Instructors and professors often comment that
Instructors and professors often comment that they learn much more about their subject matter when they begin to teach it. When they try to explain the topic to someone else they begin to connect concepts in new ways. They anticipate questions that students might ask, consider different viewpoints, and think more critically.
For this Discussion, take the perspective of someone who is instructing his or her colleagues and sharing your understanding of research methods and program evaluation.
To prepare for the Discussion, select an evaluation report from this week’s resources. Consider how you would present the information to a group of colleagues.
By Day 3
Post an analysis of how you would present the results of the evaluation to a group of social work colleagues. Identify the background information that you think they would need and the key message of your presentation. Explain the strategies that you might use to meet your colleagues’ interests and goals. Identify questions that your colleagues might have and what their reactions might be.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Necessary, But Not Sufficient: The McKinney-Vento Act and Academic Achievement in North Carolina Hendricks, George;Barkley, William Children & Schools; Jul 2012; 34, 3; ProQuest One Academic pg. 179
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
,
Research Article
Process Evaluation of a Positive Youth Development Program: Project P.A.T.H.S.
Ben M. F. Law 1
and Daniel T. L. Shek 2,3,4
Abstract There are only a few process evaluation studies on positive youth development programs, particularly in the Chinese context. Objectives: This study aims to examine the quality of implementation of a positive youth development program (Project Positive Adolescent Training through Holistic Social Programs [P.A.T.H.S.]) and investigate the relationships among program adherence, process factors, implementation quality, and success. Method: Process evaluation of 20 Secondary 3 classroom- based programs was conducted in 14 schools. Results: Overall program adherence, individual evaluation items, quality, and success had high ratings. Principal components analysis showed that two components, namely, implementation process and implementation context were extracted from 11 evaluation items. The correlational analysis indicated that program adherence, implementation process, and context were highly correlated with quality and success. Multiple regression analyses show that teaching process and program adherence predicted quality, whereas teaching process, teaching context, and program adherence predicted success. Conclusions: The implementation quality of the Tier 1 Program of Project P.A.T.H.S. was generally high.
Keywords Project P.A.T.H.S, process evaluation, positive youth development program
Introduction
Social work programs are specific sets of strategies and actions
that can be implemented to enhance social functioning and
problem-solving capabilities among individuals, families, and
groups. Program evaluation is a systematic assessment of the
process and outcomes of the programs with the aim of contri-
buting to the improvement of the programs, such as in deciding
whether to adopt the program further, enhancement of existing
intervention protocols, and compliance with a set of explicit or
implicit standards (Zakrzewski, Steven, & Ricketts, 2009).
This article documents the process evaluation of a large-scale
positive youth development program in Hong Kong called Pos-
itive Adolescent Training through Holistic Social Programs
(P.A.T.H.S.).
Process Evaluation in Prevention Science and Social Work Practice
Outcome evaluation focuses mainly on the results of the
programs, whereas process evaluation is concerned with how
the program is actually delivered (Dane & Schneider, 1998;
Domitrovich & Greenberg, 2000). Process evaluation is widely
adopted in prevention science, such as nursing care (Huryk,
2010; Painter et al., 2010), chronic illness prevention programs
(Braun et al., 2010; Karwalajtys et al., 2009; Mair, Hiscock,
& Beaton, 2008; Shevil & Finlayson, 2009), smoking cessation
programs (Gnich, Sheehy, Amos, Bitel, & Platt, 2008; Kwong
et al., 2009; Quintiliani, Yang, & Sorensen, 2010), dietary
programs (Allicock et al., 2010; Bowes, Marquis, Young,
Holowaty, & Issac, 2009; Hart et al., 2009; Muckelbuer,
Libuda, Clausen, & Kersting, 2009; Salmela, Poskiparta,
Kasila, Vahasarja, & Vanhala, 2009), and AIDS rehabilitation
programs (Bertens, Eiling, van den Borne, & Schaalma, 2009;
Fraze et al., 2009; Hargreaves et al., 2009; Konle-Parker, Erien,
& Dubbert, 2010; Mukoma et al., 2009). In social work prac-
tice, process evaluation has been used in family programs
(Cohen, Glynn, Hamilton, & Young, 2010; Kumpfer,
Pinyuchon, de Melo, & Whiteside, 2008) but is not commonly used
in youth programs (Beets et al., 2008; Frazen, Morrel-Samuels,
1 Department of Social Work and Social Administration, The University of
Hong Kong, Hong Kong 2 Department of Applied Social Sciences, The Hong Kong Polytechnic
University, Hong Kong 3 Public Policy Research Institute, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong
Kong 4 College of Medicine, University of Kentucky, KY, USA,
Corresponding Author:
Ben M. F. Law, Department of Social Work, The Chinese University of Hong
Kong, Hong Kong
Email: [email protected]
Research on Social Work Practice 21(5) 539-548 ª The Author(s) 2011 Reprints and permission: sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/1049731511404436 http://rsw.sagepub.com
Reischl, & Zimmerman, 2009; Johnson, Lai, Rice, Rose, &
Webber, 2010).
Process evaluation consists of five components, namely,
program adherence, implementation process, intended dosage,
macro-level implication, and process-outcome linkage
(Scheirer, 1994).
Program adherence deals with whether the program is being
delivered as intended according to the original program design.
It is an important factor affecting the quality of program imple-
mentation (Domitrovich & Greenberg, 2000; Fagan, Hanson,
Hawkins, & Arthur, 2008). True program fidelity is not easily
achieved because program implementers often change or adapt
the program content during actual implementation, whether
intentionally or otherwise. Studies have shown that a number
of preventive programs do not follow the prescribed program
content entirely, and adaptation is made to specific target
groups (Elliot & Mihalic, 2004; Nation et al., 2003). A study
has found tension between the desire of the program implemen-
ter to adhere to the manualized plan and to make adaptations in
accordance with the needs of clients (Wegner, Flisher,
Caldwell, Vergnani, & Smith, 2008). Although it is not an
easily resolved issue, program fidelity is generally encouraged,
especially when programs are designed with vigorous trial runs
and repeated success rates (Griffin et al., 2010; Johnson et al.,
2010; Wilson et al., 2009).
Process factors are those that can be observed during the
implementation process and are contingent to implementation
quality or success. There is a variety of process factors accord-
ing to the program characteristics and the needs of program
developers. Some programs even design their own process
measurements (Yamada, Stevens, Sidani, Watt-Watson, & de
Silva, 2009). There are two main groups of process indicators
in prevention science and social work programs. First is the
implementation process. It is the direct observation of the inter-
action between the program implementer and the program
receivers, such as the program receivers’ engagement and the
program implementer’s use of feedback. Second is the imple-
mentation context. It involves context factors critical to imple-
mentation, including goal attainment and background
knowledge, such as the program implementer’s familiarity with
the program receivers and the program implementer’s program
preparation.
Program dosage refers to the effort by program implemen-
ters to follow the required time prescribed for a program, as
inadequate time affects the quality of program implementation
(Bowes et al., 2009; Johnson et al., 2010). Dosage also refers to
the group size of program receivers. A discrepancy between the
intended and actual program receiver to program implementer
ratio affects the program delivery process (Frazen et al., 2009).
Process evaluation can provide important findings with
macro-level program implications, such as the importance of
engagement of different community stakeholders (Carswell,
Hanlon, O’Grady, Watts, & Pothong, 2009; Zani & Cicognani,
2010), client needs (Kwong et al., 2009), assessment of the
environment (Eisenberg, 2009; Stewart, 2008), and challenges
of the programs for a particular context (Louis et al., 2008).
Process evaluation and outcome evaluation are strongly
linked. Process evaluation sheds light on which types of inter-
ventions strategies or process are related to the program success
(Kwong et al., 2009; Painter et al., 2010). These factors can be
amplified during program reimplementation.
The components of process evaluation point toward its
importance. First, outcome evaluation provides inadequate
hints on the quality of program implementation. Process eva-
luation demystifies the ‘‘black box’’ of intervention and aids
in the understanding of the elements of program success or fail-
ure (Harachi, Abbot, Catalnao, Haggerty, & Fleming, 1999).
Process evaluation facilitates program developers to under-
stand fully the strengths and weaknesses of the developed pro-
grams. Program implementers can follow the suggestions from
the process evaluation for further program delivery. This is one
essence of evidence-based practice. It is also the foundation of
bridging the gap between research and practice (Saul et al.,
2008; Wandersman et al., 2008). Second, process evaluation
can inform program developers about whether the programs are
delivered according to some standardized manuals. The exis-
tence of other activities different from those intended by the
program developers will not truly reflect the effectiveness of
the prescribed programs. Third, different human organizations
and communities arrange the programs in various settings,
levels of involvement by the stakeholders, perceptions of the
program among program implementers and program receivers,
as well as the levels of support. Process evaluation can document
the variety of implementations in real human service settings for
the same manualized plans. Finally, process evaluation provides
insights for program developers and implementers into the link-
age between process and outcome. These insights allow both
program developers and implementers to delineate the success
and improvement areas during the process and connect them
with the program outcomes.
Project P.A.T.H.S.
Many primary prevention programs and positive youth devel-
opment programs have been developed in the West to address
the growing adolescent development problems, such as sub-
stance abuse, mental health problems, and school violence
(Shek, 2006a; Shek & Merrick, 2009). However, in Hong
Kong, there are very few systematic and multiyear positive
youth development programs. To promote holistic develop-
ment among adolescents in Hong Kong, The Hong Kong
Jockey Club Charities Trust approved the release of HK$750
million (HK$400 million for the first phase and HK$350 mil-
lion for the second phase) to launch a project entitled
‘‘P.A.T.H.S. to Adulthood: A Jockey Club Youth Enhancement
Scheme.’’ The acronym ‘‘P.A.T.H.S.’’ denotes Positive Adoles-
cent Training through Holistic Social Programs. The Trust invited
academics from five universities in Hong Kong to form a research
team to develop a multiyear universal positive youth program
(Shek & Merrick, 2009).
The project commenced in 2004 and is targeted to end by
2012. There are two tiers of programs in this project. The Tier
540 Research on Social Work Practice 21(5)
1 Program is a universal positive youth development program
where students from the Secondary 1 (Grade 7) to Secondary
3 (Grade 9) participate in a classroom-based program, normally
with 20 hr of training in the school year in each grade. Around
one fifths of adolescents with more psychosocial needs will
join the Tier 2 Program. The Tier 2 Program consists of inten-
sive training on volunteer service, adventure-based counseling
camp, and other experiential learning activities.
The overall objective of the Tier 1 Program is to promote
holistic development among junior secondary school students
in Hong Kong. The programs are designed according to 15 con-
structs conducive to adolescent development (Shek, 2006b):
promotion of bonding, cultivation of resilience, promotion of
social competence, promotion of emotional competence,
promotion of cognitive competence, promotion of behavioral
competence, promotion of moral competence, cultivation
of self-determination, promotion of spirituality, development
of self-efficacy, development of a clear and positive identity,
promotion of beliefs in the future, provision of recognition for
positive behavior, provision of opportunities for prosocial
involvement, and promotion of prosocial norms.
The Tier 1 Program has several characteristics. First, there
are 40 units per grade (each lasting for 30 min), with a total
of 120 units, for the entire Tier 1 program. The time fits well
with the Hong Kong secondary school time slots. Second, each
school can choose to implement all 40 units (full program) or
20 units (core program), according to school needs. Third, the
program content was developed by the research team and
underwent extensive integration of existing research findings,
adolescent needs, cultural characteristics, and trial teaching
runs. Fourth, relevant adolescent developmental issues, such
as drug issues, sexuality, and financial management, are incor-
porated into the program content so that it fits the current real-
life experiences of Hong Kong adolescents. Fifth, the program
implementers are either social workers or teachers who had to
undergo intensive 20-hr training before program delivery.
There are two implementation phases: the experimental
implementation phase (EIP) and the full implementation phase
(FIP). The EIP aims at accumulating experience from trial
teaching and administrative arrangement. Program materials
are revised and refined during this phase. The FIP aims at
executing the programs in full force. There are several lines
of evidence that support the effectiveness of the Tier 1
Program, including the evaluation findings based on rando-
mized group trials (e.g., Shek & Ma, 2011; Shek & Yu, 2011),
subjective outcome evaluation (e.g., Shek & Sun, 2007), quali-
tative findings based on focus group interviews with program
implementers and students (e.g., Shek & Lee, 2008), interim
evaluation (e.g., Shek, Sun, & Siu, 2008), analyses of the weekly
diaries of students (e.g., Shek, Sun, Lam, Lung, & Lo, 2008), and
case studies (e.g., Shek & Sun, 2008). The evaluation findings
based on different evaluation strategies indicate that Project
P.A.T.H.S. promotes the development of its program
participants.
Process evaluation has already been carried out in the EIP
and FIP for Secondary 1 (Shek, Ma, Lui, & Lung, 2006) and
2 students (Shek, Lee, & Sun, 2008). The evaluation results
indicate that the quality of implementation and program adher-
ence are high. The current study focuses on the Secondary
3 Tier 1 Program.
Process Evaluation for the Secondary 3 Tier 1 Program
Process evaluation for Secondary 3 students is important.
First, the Secondary 3 curriculum is different from the others.
It requires students to develop self-reflexivity during the
process. Thus, the findings of the process evaluation may be
different. Second, Secondary 3 students are cognitively more
mature and have more life exposure than their Secondary 1 and
2 counterparts. Their perception of program implementation
quality can be different. Finally, Secondary 3 students have
participated in Project P.A.T.H.S. continuously for 3 years and
have all completed the entire Tier 1 curriculum. Their feedback
represents an overall evaluation for the entire Project P.A.T.H.S.
curriculum.
The current process evaluation focuses on program adher-
ence, process factors, program quality, and success. Program
adherence is the objective estimation of the adoption percentage
from the manualized plan for real service delivery. A variety of
process factors exist. A review of literature indicates that the
following program attributes can affect the quality and success
of the positive youth development program implementation
(Collaborative for Academic, Social and Emotional Learning,
2010; Harachi et al., 1999; Nation et al., 2003; Ringwalt et al.,
2003; Tobler, Lessard, Marshall, Ochshorn, & Roona, 1999):
1. Student interest: A successful program usually elicits the
interest of students.
2. Active involvement of students: The more involved the
students are, the higher the possibility that the program
can achieve its outcomes.
3. Classroom management: The program implementer can
manage student discipline during student activities. Stu-
dents obey the requirements set by the program imple-
menter and are attentive.
4. Interactive delivery method: Interactive delivery is better
than didactic delivery for positive youth development
programs.
5. Strategies to enhance the motivation of students: The use
of various learning strategies can enhance the engage-
ment of students and result in positive learning outcomes.
6. Positive feedback: The use of praise and encouragement
throughout the lessons by the program implementers can
promote the engagement of students.
7. Familiarity of implementers with the students: All other
things being equal, a higher degree of familiarity with the
students is positively related to student learning outcome.
8. Reflective learning: The program implementer should
engage students in reflection and deeper learning.
This can lead to growth and meaningful changes among
the students.
Law and Shek 541
9. Program goal attainment: The achievement of program
goals constitutes program success.
10. Time management: Efficient time management ensures
that the majority of the program materials are carried out
with high program adherence.
11. Familiarity of program implementers with the implementa-
tion materials: Familiarity with the material ensures that
the messages are conveyed effectively to the students.
Program quality is the subjective appraisal of the program
implementation process. It can be reflected from the implemen-
tation atmosphere and the interaction between program imple-
menters and students.
Program success refers to the extent of unit objective
attainment and the subjective evaluation of the response of the
students to the program.
Against this background, the current study aims to explore
the factors related to the implementation quality and imple-
mentation success of the Secondary 3 Tier 1 Program during
the Full Implementation Phase. There are two research
questions:
1. What is the implementation quality of the Secondary 3
curriculum of the Tier 1 Program of Project P.A.T.H.S.
in Hong Kong?
2. How are program adherence and other indicators related to
the implementation quality and success of the Secondary 3
Tier 1 Program?
Method
Participants and Procedure
In total, 14 schools were randomly selected from among the
167 secondary schools that joined the Secondary 3 program
in the school year 2008/2009 for the process evaluation.
Process evaluation was carried out using systematic obser-
vations of actual classroom program delivery. For each school
joining the process evaluation, one to two program units were
evaluated by two independent observers who are project
colleagues with master’s degrees. A total of 20 units were
observed for this study. The learning units of these units
are shown in Table 1. During the observation, observers sat
at the back of the classroom and evaluated the method by which
the units were actually implemented by completing several
instruments.
After the psychometric properties of the instruments were
explored, program adherence and implementation process
components were associated with implementation quality and
success. In addition, program and implementation process
components were used to predict implementation quality and
implementation success separately.
Instruments Program adherence. Observers were requested to rate program
adherence in terms of percentage (i.e., the correspondence
between actual program delivery and stipulated program mate-
rials). Pearson correlation analyses showed that the ratings of
program adherence were highly reliable (r ¼ .86, p < .001) between raters.
Implementation Process Checklist (IPC)
The IPC consists of 11 items, which are shown in Table 2.
Items 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 8 are conceptually related to the imple-
mentation process, whereas items 7, 9, 10, and 11 are related to the
implementation context (items 7, 9, 10, and 11). Observers were
requested to report their observations using a 7-point Likert scale
ranging from 1 (extremely negative) to 7 (extremely positive).
To explore whether the conceptual distinction of these two
components is reflective from the data, principal components
analysis (PCA) with varimax rotation was used to summarize
the effects of the 11 process evaluation items. Two components
were identified with eigenvalues greater than 1.0. In addition,
the resulting scree plot of the eigenvalues revealed that the
leveling off to a straight horizontal line occurred after the
second eigenvalue. These two factors could explain 75.02% of variance.
The components emerged to reflect clearly the factors
originally proposed. The items from each subscale were loaded
on the intended components. Consistent with the conceptual
model, two components were formed, namely, implementation
process (items 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 8) and implementation
context (items 7, 9, 10, and 11).
The internal consistency of the overall IPC, as shown by
Cronbach’s a, was .93. The inter-rater reliability of the IPC, as shown by Pearson correlation, was .87 (p < .001). The inter-
nal consistency of the Implementation Process subscale was
.92 and that of the Implementation Context subscale was .82.
Process Outcomes
Two items were used to evaluate the observation outcome:
implementation quality and implementation success. Observers
were requested to indicate their observations using a 7-point
Likert scale ranging from 1 (poor) to 7 (excellent). A higher
score represents better implementation quality or success.
The inter-rater reliability for implementation quality, as shown
by Pearson correlation, was .73 (p < .001), whereas that for
implementation success was .69 (p < .001).
Results
The inter-rater reliabilities of the scores were high, allowing the
ratings of each item by the two observers across all units to be
averaged. Table 3 shows the descriptive profile of the evalua-
tion indicators for process evaluation. The overall program
adherence to the established manual ranged from 12.5% to 95.0%, with an average overall adherence of 76.18%. All other items used the 7-point scale. We set 4.50 as the cutoff point
as an indication of high or low rating; it is a more stringent
criterion instead of using the mid-point. This can differentiate
542 Research on Social Work Practice 21(5)
some factors from others and provide a more balanced
picture. The scores for implementation quality and success
were 4.63 (SD ¼ .94) and 4.68 (SD ¼ .82), which are high. The scores of the 11 process evaluation items ranged from
4.48 to 5.60. Classroom management (5.60) and familiarity
with students (5.40) had the highest scores, whereas reflective
learning (4.48) and time management (4.55) had the lowest
scores. Apart from reflective learning, all scores were on the
high side.
The 11 items were divided into the two groups of the PCA:
implementation process and context. The mean score for
implementation process was 5.03 (SD ¼ .97), whereas that for
the implementation context was 4.95 (SD ¼ .99). Both scores were on the high side.
Table 4 shows the inter-correlations among program adher-
ence, implementation process, implementation context, imple-
mentation quality, and implementation success. All variables
were highly related to each other. Quality versus success
(.98) and process versus quality (.83) had the highest correlations,
whereas process versus adherence (.51) and process versus
context (.67) had the lowest.
In addition to correlational analysis, multiple regression
analyses were also performed using program adherence,
implementation process, and implementation as independent
Table 1. Summary of the Program Objectives of the Observed Units
School Program Units Program Objectives
A MC 3.1 To discuss the differences between fairness in our ideals and in reality To understand that a system or situation of ‘‘absolute fairness’’ does not exist in reality
MC 3.2 To learn how to exercise self-reflection and how to help others To discuss ways of helping others in society
B PN 3.1 To understand that prosocial and moral consideration and analysis are essential when making decisions C PN 3.2 To understand that society has different expectations of different roles
To investigate the potential conflict between being prosocial and socially accepted behaviors D RE 3.3 To state how Mencius looked at adversity
To reflect upon oneself and how Mencius’ teachings can be applied in daily life RE 3.4 To construct a vision of one’s future family
To recognize that one needs to work hard and use resources properly so as to achieve their aspirations E BC3.1 and
BC 3.2 To understand the importance of forgiving others sincerely To learn how to forgive others for their offenses against us To learn how to observe and appreciate people and things around us
F BF 3.1 To adopt a realistic and positive attitude in exploring future careers G BC 3.2 To understand the importance of sincere forgiveness
To understand the negative influence of taking revenge on those who have offended us H BC 3.1 To understand that appreciation brings joy to oneself and others.
To learn how to observe and appreciate people and things around us, and to express sincere appreciation To learn how to respond to appreciation in a proper manner
BC 3.2 To understand the importance of sincere forgiveness To understand the negative influence of taking revenge on those who have offended us
I BF 3.2 To understand that different jobs have different requirements To be aware of the issue of gender stereotypes and their impact(s) on career choices
J BC 3.1 To understand that appreciation brings joy to oneself and others. To learn how to observe and appreciate people and things around us, and to express sincere appreciation To learn how to respond to appreciation in a proper manner
BC 3.2 To understand the importance of sincere forgiveness To understand the negative influence of taking revenge on those who have offended us
K SE 3.1 To understand that successful wealth management relies on the ability to exercise self-control and delayed gratification To understand the importance of controlling desires for unnecessary material things
SE 3.2 To understand the meaning of dreams and their importance in life To identify the personal qualities that help one overcome environmental constraints and realize dreams
L MC 3.3 To learn to cherish love relationships and to love with commitment instead of quitting easily To discuss the proper attitudes to end a love relationship
M SC 3.3 To understand the reasons for conflict among siblings To learn the proper attitude to get along with siblings
N SC 3.3 To understand the reasons for conflict among siblings To learn the proper attitude to get along with siblings
SC 3.4 To understand the reasons for conflict among friends To learn how to face and handle conflict with friends
Note. MC ¼ moral competence; PN ¼ prosocial norms; RE ¼ resilience; BC ¼ behavioral competence; BF ¼ beliefs in future; SE ¼ self-efficacy; SC ¼ social competence.
Law and Shek 543
variables. Implementation quality and implementation success
were used as two separate dependent variables. Table 5 shows
the results for the prediction of implementation quality.
Both implementation process and program adherence could
predict the quality with a large variance explained. Implemen-
tation context could not predict the quality. The effect size for
the implementation process (b ¼ .51), Cohen f 2, was .35, which is large. The effect size for program adherence (b ¼ .34) was .13, which is mediu
Collepals.com Plagiarism Free Papers
Are you looking for custom essay writing service or even dissertation writing services? Just request for our write my paper service, and we'll match you with the best essay writer in your subject! With an exceptional team of professional academic experts in a wide range of subjects, we can guarantee you an unrivaled quality of custom-written papers.
Why Hire Collepals.com writers to do your paper?
Quality- We are experienced and have access to ample research materials.
We write plagiarism Free Content
Confidential- We never share or sell your personal information to third parties.
Support-Chat with us today! We are always waiting to answer all your questions.