You are on page 1of 13

CUMMING SCHOOL OF MEDICINE

GRADUATE COURSE OUTLINE


CORE 676A&B
Consultation and Evaluation of Human Services and Systems
FALL/WINTER 2014/2015

Course Coordinator

Dr. Cheryl Crocker

Course Instructor

Dr. Cheryl Crocker


Telephone: 780-497-5175
Email: ccrocker@ucalgary.ca

Course Dates

September 10, 11 and 12, 2014 (Block Week)


January 5-9, 2015 (Block Week: specific days to be determined)
April block week 2015 (TBA)

Location

FCJ (face to face sessions) and Desire 2 learn

Course Description
Qualitative and quantitative evaluation research informs the design and implementation of a collaborative evaluation of
a disabilityrelated social programs, policy or system. The course is directed towards the design, development and
evaluation of community based human services or programs. This is a full year course with theory and practicum
components, designed for the student with a sound knowledge of disability issues, organizational and management
experience and best practices in the field of community rehabilitation.
Prerequisite
None

CORE 676A&B
1

Suggested Resources
Textbooks:
Mertens, D. M. (2014). Research and Evaluation in Education and Psychology: Integrating Diversity with Quantitative,
Qualitative, and Mixed Methods (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications Inc.:
Shaw, I., Greene, J. & Mark, M. (2006). The SAGE handbook of evaluation. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE
Publications
Inc.:
Articles:
Alsem, M. W., Siebes, R. C., Gorter, J. W., Jongmans, M. J., Nijhuis, B. J., & Ketelaar, M. M. (2014).
Assessment of
family needs in children with physical disabilities: development of a family needs
inventory. Child: Care, Health &
Development, 40(4), 498-506. doi:10.1111/cch.12093
Arseven, I., & eng, A. (2014). A study design using qualitative methods for program evaluation. International Journal
Of Academic Research, 6(1), 417-422. doi:10.7813/2075-4124.2014/6- 1/B.56
Bachner, J., & Hill, K. (2014). Advances in public opinion and policy attitudes research. Policy Studies
Journal, 42S51S70. doi:10.1111/psj.12052
Beail, N., & Williams, K. (2014). Using qualitative methods in research with people who have intellectual disabilities.
Journal Of Applied Research In Intellectual Disabilities, 27(2), 85-96.
doi:10.1111/jar.12088
Brock, M. E., Huber, H. B., Carter, E. W., Juarez, A., & Warren, Z. E. (2014). Statewide assessment of
professional
development needs related to educating students with autism spectrum disorder.
Focus On Autism & Other
Developmental Disabilities, 29(2), 67-79. doi:10.1177/1088357614522290
Calheiros, M., Graa, J., & Patrcio, J. (2014). From assessing needs to designing and evaluating programs:
Case
study of a family support program in Portugal. Children & Youth Services Review,
36170-178.
doi:10.1016/j.childyouth.2013.11.012
Calheiros, M., & Patrcio, J. (2014). Assessment of needs in residential care: Perspectives of youth and professionals.
Journal Of Child & Family Studies, 23(3), 461-474. doi:10.1007/s10826-012-9702-1
Chelimsky, E. (2013). Balancing evaluation theory and practice in the real world. American Journal Of
Evaluation,
34(1), 91-98. doi:10.1177/1098214012461559
Cherner, R., Nandlal, J., Ecker, J., Aubry, T., & Pettey, D. (2013). Findings of a formative evaluation of a transitional
housing program for forensic patients discharged into the community. Journal Of
Offender Rehabilitation, 52(3),
157-180. doi:10.1080/10509674.2012.754826
Clement, T., & Bigby, C. (2011). The development and utility of a program theory: Lessons from an
evaluation of a
reputed exemplary residential support service for adults with intellectual
disability and severe challenging
behaviour in Victoria, Australia. Journal Of Applied Research In Intellectual
Disabilities, 24(6), 554-565.
doi:10.1111/j.1468-3148.2011.00634.x
Cronin, C. (2014). Using case study research as a rigorous form of inquiry. Nurse Researcher, 21(5), 19- 27.
Cudd, P. A., Mccullagh, P. J., Mountain, G. A., Black, N. D., Nugent, C. D., Zheng, H. H., & Parker, S. J.
(2012).
Knowledge transfer for technology based interventions: Collaboration, development and
evaluation. Technology
& Disability, 24(3), 233-243.
Dekking, S. S., van der Graaf, R., & van Delden, J. M. (2014). Strengths and weaknesses of guideline
approaches to
safeguard voluntary informed consent of patients within a dependent relationship.
BMC Medicine, 12(1), 1-31.
doi:10.1186/1741-7015-12-52
Doucet, S., Letourneau, N., & Stoppard, J. M. (2010). Contemporary paradigms for research related to women's
mental health. Health Care For Women International, 31(4), 296-312. doi:10.1080/07399330903518509
Duthie, K., Riddell, M., Weller, C., Coltan, L. I., Benzies, K., & Olson, D. M. (2010). Alberta's new health research
paradigms: Are graduate students being prepared for interdisciplinary team research? Clinical & Investigative
Medicine, 33(3), E213-E218.

CORE 676A&B
2

Feitelson, E. I. (2011). Issue generating assessment: Bridging the gap between evaluation theory and
practice?
Planning Theory & Practice, 12(4), 549-568. doi:10.1080/14649357.2011.626305
Fetterman, D., Rodrguez-Campos, L., Wandersman, A., & OSullivan, R. (2014). Collaborative, participatory, and
empowerment evaluation: Building a strong conceptual foundation for stakeholder
involvement approaches to
evaluation (A Response to Cousins, Whitmore, and Shulha, 2013).
American Journal Of Evaluation, 35(1), 144-148.
doi:10.1177/1098214013509875
Gallagher, K., & Wessels, A. (2011). Emergent pedagogy and affect in collaborative research: a metho- pedagogical
paradigm. Pedagogy, Culture & Society, 19(2), 239-258. doi:10.1080/14681366.2011.582260
Gasteiger-Klicpera, B., Klicpera, C., Gebhardt, M., & Schwab, S. (2013). Attitudes and experiences of
parents
regarding inclusive and special school education for children with learning and intellectual
disabilities.
International Journal Of Inclusive Education, 17(7), 663-681.
doi:10.1080/13603116.2012.706321
Glogowska, M. (2011). Paradigms, pragmatism and possibilities: mixed-methods research in speech and language
therapy. International Journal Of Language & Communication Disorders, 46(3), 251260.
doi:10.3109/13682822.2010.507614
Gringeri, C., Barusch, A., & Cambron, C. (2013). Epistemology in qualitative social work research: A
review of
published articles, 2008-2010. Social Work Research, 37(1), 55-63. doi:10.1093/swr/svs032
Hall, P., Weaver, L., & Grassau, P. (2013). Theories, relationships and interprofessionalism: Learning to weave. Journal
Of Interprofessional Care, 27(1), 73-80. doi:10.3109/13561820.2012.736889
Hamdani, Y. Y., Jetha, A. A., & Norman, C. C. (2011). Systems thinking perspectives applied to healthcare transition for
youth with disabilities: a paradigm shift for practice, policy and research. Child: Care, Health & Development, 37(6),
806-814. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2214.2011.01313.x
Heller, K. A. (2012). Different research paradigms concerning giftedness and gifted education: shall ever they meet?
High Ability Studies, 23(1), 73-75. doi:10.1080/13598139.2012.679097
Hjlund, S. (2014). Evaluation use in the organizational context changing focus to improve theory.
Evaluation,
20(1), 26-43. doi:10.1177/1356389013516053
Houghton, C., Hunter, A., & Meskell, P. (2012). Linking aims, paradigm and method in nursing research. Nurse
Researcher, 20(2), 34-39.
Isler, M., & Corbie-Smith, G. (2012). Practical steps to community engaged research: From inputs to
outcomes.
Journal Of Law, Medicine & Ethics, 40(4), 904-914. doi:10.1111/j.1748- 720X.2012.00719.x
Jarpe-Ratner, E., Fagen, M., Day, J., Gilmet, K., Prudowsky, J., Neiger, B. L., & ... Flay, B. R. (2013). Using the community
readiness model as an approach to formative evaluation. Health Promotion
Practice, 14(5), 649-655.
doi:10.1177/1524839913487538
Joshi, S. S. (2011, December). Issues associated to qualitative research paradigm. Journal of Institute of Medicine. pp. 12.
Joshi, S. S. (2013). Mixed research paradigm: A parsimonious approach! Journal Of Institute Of Medicine,
35(1),
78-81.
Kelly, C. M., LaRose, J., & Scharff, D. P. (2014). A method for building evaluation competency among
communitybased organizations. Health Promotion Practice, 15(3), 431-437. doi:10.1177/1524839913496427
Koster, R., Baccar, K., & Lemelin, R. (2012). Moving from research ON, to research WITH and FOR
Indigenous
communities: A critical reflection on community-based participatory research. Canadian Geographer, 56(2), 195-210.
doi:10.1111/j.1541-0064.2012.00428.x
Lee, C. (2012). Reconsidering constructivism in qualitative research. Educational Philosophy & Theory, 44(4), 403-412.
doi:10.1111/j.1469-5812.2010.00720.x
Mallon, G. P., Arnold, L., & Wilcox, B. L. (2011). Maybe Sophie was right: Child welfare evaluation and
research. Child
Welfare, 90(2), 5-9.
Mercer, S. H., Idler, A. M., & Bartfai, J. M. (2014). Theory-driven evaluation in school psychology intervention research:
2007-2012. School Psychology Review, 43(2), 119-131.
Mittwede, S. K. (2012). Research paradigms and their use and importance in theological inquiry and
education.
Journal Of Education & Christian Belief, 16(1), 23-40.

CORE 676A&B
3

Paavilainen, E., Lepist, S., & Flinck, A. (2014). Ethical issues in family violence research in healthcare
settings.
Nursing Ethics, 21(1), 43-52. doi:10.1177/0969733013486794
Schwartz, C., & Revicki, D. (2012, April). Mixing methods and blending paradigms: some considerations for future
research. Quality of Life Research. pp. 375-376. doi:10.1007/s11136-012-0124-8.
Shaukat, R. (2010). Moving beyond evaluation utilization theory to embrace a comprehensive theory of influence.
International Journal Of Interdisciplinary Social Sciences, 5(2), 507-518.
Smith, N. L., & Bahr, M. W. (2014). Increasing cultural competence through needs assessment and
professional
development. Professional Development In Education, 40(1), 164-181. doi:10.1080/19415257.2013.776618
Sosu, E. M., Mtika, P., & Colucci-Gray, L. (2010). Does initial teacher education make a difference? The impact of
teacher preparation on student teachers' attitudes towards educational inclusion.
Journal Of Education For
Teaching, 36(4), 389-405. doi:10.1080/02607476.2010.513847
Spector-Mersel, G. (2010). Narrative research: Time for a paradigm. Narrative Inquiry, 20(1), 204-224.
doi:10.1075/ni.20.1.10spe
Wakefield, A. (2014). Searching and critiquing the research literature. Nursing Standard, 28(39), 49-57.
Ward, K. J., Maher, E. J., Marcynyszyn, L. A., Ellis, M. K., & Pecora, P. J. (2011). Context matters: Realworld and
utilization-focused evaluation strategies to support change and improvement in child welfare. Child Welfare, 90(2),
28-47.
Willems, J., Huybrechts, G., Jegers, M., Weijters, B., Vantilborgh, T., Bidee, J., & Pepermans, R. (2012). Nonprofit
governance quality: Concept and measurement. Journal Of Social Service Research,
38(4), 561-578.
doi:10.1080/01488376.2012.703578
Yardley, A. (2014). Children describing the world: Mixed-method research by child practitioners developing an
intergenerational dialogue. Educational & Child Psychology, 31(1), 48-62.
Yilmaz, K. (2013). Comparison of quantitative and qualitative research traditions: Epistemological,
theoretical, and
methodological differences. European Journal Of Education, 48(2), 311-325.
doi:10.1111/ejed.12014
Youker, B. W. (2013). Goal-free evaluation: A potential model for the evaluation of social work programs.
Social
Work Research, 37(4), 4.
Books:
Alkin, M. (2011). Evaluation Essentials: From A to Z. New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
Alkin, M. (2012). Evaluation Roots: A Wider Perspective of Theorists Views and Influences (2nd ed.).
Thousand Oaks,
CA:
Sage Publications, Inc.
Brooks, R., te Riele, K. & Maguire, M. (2014). Ethics and Education Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications,
Inc.
Chen, H. (2014). Practical Program Evaluation: Theory-Driven Evaluation and the Integrated Evaluation Perspective (2nd
ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
Dahler, L. (2011). The Evaluation Society. Stanford: CA: Stanford University Press.
Fetterman, D., Kaftarian, S. & Wandersman, A. (2014). Empowerment Evaluation: Knowledge and Tools for
SelfAssessment, Evaluation Capacity Building and Accountability (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
Issel, M. (2009). Health Program Planning and Evaluation: A Practical, Systematic Approach for Community
Health.
Burlington, MA: Jones & Bartlett Learning
Knowlten, L. & Phillips, C. (2013). The Logic Model Guidebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
Krueger, R. & Casey, M.A. (2014). Focus Groups: A Practical Guide for Applied Research (5th ed.). Thousand
Oaks,
CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
McDavid, J., Huse, I. & Hawthorn, L. (2013). Program Evaluation and Performance Measurement (2nd ed.).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
Mertens, D. & Wilson, A. (2012). Program Evaluation Theory and Practice: A Comprehensive Guide. New York, NY: The
Guilford Press.
Patton, M.Q. (2008). Utilization Focused Evaluation (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

CORE 676A&B
4

Patton, M.Q. (2014). Qualitative Research & Evaluation Methods (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications,
Inc.
Pawson, R. (2013). The Science of Evaluation: A Realist Manifesto. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications,
Inc.
Wholey, J., Hatry, H. & Newcomer, K. (2010) Handbook of Practical Program Evaluation. San Francisco, CA:
Jossey
Bass.
Ryan, K. & Cousins, J. B. (2009). The Sage International Handbook of Educational Evaluation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications, Inc.
Yin, R. (2009). Case Study Research: Design and Methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

Further readings may be provided supplied during the term.

CORE 676A&B
5

Course Objectives
The course goals are to:
Examine research versus evaluation approaches
Understand types of evaluation
Examine philosophy, goals and effects on evaluation research
Determine scope, mission and goals of programs to establish evaluation priorities
Understand needs analysis, resource identification, planning and measurement/assessment procedures
Undertake an evaluation of a social program with a collaborating agency
Identify an evaluation question, design a process and method, collect data and make recommendations for
improvement with the agency/program.
Identify ethical standards of practice in program evaluation; examine ethical issues, dilemmas and challenges
Analyze and interpret evaluation findings,
Communicate evaluation processes
Identify management and organizational implications.
Following completion of this course, students will be able to:

Conceptualize current values, attitudes, trends in interdisciplinary social programs for vulnerable citizens
Examination of the history of disability-related social policies, programs and service delivery models.
Analysis of consumer engagement in process and outcome evaluation
Examine social program needs assessment, policy and political implications
Identify types of evaluation and methodological approaches appropriate to evaluation priorities
Examine community based service delivery systems and disability related issues.
Compare and contrast program evaluation theories and models.
Collect, analyze and manage data to communicate to stakeholders
Maintain ethical standards of practice for the evaluation project
Implications for social action research.

Academic Integrity
The Faculty of Medicine expects intellectual honesty from its students. Course participants should be
aware of University policies relating to Principles of Conduct, Plagiarism and Academic Integrity. These
are found in the printed Faculty of Graduate Studies Calendar, or online under Academic Regulations in
the Faculty of Graduate Studies Calendar, available at http://grad.ucalgary.ca/calendar
Cut Points for Grades
This course adheres to the grading system outlined in the University of Calgary, Faculty of Graduate Studies Calendar.
Grades of A+ and A are not distinguished in the calculation of GPAs. Percentage/letter grade conversion used for this
course is as follows:
Grade
A+
A
AB+
B

Grade Point
Value
4.00
4.00
3.70
3.30
3.00

Percentage
Conversion
95-100
90-94
85-89
77-84
72-76

Graduate Description
Outstanding
Excellent superior performance showing comprehensive
understanding of the subject matter
Very Good Performance
Good Performance
Satisfactory Performance

CORE 676A&B
6

BC+

2.70
2.30

68-71
63-67

Minimum Pass for Students in the Faculty of Graduate Studies


All grades below B- are indicative of failure at the graduate
level and cannot be counted toward Faculty of Graduate
Studies course requirements

Evaluation Scheme
1. Seminar presentation - 50%
a) Seminar oral presentation 25%
Due Date: January 8-10, 2015
b) Seminar paper 25%
Due Date: January 31, 2015
2. Practicum Evaluation Report - 50%
a) Oral Presentation 15%
b) Final report 35%

Due Date: Apr. block week, 2015


Due Date: Apr. 28, 2015

Late Assignments
Assignments are due on the specified date by 9 AM. Students who hand in assignments late will be penalized 5%
per day for handing in late. Assignments that are handed in 14 calendar days or more after the due date will be
refused and the students assigned a score of zero for the assignment.
Students may hand in assignments late without penalty under the following circumstances:
o The student has discussed the timelines with course instructor in advance of the due date and the course
instructor has granted an extension
o There is a valid health or family emergency such as is discussed under the University regulations for deferral
of final examinations. Students may be required to provide the Course Coordinator with such
documentation related to illness and/or emergency as is discussed and required in the University
regulations pertaining to deferral of final examinations. This information can be found in the University
Calendar.

Course Timetable
Course Description:
The course is directed towards the design, development and evaluation of community based human services for children
and adults. The theory and practicum components are designed for the student who has a sound knowledge of
disability issues, organizational and management experience and best practices in the field of community
rehabilitation.
Each student will be required to design and implement an evaluation plan for an existing program or facility.
FALL TERM
1. The Nature of Inquiry
a. How do we get at the Truth
b. Some paradigms
c. Assumptions about the paradigms
d. Some areas of self-knowledge
2. Evaluation Context
a. Values and Assumptions about human services
b. Beliefs world views
c. Skills and standards

CORE 676A&B
7

d. Personal style
3. Framework for evaluation
a. Definitions
b. Purposes
c. Evaluators roles
d. Models
e. Emphasis
4. Needs Assessment for Evaluation
a. Program areas of most interest
b. Outcomes
c. Implementation/process
d. Purpose of Inquiry
e. Needs assessment
f. Formative evaluation
g. Summative evaluation
5. The Primary Problems that Focus the Lenses of Evaluation
a. Lack of Knowledge in Situation
b. Lack of Capacity and self-determination
c. Lack of Inclusion
d. Lack of Independent perspective
e. Lack of Use of Evaluation Results
6. Major Evaluation Approaches that Offer Different Solutions
a. Experimental Designs elucidate casual connections
b. Empowerment Evaluation process engagement
c. Inclusion Evaluation target excluded, underserved populations, least advantage
d. Goal-Free Evaluation independent evaluation rendering independent judgement
e. Utilization-oriented Evaluation intended use by intended users
7. Evaluation Process
a. Different Problems, Different Solutions, Different Results
b. Lessons Learned from Matching Approach to Situation
c. Evaluation Focus

CORE 676A&B
8

Winter Term
1. Instructor consultation to student evaluation projects share the lessons learned; participation in Desire 2 Learn
sessions; regular Desire 2 Learn sessions to be scheduled.
2. Individual discussion of Evaluation Reports with instructor mentoring to prepare written and oral reports to
collaborating agency/ key stakeholders.
3. Seminar Presentation
4. Presentation of draft of final report (include use of visual media as required) in class
5. Oral presentation to collaborating agency/program
Students with Disabilities
It is the students responsibility to request academic accommodations. If you are a student with a documented disability
who may require academic accommodation and have not registered with the Disability Resource Centre, please contact
their office at 220-8237. Students who have not registered with the Disability Resource Centre are not eligible for formal
academic accommodation. You are also required to discuss your needs with your instructor no later than fourteen (14)
days after the start of this course.

Important Information
Any research in which students are invited to participate will be explained in class and
approved by the appropriate University Research Ethics Board.
Cell phones must be turned off in class unless otherwise arranged with the instructor.
Assembly points for emergencies have been identified across campus. The primary assembly
points for South Campus (Health Science Centre (HSC); Health & Research Innovation Centre
(HRIC); Heritage Medical Research Building (HMRB) and Teaching, Research and Wellness
(TRW)) are:
HSC and HMRB:HRIC Atrium (alternate assembly point is Parking Lot 6)
HRIC:
HMRB Atrium (alternate assembly point is Parking Lot 6)
TRW:
McCaig Tower (alternate assembly point is HMRB Atrium)
Information and contact for the Student Ombudsmans Office can be found at Student Ombuds
Office
The Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy (FOIP) Act indicates that assignments
given by you to your course instructor will remain confidential unless otherwise stated
before submission. The assignment cannot be returned to anyone else without your
express permission. Similarly, any information about yourself that you share with your
course instructor will not be given to anyone else without your permission.

CORE 676A&B
9

Appendix 1
Student Guidelines: Negotiation for Practicum Evaluation Project: Complete written negotiation following this format.
Prepare and submit for review and approval with instructor and collaborating agency by December.
TERMS OF REFERENCE
FOR EVALUATION PROJECT
Include a brief resume of education and professional background in order to introduce the evaluation practicum as
CORE 676; a CHS graduate course as partial fulfillment of MDCS or MSC in CRDS at U of C; include instructor contact
information.
Introduction and Purpose: including a brief description of the purview of the program/service and service users as
background to the purpose and scope of the proposed evaluation process.
Evaluation Process:
Evaluation Design: this might include the identification of stakeholders. Proposed development of methodology
and evaluation questions, review of documents as well as description of any instruments adopted or designed to
collect information. Adopt an appropriate evaluation theory and rational for the project plan; include a list of
relevant literature on best principles and practices relevant to the program evaluation priorities. Identify key
evaluation question and related sub-questions.
Data Gathering: includes method of measurement and data collection plan, participants; include a draft of
ethical considerations and relevant consent forms
Deliverables and projected timelines: include the timelines for phases of the project (i.e. data collection phase,
analysis of findings, write up, etc) as well as anticipated oral presentations and delivery of final report.
Analysis and Report of Evaluation Findings: includes evaluation plan and timelines for stages of the evaluation
process and draft updates/reports for review to ensure accuracy of information, and date of completion of final
report. Final report must incorporate peer and instructor feedback before submission at the end of April

Agreement to Conduct Evaluation

Signatures of student, key program/agency contact person and instructor


Date

References

CORE 676A&B
10

Appendix 2
Seminar Topics
Instructions:
Students will prepare and present a seminar paper on one of the following topics. Some topics are large enough to lend
themselves to collaborating with another student. This seminar presentation will provide an opportunity for colleagues
to learn from each other about specific aspects and issues of evaluation research and consultation. A written outline
and overview of materials will be required for the seminar presentation and should be circulated in advance to allow
other students to prepare for discussions. This should include copies of any graphical material and include a
comprehensive list of current references. Students are invited to discuss the preparation for this seminar in advance
with the instructor. At the time of the one-hour presentation, students are expected to teach the material to their peers
and should make notes on feedback, comments and advice from fellow students and incorporate those into the final
seminar paper submission.
Marking criteria: SEMINAR PAPER
1. Analysis/synthesis of main constructs
2. Coherent discussion of theory and practice
3. Relevant and current review of literature
4. Organized and clearly written
5. Critical appraisal of current practices/issues.
Suggested Seminar topics presentation schedule:
Student (s)

Date

Topic
Compare and contrast the major principles that guide the establishment of priorities,
planning, resources and stages of program evaluation needs assessment,
summative, formative, emphasis on process and outcomes, etc. how to get to the
central question for evaluation; stakeholder participation and implications for
funders
An examination of major types of program evaluation in human services, which lens
to use Technocratic or Participatory

Formative

Process

Summative
outcome
impact

How to gather information for purposes of evaluation methods of collecting


information, compare and contrast methods of naturalistic inquiry, qualitative
(interview, observation, etc) and quantitative (test measures, surveys, file data, etc)
methods with an emphasis on implications for data analysis and interpretation of

CORE 676A&B
11

results.
How to communicate Evaluation findings discuss formats, approaches, the
implications for funders, stakeholders, decision-makers, program users, etc.
Ethical standards, professional responsibilities in conducting program evaluation and
consultation in human services
Evaluation issues/implications for social policy, human resource development and
current resource allocation necessary to change and/or improvement in the quality
of outcomes associated with social programs
The role of program evaluation in making a difference in the lives of people with
disabilities how will we know a quality program if we see one and what would it
take to safeguard the positive features. Quality assurance and social change
Analysis of findings, reflective processes about lessons learned; Meta evaluation
implications in the life of social programs and professional evaluators
Other topics to be negotiated

Marking Criteria: SEMINAR PRESENTATIONS


1. Use adult teaching methods to convey material
2. Identifies/discusses underlying theory
3. Links theory to application (for example, practicum project)
4. Organizes presentation and presents clearly within required timeframe
5. Invites class discussion/feedback and responds appropriately to questions/debates
Final Evaluation Report Guidelines
Marking Criteria: FINAL EVALUATION REPORT
1. Clearly written evaluation question
2. Coherent presentation of theoretical issues, service delivery model and program details
3. Relevant and current review of literature related to programmatic issues
4. Organized presentation of methodology, data collection processes, results and analysis of findings
5. Clearly written recommendations and rationale for implementation
Components of a typical evaluation report
II. Executive Summary
III. Acknowledgements
IV. Introduction and Program Background
Include: description that elaborates on stated program philosophy, goals and objectives
V. Aims and Objectives of Evaluation

CORE 676A&B
12

Identification of stakeholders
VI. Procedure and Method
Rationale, literature review with justification of method,
Measurement process, tools used, information gathering processes
VI. Results
Analysis and interpretation of data collected; summary and implications for program delivery
VII. Discussion
Raise main issues what works/what does not
Rationale for conclusions- ensure evidence is provided to substantiate conclusions
Refer to other literature
Recommendations related to interpretation of findings
Include sources of error
Indicate where to go from here
Ethical Issues/Professional Issues
VII.

Recommendations
Based on results, conclusions and discussion
Prioritize under headings relevant to key questions

VIII.

Appendices:
Introductory Letters
Terms of reference
Philosophy and Goals of program
Job Descriptions of staff
Daily/Weekly Program activities
Organizational Chart
Contractual agreements with agency and funding sources
Template of Consent forms
Interview Protocol and key questions
Template of measurement tools

IX.

Resource Lists
List of useful material literature, media matter with addresses or source

Some additional considerations for writing an evaluation report


Is all or part of the report confidential?
Present and discuss draft of your report with person(s) requesting evaluation
What sort of statements needed to ensure accuracy; what statements are based on values, assumptions or
other sources of information?
Ethical considerations anonymity and confidentiality
Implementation issues related to recommendations
Questions regarding follow-up
Who will get copies of the report?

CORE 676A&B
13

You might also like