Diane O Dunet1, Michele Reyes. 1. Division of Nutrition and Physical Activity, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Atlanta, GA 30341-3719, USA. ddunet@cdc.gov
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Different people who have a stake or interest in a training course (stakeholders) may have markedly different definitions of what constitutes "training success" and how they will use evaluation results. METHODS: Stakeholders at multiple levels within and outside of the organization guided the development of an evaluation plan for a Web-based training course on hemochromatosis. Stakeholder interests and values were reflected in the type, level, and rigor of evaluation methods selected. Our mixed-method evaluation design emphasized small sample sizes and repeated measures. RESULTS: Limited resources for evaluation were leveraged by focusing on the data needs of key stakeholders, understanding how they wanted to use evaluation results, and collecting data needed for stakeholder decision making. Regular feedback to key stakeholders provided opportunities for updating the course evaluation plan to meet emerging needs for new or different information. Early and repeated involvement of stakeholders in the evaluation process also helped build support for the final product. Involving patient advocacy groups, managers, and representative course participants improved the course and enhanced product dissemination. DISCUSSION: For training courses, evaluation planning is an opportunity to tailor methods and data collection to meet the information needs of particular stakeholders. Rigorous evaluation research of every training course may be infeasible or unwarranted; however, course evaluations can be improved by good planning. A stakeholder-focused approach can build a picture of the results and impact of training while fostering the practical use of evaluation data.
INTRODUCTION: Different people who have a stake or interest in a training course (stakeholders) may have markedly different definitions of what constitutes "training success" and how they will use evaluation results. METHODS: Stakeholders at multiple levels within and outside of the organization guided the development of an evaluation plan for a Web-based training course on hemochromatosis. Stakeholder interests and values were reflected in the type, level, and rigor of evaluation methods selected. Our mixed-method evaluation design emphasized small sample sizes and repeated measures. RESULTS: Limited resources for evaluation were leveraged by focusing on the data needs of key stakeholders, understanding how they wanted to use evaluation results, and collecting data needed for stakeholder decision making. Regular feedback to key stakeholders provided opportunities for updating the course evaluation plan to meet emerging needs for new or different information. Early and repeated involvement of stakeholders in the evaluation process also helped build support for the final product. Involving patient advocacy groups, managers, and representative course participants improved the course and enhanced product dissemination. DISCUSSION: For training courses, evaluation planning is an opportunity to tailor methods and data collection to meet the information needs of particular stakeholders. Rigorous evaluation research of every training course may be infeasible or unwarranted; however, course evaluations can be improved by good planning. A stakeholder-focused approach can build a picture of the results and impact of training while fostering the practical use of evaluation data.
Authors: Daniel Cukor; Lewis M Cohen; Elizabeth L Cope; Nasrollah Ghahramani; S Susan Hedayati; Denise M Hynes; Vallabh O Shah; Francesca Tentori; Mark Unruh; Jeanette Bobelu; Scott Cohen; Laura M Dember; Thomas Faber; Michael J Fischer; Rani Gallardo; Michael J Germain; Donica Ghahate; Nancy Grote; Lori Hartwell; Patrick Heagerty; Paul L Kimmel; Nancy Kutner; Susan Lawson; Lisa Marr; Robert G Nelson; Anna C Porter; Phillip Sandy; Bruce B Struminger; Lalita Subramanian; Steve Weisbord; Bessie Young; Rajnish Mehrotra Journal: Clin J Am Soc Nephrol Date: 2016-05-19 Impact factor: 8.237