|
|
Cooperative Extension Service |
 |
|
|
|
|
Agricultural
Experiment Station |
|
|
|
|
|
U of A Board Policies
Dale Bumpers College
|
Cooperative Extension Service Departments
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Method | Purpose | Advantages and Challenges | Resources Needed |
|---|---|---|---|
| Document Review | To gather information from preexisting written materials, such as meeting minutes, reports, budgets, newspaper articles, etc. | + Most common method for evaluation + Good method for reviewing materials on how a program was implemented + Uses information that is already available |
+ Can be done by program staff themselves Takes a lot of time to review existing files, especially if program is complex and of long duration |
| Observation | To gather information on how the program
operates, or on visual changes that have resulted
|
+ Good for process evaluation, because you
can get an immediate impression about how the program is progressing Information can be difficult to interpret May be biased by how staff interpret the information Events that are seen can be time dependent, and not representative of what is really going on If people know they are being observed, they may act differently than usual |
+ Can be done by program staff themselves Takes a lot of time to review existing files, especially if program is complex and of long duration
|
| Interviews | To obtain information from individuals about their experiences, or to learn more about their answers to surveys | + Excellent for both process and outcome
evaluation, because you can get in-depth information from participants + Can ask sensitive questions that require confidentiality Data can be difficult and complex to analyze Interviewer can bias the responses |
Can take a lot of time to conduct May require data inputting and analysis programs May require assistance from a consultant to design the interview protocol and develop the database program
|
| Focus Groups
|
To hold discussions with groups of people (10-12) to understand in-depth what they believe were the effects of the program, or how they saw the program implemented | + Good for outcome evaluation, because you
can ask people to explain how the program affected them + Can identify a lot of issues and effects + Can give staff better understanding of the program from participants' own words |
+ Can be done relatively quickly (1-2 hours
per focus group) Requires a good facilitator Takes time to analyze and interpret the discussion May require extra resources for facilitator's time and participant incentives
|
| Case Studies | To describe a program or experience in depth, often using some or all of the other evaluation methods to construct a case study | + Good for combining process and outcome
evaluation + Can be a powerful way to describe the program + Can depict personal experiences, quotes, and unique program processes |
Can take a lot of time to collect information, organize and describe the program |
| Surveys and Questionnaires | To get information from individual people
about their changes in tobacco use knowledge, attitudes, and behavior
|
+ Excellent for outcome evaluation + Can get information from a lot of people + Can be done confidentially or anonymously, so may be more valid + Can be used as pre/post tests to measure changes from program educational sessions + Can use questions from existing surveys More effective when using yes/no or true/false type questions Are more impersonal for participants, and usually not good for getting quotes in participants' own words |
Takes time to develop questionnaire May require database program to manage and analyze a lot of data May require extra resources for participant incentives and data analysis
|
| KEY: + advantages |
|||
Source: Asian Pacific Partners for Empowerment and Leadership (APPEAL), Integrating Evaluation into Tobacco Programs for Asian American and Pacific Islander Communities, 2001. http://www.appealforcommunities.org
|
© 2006 |
|
|
University of Arkansas • Division of Agriculture |
Mission
•
Disclaimer
•
EEO
•
|
