Designs
Measurements used in evaluation designs can be collected at three different times:
after the program; both before and after the program; and several times before, during,
and after the program.
Quasi-experimental design
Results in interpretable and supportive evidence of program effectiveness.
Usually cannot control for all factors that affect the validity of the results.
There is no random assignment tot eh groups, and comparisons are made on
experimental and comparison groups.
Non-experimental design
Without the use of a comparison or control group, has little control over the
factors that affect the validity of the results.
The most powerful design is the experimental design, in which participants are
randomly assigned to the experimental and control groups. The difference between I.1.
And I.2. in figure 14.5 is the use of a pretest to measure the participants before the
program begins. Use of a pretest would help assure that the groups are similar. Random
assignment should equally distribute any of the variables (such as age, gender, and race)
between the different groups. Potential disadvantages of the experimental design are that
it requires a relatively large group of participants and that the intervention may be
delayed for those in the control group.
History occurs when an event happens between the pretest and posttest that is not
part of the health promotion program. An example of history as a threat to internal
validity is having a national antismoking campaign coincide with a local smoking
cessation program.
Testing occurs when the participants become familiar with the test format due to
repeated testing. This is why it is helpful to use a different form of the same test for
pretest and posttest comparisons.
Statistical regression is when extremely high or low scores (with are not
necessarily accurate) on the pretest are closer to the mean or average scored on the
posttest.
Mortality refers to participants who drop out of the program between the pretest
and posttest. For example, if most of the participants who drop out of a weight loss
program are those with the least (or the most) weight to lose, the group composition is
different at the posttest.
Compensatory rivalry is when the control group is seen as the underdog and is
motivated to work harder.
The major way in which threats to internal validity can be controlled is though
randomization. By random selection of participants, random assignment to groups, and
random assignment of types of treatment or no treatment to groups, and differences
between pretest and posttest can be interpreted as a result of the program. When random
assignment to groups is not possible and quasi-experimental designs are used, the
evaluator must make all threats to internal validity explicit and then rule them out one by
one.
Several factors can threaten external validity. They are sometimes known as
reactive effects, since they cause individuals to react in a certain way. The following are
several types of threat to external validity:
Social desirability occurs when the individual gives a particular response to try to
please or impress the evaluator. An example would be a child who tells the teacher she
brushes her teeth every day, regardless of her actual behavior.
Expectancy effect is when attitudes projected onto individuals cause them to act
in a certain way. For example, in a drug abuse treatment program, the facilitator may feel
that a certain individual will not benefit from the treatment; projecting this attitude may
cause the individual to behave in self-defeating ways.
Placebo effect causes a change in behavior due to the participants belief in the
treatment.
Blind- study in which the participants do not know what group (control or type of
experimental group) they are in.
Double blind- study of the type of group participants are in is not known by either
the participants or the program planners.
Triple blind- study where the information is not available to the participants,
planners, or evaluators.