Scholar-Practitioner Project: Evaluation Plan
Evaluation involves the process of critically examining a project or program. It encompasses collection as well as data analysis of a project’s characteristics, activities, and results or outcome. According to Thomson and Hoffman, (2013), the purpose of evaluation is to make a judgment about a project, notify programming decisions as well as improve the efficacy and effectiveness of the program. Conducting an evaluation before the start of the project is very important because it enables the program to be executed or implemented effectively and properly (Fertman & Allensworth, 2017). Such evaluation enables the executor to demonstrate the progress as well as success of the intended project. The data collected before the start of the program allow the program’s executor to better communicate the project’s impact or effect to others; which is very crucial for getting support from potential funders as well as public relations.
The evaluation plan for my SPP would consists of four major types or categories of evaluation including formative, process, impact as well as outcome (Guyot, 2012). The promoting wellness initiative would be assessed before its commencement to predict what is needed for its success in meeting its goals as well impact on patients and families. The evaluation or assessment is tailored to make sure that the execution of the project would be systematically monitored and undergo step-by-step analysis (Fertman & Allensworth, 2017). It would also ensure that particular progress are aligned with the expected outcomes, targets, and set goals to enable the assessment of their accurate attainment (Patton, 2014). The evaluators including professional doctors and practitioners with a minimum of ten years’ experience in medical health went through the proposed project to ensure that definite progress measures would be utilized in assessing the completeness as well as quality of the project’s activities. The evaluators assessed the project’s objectives to ascertain whether they are achievable. Subsequently, they read through how the project will be carried out and acknowledged that the procedure was great.
The formative evaluation was associated with the effectiveness of the program’s activities, practices, and procedures in executing the program as well as meeting the project’s milestones in accordance with the proposed schedules. Quantitative data was collected through observation, questionnaires, and interviews. The main purpose or goal of the formative evaluation or assessment was to aid in gathering or collecting, analyzing as well as disseminating information in the course of the program to aid the staff and program’s partners to stay on track during the implementation of the program’s activities as well as to promote the project’s improvement. The formative evaluation data or information was shared with the staff as well as the project’s partners regularly throughout the evaluation. Moreover, the primary formative questions included whether the project’s partners are would conduct the program’s activities with conformity to the proposed management plan and design, for example, whether the project will meet its associated objective and goal (Thomson & Hoffman, 2013). Another question which arose included establishing whether the project in its current form will meet its targets, for example, coordination of counseling services, training, staffing as well as engagement of parents outreach. Additionally, the evaluators raised a question on whether the program will throughout utilized data effectively and properly.
In the same token, an external evaluator, a professional doctor from an outside hospital, was contracted to make sure a comprehensive evaluation is carried out. The external evaluator gathered as well as analyzed quantitative data on a regular basis and reported findings after every fortnight (Ecosystem Management Initiative), (2014). Subsequently, the stakeholders in the evaluation included the administration, teachers, parents, nurses, and the community members. Remarkably, both the advisory team and the stakeholders had an opportunity to assess the anticipated program’s progress as well as success and made recommendations on necessary modification (Harris, 2017). After the recommendations, the advisory team wrapped up the adjustment actions to conform to the amendments. The main goal of the formative evaluation was to ensure the project would be implemented as proposed. The evaluators also had concerns in regards to cultural considerations including cultural perceptions, language, confidentiality, privacy, interpersonal relationship, and cultural beliefs as well as customs. The read through the proposal and established that translators and interpreters were included in the projects. They also established that the project will take into consideration ethnic diversity and background by respecting peoples’ cultural beliefs and norms. It is important to note that respect, confidentiality, privacy, and information security are among the major health care standards and guidelines which have to be adhered to avoid discrimination.
On the other hand, the process evaluation was carried out by both the internal evaluators including the staff and external evaluators. It tried to find information in regards to the project, for example, whether the targeted recipients would get proper services they actually want. The stakeholders here included the community members. Qualitative data was also collected through conducting tests on the community members to establish some of the improvements they need on their health as well as overall wellbeing (Saettler, 2013). The assessment ensured community’s cultural values are maintained and avoided or shunned any form of discrimination towards the members and respondents. Additionally, some of the ethical considerations during the questionnaires and interviews included confidentiality, voluntary participation, anonymity, and only assessment of relevant components (Fertman & Allensworth, 2017). Individuals took part in the evaluation free from compulsion or intimidation and participants were allowed to withdraw at will. In the same vein, information provided by the members of the public were never availed to any wrong person or made public (Fertman & Allensworth, 2017). It is important to note that the aforementioned ethical considerations would ensure that the project’s activities are carried out in a free environment free of discrimination and intimidation.
The impact evaluation helped in determining the intended causal or underlying impacts of the project. It measured whether the project would attain its intended results and established some of the reasons which might lead to the failure of the intended results achievement (Rossett and Sheldon, 2011). The different instruments which were used to collect quantitative data include testing, interviews, and questionnaires. It is important to note that the questionnaires were tested or trialed prior to usage to make sure the recipients or respondents understood their operations as intention by the designer (Mastrian & McGonigle, 2018). Furthermore, the stakeholders encompassed nurses and the community members. The evaluators put into concern a number of cultural considerations including the recipients’ cultural beliefs and values, sensitivity of the topic, how to get different stakeholders feedback during the process of evaluation as well as the community’s past experience with research or evaluation (Scriven, 2017). The evaluation ensured that nobody is harmed or intimidated in one way or another.
To be ethnically and culturally competent, the project evaluators valued and took into account the differences amidst individuals and groups, were aware of the interactions and associations amid cultures, and were also knowledgeable of the stereotypes and negative perceptions individuals face (Misanchuk, 2018). As a matter of fact, the advisory team recommended that the project’s implementers will have to adequately adapt to reach out to diverse groups. The team outlined suggested new approaches and accompanied them with the rationale for actions. According to World Health Organization (2018), prevention is the goal, and the prevention strategies should be evaluated to determine their effectiveness.
Lastly, the outcome evaluation encompassed questions like whether the project will achieved its goals as well as performance target and the impact of the project on attitude, health, behavior, and wellness. The reports were be submitted to the program’s partners while the evaluation data or information were sent to the health agencies (Moore & Browne, 2017). The evaluators included professional doctors and practitioners with a minimum of ten years’ experience in medical health. In the same token, the stakeholders encompassed nurses and the members of various communities. The outcome stage provided some of the modification which has to be done to aid the project attain its intended goal or objective.
In conclusion, the evaluation before the start of the project was purposely geared towards fostering improvement as well as development in the project’s activities. It is important to note that the main purpose of evaluation was to make a judgment about the project, inform or notify programming decisions as well as improve the efficacy and effectiveness of the program. It is important to note that conducting an evaluation before the start of the project is very important because it enables the program to be executed or implemented effectively and properly in accordance or conformity with the proposal. Notably, this evaluation will pave the way for proper implementation of the project. It will also ensure that the intended objectives of the project are accomplished as outlined in the program’s proposal. Both the formative and summative evaluations were associated with the effectiveness of the program’s activities, practices, and procedures and the quantitative and qualitative data were collected through observation, questionnaires, and interviews. It is important to note that these methods ensured no form of bias and inaccuracy in data collection.
EMI (Ecosystem Management Initiative). (2014). Measuring Progress: An Evaluation Guide for Ecosystem and Community-Based Projects. School of Natural Resources and Environment, University of Michigan. Downloaded September 20, 2006 from:
Fertman, C. I., & Allensworth, D. D. (Eds.). (2017). Health promotion programs: From theory to practice (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Chapter 10, “Evaluating and Sustaining Health Promotion Programs” (pp. 243-272)
Guyot, W.M. (2012). Summative and Formative Evaluation. The Journal of Business Education. 54(3):127-129.
Harris, M. J. (2017). Evaluating public and community health programs (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Chapter 1, “An Introduction to Public and Community Health Evaluation” (pp. 1–22)
Mastrian, K. G., & McGonigle, D. (2018).Nursing informatics and the foundation of knowledge(4thed.). Retrieved fromhttps://online.vitalsource.com
Misanchuk, E.R. (2018).Uses and Abuses of Evaluation in Continuing Education Programs: On the Frequent Futility of Formative, Summative, and Justificative Evaluation . San Antonio, Texas: Paper presented at the Adult Education Research Conference, 4-78.
Moore, C., & Browne, C. (2017). Emerging innovations, best practices, and evidence-based practices in elder abuse and neglect: Areview of recent
Patton, M.Q. (2014). Qualitative Research Evaluation Methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publishers.
Rossett, A., Sheldon, K. (2011). Beyond the Podium: Delivering Training and Performance to a Digital World . San Francisco: Jossey-Bass/Pfeiffer
Saettler, P. (2013). The Evolution of American Educational Technology. p350. Englewood, Colorado: Libraries Unlimited, Inc.
Scriven, M. (2017). The methodology of evaluation. R.W. Tyler, R M. Gagne, M. Scriven (eds.), Perspectives of curriculum evaluation , pp.39-83. Chicago, IL: Rand McNally.
Thomson, G. & Hoffman, J. (2013). Measuring the success of EE programs. Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society.www.snre.umich.edu/ecomgt/evaluation/templates.htm