OBJECTIVES: To examine the process of community-campus engagement in an initiative developed to build evaluation capacities of community-based organizations (CBOs). METHODS: Evaluability assessment, capacity-building, self administered surveys and semi-structured interviews were conducted from 2004 to 2007 and analyzed through transcript assessment and SPSS to identify trends, relationships and capacity changes over time. RESULTS: Evaluability assessment identified CBO strengths in program planning and implementation and challenges in measurable objective development, systematic use of mixed methods, data management and analysis. Evaluability assessment informed evaluation capacity-building (ECB) trainings, teleconferences and webinars that resulted in statistically significant improvements in evaluation knowledge, skills, and abilities. Post-initiative interviews indicated CBO preferences for face-to-face training in logic model development, mixed method data collection and analysis. CONCLUSION: This report illustrates the use of mixed methods to plan, implement and evaluate a model to catalyze CBOs systematic assessment of prevention initiatives and considerations in evaluation capacity-building.
OBJECTIVES: To examine the process of community-campus engagement in an initiative developed to build evaluation capacities of community-based organizations (CBOs). METHODS: Evaluability assessment, capacity-building, self administered surveys and semi-structured interviews were conducted from 2004 to 2007 and analyzed through transcript assessment and SPSS to identify trends, relationships and capacity changes over time. RESULTS: Evaluability assessment identified CBO strengths in program planning and implementation and challenges in measurable objective development, systematic use of mixed methods, data management and analysis. Evaluability assessment informed evaluation capacity-building (ECB) trainings, teleconferences and webinars that resulted in statistically significant improvements in evaluation knowledge, skills, and abilities. Post-initiative interviews indicated CBO preferences for face-to-face training in logic model development, mixed method data collection and analysis. CONCLUSION: This report illustrates the use of mixed methods to plan, implement and evaluate a model to catalyze CBOs systematic assessment of prevention initiatives and considerations in evaluation capacity-building.
Authors: W DiFranceisco; J A Kelly; L Otto-Salaj; T L McAuliffe; A M Somlai; K Hackl; T G Heckman; D R Holtgrave; D J Rompa Journal: AIDS Educ Prev Date: 1999-02
Authors: Allen Cheadle; Marianne Sullivan; James Krieger; Sandra Ciske; Molly Shaw; James K Schier; Alison Eisinger Journal: Health Educ Behav Date: 2002-06
Authors: John J M Dwyer; Barbara Hansen; Maru Barrera; Kenneth Allison; Sandra Ceolin-Celestini; Dan Koenig; Deborah Young; Margaret Good; Tim Rees Journal: Health Promot Int Date: 2003-09 Impact factor: 2.483
Authors: Suzanne B Cashman; Sarah Adeky; Alex J Allen; Jason Corburn; Barbara A Israel; Jaime Montaño; Alvin Rafelito; Scott D Rhodes; Samara Swanston; Nina Wallerstein; Eugenia Eng Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2008-06-12 Impact factor: 9.308
Authors: Latrice Rollins; Tiffany Zellner Lawrence; Tabia Henry Akintobi; Jammie Hopkins; Ananya Banerjee; Mario De La Rosa Journal: Ethn Dis Date: 2019-06-13 Impact factor: 1.847