In this Discussion, you and your colleagues identify a theory or model for evaluation and establish appropriate forms of evaluation for your programs.
As noted in Week 3 of this course, a particular theory or model is not necessarily appropriate for every program. It is important to consider the specifics of the problem and the target population when making that selection. This is important to keep in mind, also, as you examine theories and models related to program evaluation. In this instance, various facets of the program such as goals and objectives should be taken into consideration. Once selected, theory can provide a framework for evaluation.
In addition, there are distinct purposes for the elements of assessment addressed this week: performance measurement, monitoring, and summative evaluation. How do you foresee these being applied in your program?
By tomorrow Tuesday 1/22/19 6 pm, write a 550 words essay in APA format with a minimum of 3 references (see required reading list below). Include the level headers as numbered below:
Post a cohesive scholarly response that addresses the following:
1) Identify an evaluation theory or model that is most appropriate to support your program plan. Explain which field developed this theory or model and describe how it has been applied in fields other than nursing. Support your response with evidence from the literature (See attached file on week 3 discussion).
2) Share a time line that articulates how and when you would engage in various elements of evaluation for the program you have been developing. Be as specific as possible and provide your rationale for each decision point (no later than 2020).
Hodges, B. C., & Videto, D. M. (2011). Assessment and planning in health programs (2nd ed.). Sudbury, MA: Jones & Bartlett Learning.
· Chapter 6, “The Importance and Use of Theories in Health Education and Health Promotion”
The authors describe various theories, noting that theories are not universally applicable to every program.
· Chapter 10, “Program Evaluation: Background and Basics”
Chapter 10 outlines steps for designing evaluation during program planning.
Kettner, P. M., Moroney, R. M., & Martin, L. L. (2017). Designing and managing programs: An effectiveness-based approach (5th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
· Chapter 2, “The Contribution of Theory to Program Planning”
This chapter examines the application of theory in program planning.
· Review Chapter 10, “Performance Measurement, Monitoring, and Program Evaluation”
· Chapter 11, “Impact Program Evaluation and Hypothesis Testing”
· Review Chapter 10 and read Chapter 11 to examine aspects of evaluation essential to program planning.
Berhane, A., Biadgilign, S., Berhane, A., & Memiah, P. (2015). Male involvement in family planning program in Northern Ethiopia: An application of the Transtheoretical model. Patient Education and Counseling 98, 469–475
Kroelinger, C.D., Rankin, K. M., Chamgers, D.A., Diez Roux, A.V., Huges, K., & Grigorescu, V. (2014). Using the principles of complex systems thinking and implementation sceice to enhance maternal and child health program planning and delivery. Maternal Child Health Journal, 18, 1560–1564. doi 10.1007/s10995-014-1586-9
Silverman, B., Champney, J., Steber, S., & Zubritsky, C. (2015). Collaborating for consensus: Considerations for convening Coalition stakeholders to promote a gender-based approach to addressing the health needs of sex workers. Evaluation and Program Planning 51,17–26 doi.org/10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2014.12.002
Smith, T.L., Barlow, P.b., Peters, J.M., & Skolits, G.J. (2015). Demystifying reflective practice: Using the DATA model to enhance evaluators’ professional activities. Evaluation and Program Planning, 52, 142–147.
Albert, D., Fortin, R., Herrera, C., Riley, B., Hanning, R., Lessio, A., & Rush, B. (2013). Strengthening chronic disease prevention programming: The toward evidence-Informed practice (TEIP) program evidence tool. Preventing Chronic Disease, 10,1–9
Baron, K., Hodgson, A., & Walshe, C. (2015). Evaluation of an advance care planning education programme for nursing homes: A longitudinal study. Nurse Education Today, 35, 689–695.
Schmitt, C.L., Glasgow, L., Lavinghouze, S.R., Ricker, P.P., Fulmer, E., McAleer, K., & Rogers, T. (2016). Measuring infrastructure: A key step in program evaluation and planning. Evaluation and Program Planning, 56, 50–56 doi.org/10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2016.03.007
Laureate Education (Producer). (2011). Design and evaluation of programs and projects [Video file]. Baltimore, MD: Author.
“Performance Measurement, Monitoring, and Evaluation” (featuring Dr. Donna Shambley-Ebron, Dr. Melissa Willmarth, and Dr. Debora Dole)
You may view this course video by clicking the link or on the course DVD, which contains the same content. Once you’ve opened the link, click on the appropriate media piece.
In this week’s videos, Dr. Donna Shambley-Ebron, Dr. Melissa Willmarth, Dr. Debora Dole discuss evaluation for programs.
Ahmad, F., Roy, A., Brady, S., Belgeonne, S., Dunn, L., & Pitts, J. (2007). Care pathway initiative for people with intellectual disabilities: Impact evaluation. Journal of Nursing Management, 15(7), 700–702.
This article is an example of an impact evaluation.
Gard, C. L., Flannigan, P. N., & Cluskey, M. (2004). Program evaluation: An ongoing systematic process. Nursing Education Perspectives, 25(4), 176–179.
This article discusses the use of accreditation standards and site visits as a plan for ongoing evaluation for a nursing program.
Graff, J. C., Russell, C. K., & Stegbauer, C. C. (2007). Formative and summative evaluation of a practice doctorate program. Nurse Educator, 32(4), 173–177.
Milne, L., Scotland, G., Tagiyeva-Milne, N., & Hussein, J. (2004). Safe motherhood program evaluation: Theory and practice. Journal of Midwifery & Women’s Health, 49(4), 338–344.
This article identifies and evaluates the different approaches to program evaluation related to safe motherhood.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2007). Chronic disease indicators [Data set]. Retrieved from https://www.cdc.gov/cdi/.
This site allows you to search and compare different regions for specific chronic disease indicators.
Hulton, L. J. (2007). An evaluation of a school-based teenage pregnancy prevention program using a logic model framework. Journal of School Nursing, 23(2), 104–110.
This article describes the use of the logic model to develop, implement, and evaluate a nursing intervention in a school setting.
Johnson, S. S., Driskell, M., Johnson, J. L., Prochaska, J. M., Zwick, W., & Prochaska, J. O. (2006). Efficacy of a transtheoretical model-based expert system for antihypertensive adherence. Disease Management, 9(5), 291–301.
This article introduces the use of the transtheoretical model and stages of change as applied to interventions aimed at medication adherence for patients with hypertension.
Rogers, L. Q., Shah, P., Dunnington, G., Greive, A., Shanmugham, A., Dawson, B., & Courneya, K. S. (2005). Social cognitive theory and physical activity during breast cancer treatment. Oncology Nursing Forum, 32(4), 807–815.
The social cognitive theory is utilized to examine associations with physical activity in breast cancer patients. This article posits that the social cognitive theory can be used as a mediator for intervention evaluation with this population.
W. K. Kellogg Foundation. (2004). Using logic models to bring together planning, evaluation, and action: Logic model development guide. Battle Creek, MI: W. K. Kellogg Foundation. Retrieved from http://www.wkkf.org/resource-directory/resource/2006/02/wk-kellogg-foundation-logic-model-development-guide.
This report offers a guide for the use of the logic model in program planning and outcome-oriented evaluation for nonprofit projects.