PUB-690 Capstone Guide
PUB-690 Capstone Guide
Option 4 – Program Evaluation Plan
Description
Evaluation is a key component of any health promotion program. Through evaluating a program, you can determine its quality and effectiveness. In PUB-620, you explored evaluation designs, process and outcome evaluation, and the CDC’s framework for evaluation. For this capstone project option, you will choose an existing program and develop a plan to evaluation that program. For the purposes of this capstone project, you will not actually be conducting an evaluation of this program. Rather, you are preparing the first step in any program evaluation which is to create a plan for the evaluation. Your program evaluation plan will include a description of the program, the purpose of the evaluation, description of stakeholders and intended users, evaluation questions, a data analysis plan with timetable, and plan for reporting and dissemination of findings. Your final program evaluation plan should include the following components:
I. Executive Summary (submitted only with Part 4)
II. Literature Review
III. Introduction and Purpose of the Evaluation
a. Purpose of the evaluation
b. Type of evaluation to be conducted
IV. Intended Users and Stakeholders
V. Program Description
a. Program objectives
b. Evaluation objectives
VI. Evaluation Questions
VII. Evaluation Design and Sample
VIII. Gathering Credible Evidence
a. Data collection methods (analytic strategy)
b. Timeline and workplan
IX. Dissemination of Evaluation Findings
X. References
XI. Appendix A: Logic Model
XII. Appendix B: Work Plan/Analytic Strategy
Deliverables
The deliverables for your program evaluation plan will be submitted in Topics 4, 8, 12, and 16. For Topics 4, 8, and 12, you will work on three separate parts of your project, according to the deliverable schedule provided below. In Topic 16, you will submit your final, completed project, including all revisions or suggested edits made by your instructor.
For each of the four deliverables (Parts 1-3 and Final Project), include a copy of the appropriate rubric (provided in this Capstone Guide) at the end of the deliverable. Your instructor will use this rubric when reviewing and grading the deliverable.
|
Deliverable |
Due Date |
Components Due |
|
Part 1 |
Topic 4 |
II, III, IV |
|
Part 2 |
Topic 8 |
V, VI, VII, XI |
|
Part 3 |
Topic 12 |
VIII, IX, XII |
|
Part 4 Final Project |
Topic 16 |
I-XII |
Descriptions of the four deliverables, including criteria, requirements, and instructions for completion are provided below.
MPH Capstone Project Part 1 (Topic 4)
The first deliverable in Topic 4 will include a literature review, an introduction and purpose of the evaluation, and a description of the intended users and stakeholders. Your literature review should focus on previously published evaluations of interventions/programs similar to the program/intervention you have chosen. The purpose of your literature review is to summarize and synthesize published studies showing evaluation results and findings for programs/interventions that address your health issue and to inform your evaluation questions.
The introduction and purpose of the evaluation section should introduce and describe the purpose for the evaluation and describe the type of evaluation to be conducted. For the purposes of this capstone project, you will not actually be conducting an evaluation of this program. Rather, you are preparing the first step in any program evaluation which is to create a plan for the evaluation. Finally, you will discuss the intended users of results or findings from this program evaluation and stakeholders related to the program evaluation (who may or may not be the same as intended users). Discuss how you intend to engage stakeholders in the evaluation process.
A helpful resource, “PUB-690: Literature Review Summary Table” (located in Class Resources), has been provided to assist you with organizing and preparing your literature review. This template can be used to summarize 7-10 scholarly sources related to your chosen health issue. The table allows you to summarize the sources you will use as evidence for your capstone option.
Please note this table is provided as a resource to help you organize sources in preparation for the literature review section of the capstone project, but will not replace the assignment, and is not submitted as an assignment for grading.
Part 1 will include the following components of your project in a narrative of 2,000-2,500 words:
III. Introduction and Purpose of the Evaluation
a. Purpose of the evaluation
b. Type of evaluation to be conducted
IV. Intended Users and Stakeholders
MPH Capstone Project Part 2 (Topic 8)
The deliverable for Topic 8 will focus on describing the program, defining program and evaluation objectives, developing the evaluation questions, and describing the evaluation design and intended sample. In addition, you will also complete a program logic model using the template at the end of this document (Appendix A).
For the description of the program, you should describe the type of program (e.g., community-based, health care-based, school-based, etc.), the target audience, the program objectives, and your evaluation objectives. Develop a logic model for the program using the template provided (Appendix A). Your evaluation questions are the questions you are answering by conducting this evaluation. They should describe what you hope to learn or gain from the evaluation. These questions are based on the type of evaluation you are conducting, the stakeholders and intended users, and the program and evaluation objectives. Finally, you will describe the evaluation design you will use for the evaluation and the intended sample from which you will collect data.
Part 2 will include the following components in a narrative of 1,000-1,250 words (not including templates/tables):
V. Program Description and Objectives
a. Program objectives
b. Evaluation objectives
VI. Evaluation Questions
VII. Evaluation Design and Intended Sample
XI. Appendix A: Logic Model
MPH Capstone Project Part 3 (Topic 12)
The deliverable for Topic 12, will focus on how you will gather credible evidence for your evaluation, including a workplan, timeline, and an analytic strategy (i.e., data collection and methods). You will also include an approach for dissemination of program evaluation results. Prepare a brief narrative overview of the data you will collect to address your evaluation questions, the stakeholders from which you will collect data, how you will collect the data, and a timeline for completion. In addition to your narrative, you will also use the template provided in this document to develop a detailed workplan/data analytic strategy and timeline (Appendix B).
For the dissemination of evaluation results, keep in mind that you will not have actual evaluation results to share. Rather, this section should focus on how you would disseminate results for the evaluation. Consider the following questions: How will the results be disseminated? What will the report include? How do you intend the results be used?
Part 3 will include the following components in a narrative of 750-1,250 words (not including templates/tables):
VIII. Gathering Credible Evidence
IX. Dissemination of Evaluation Findings
a. Data collection and methods
b. Timeline and workplan
XII. Appendix B: Work Plan/Analytic Strategy
MPH Capstone Project – Final Project (Topic 16)
In Topic 16, you will submit your final, completed capstone project. Your project should include revised sections of the parts submitted in Topics 4, 8, and 12 and include new elements that you have not previously submitted for review: Executive Summary (I) which is placed at the beginning of your completed capstone project after the title page and a complete list of References (X) at the end of your completed project before Appendices.
The final project will be a narrative of 4,000-6,500 words and include all components listed in the order below. Be sure to revise each section based on feedback from your instructor.
I. Executive Summary
II. Literature Review
III. Introduction and Purpose of the Evaluation
IV. Intended Users and Stakeholders
V. Program Description and Objectives
VI. Evaluation Questions
VII. Evaluation Design and Intended Sample
VIII. Gathering Credible Evidence
IX. Dissemination of Evaluation Findings
X. References
XI. Appendix A: Logic Model
XII. Appendix B: Workplan/Analytic Strategy
|
Legend Inputs: What Activities: What does Outputs: What will Short-Term Mid-Term Long-Term |
|
PUB-690 Appendix A. Logic Model
Program Evaluation Capstone Option
|
 |
|
Program: Target audience
|
|
Inputs |
|
Long-Term Outcomes |
|
Mid-Term Outcomes |
|
Short-Term Outcomes |
|
Outputs |
|
Activities |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
PUB-690 Appendix B. Work Plan/Analytic Strategy
Program Evaluation Plan Capstone Option
For the program evaluation plan option: Complete the table below using the examples provided. List the evaluation questions for your program evaluation plan, identify the data collection method for each evaluation question, identify the person or position responsible for collection of the data, and provide the timeline for completion. Add additional rows as needed.
*Add columns as needed to capture all data collection methods and stakeholders from whom data/information will be collected.
|
|
Data Collection Methods |
|
|
||
|
Evaluation Questions |
Survey of (specify stakeholder) |
Interview (specify stakeholder) |
Observation of (specify stakeholder) |
Person Responsible |
Timeline |
|
Example: Was the target population reached as intended? |
|
Participants |
|
Program Director |
End of Quarter 1 |
|
Example: Were participants of the program satisfied with the program? |
Participants |
|
|
Program Director |
End of Quarter 2 |
|
Example: Is the program partnership comprised of diverse stakeholders? |
|
|
Coalition members |
Coalition Manager |
End of Quarter 3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rubric: MPH Capstone Project Part 1 (Topic 4)
(Capstone Option 4 – Program Evaluation Plan)
|
Criteria |
% Value |
Unsatisfactory |
Insufficient |
Approaching |
Acceptable |
Target |
|
% Scaling |
|
0% |
74% |
79% |
87% |
100% |
|
Content – 70% |
||||||
|
Literature Review |
30% |
Literature review is not present. |
Literature review is presented but is incomplete. |
N/A |
Literature review is presented and mostly complete but needs more detail. |
Literature review is complete and presented with enough detail to understand the background for the evaluation. |
|
Introduction, Purpose, and Type of Evaluation |
20% |
Introduction, purpose, and type of evaluation are not present. |
Introduction, purpose, and type of evaluation are presented but are incomplete. |
Introduction, purpose, and type of evaluation are presented but are insufficiently described. |
Introduction, purpose, and type of evaluation are presented and mostly complete but need minor detail. |
Introduction, purpose, and type of evaluation are complete and presented with enough detail to understand why the evaluation is necessary. |
|
Intended Users and Stakeholders
|
20% |
Discussion of intended users and stakeholders is not present. |
Discussion of intended users and stakeholders is presented but is incomplete. |
N/A |
Discussion of intended users and stakeholders is presented and mostly complete but needs more detail. |
Discussion of intended users and stakeholders is complete and presented with enough detail to understand why the evaluation is necessary. |
|
Organization, Effectiveness, and Format – 30% |
||||||
|
Thesis, Position, or Purpose |
7% |
The thesis, position, or purpose is not discernible. No awareness of the appropriate audience is evident. |
The thesis, position, or purpose is discernable in most aspects but is occasionally weak or unclear. There is limited awareness of the appropriate audience. |
The thesis, position, or purpose is adequately developed. An awareness of the appropriate audience is demonstrated. |
The thesis, position, or purpose is clearly communicated throughout and clearly directed to a specific audience. |
The thesis, position, or purpose is persuasively developed throughout and skillfully directed to a specific audience. |
|
Development, Structure, and Conclusion |
8% |
No advancement of the thesis, position, or purpose is evident. Connections between paragraphs are missing or inappropriate. No conclusion is offered. |
Limited advancement of thesis, position, or purpose is discernable. There are inconsistencies in organization or the relationship of ideas. Conclusion is simplistic and not fully aligned to the development of the purpose. |
The thesis, position, or purpose is advanced in most aspects. Ideas clearly build on each other. Conclusion aligns to the development of the purpose. |
The thesis, position, or purpose is logically advanced throughout. The progression of ideas is coherent and unified. A clear and plausible conclusion aligns to the development of the purpose. |
The thesis, position, or purpose is coherently and cohesively advanced throughout. The progression of ideas is coherent and unified. A convincing and unambiguous conclusion aligns to the development of the purpose. |
|
Evidence |
5% |
Evidence to support the thesis, position, or purpose is absent. The writing relies entirely on the perspective of the writer. |
Evidence is used but is insufficient or of limited relevance. Simplistic explanation or integration of other perspectives is present. |
Relevant evidence that includes other perspectives is used. |
Specific and appropriate evidence is included. Other perspectives are integrated. |
Comprehensive and compelling evidence is included. Multiple other perspectives are integrated effectively. |
|
Mechanics of Writing |
5% |
Errors in grammar or syntax are pervasive and impede meaning. Incorrect language choice or sentence structure errors are found throughout. |
Frequent and repetitive mechanical errors are present. Inconsistencies in language choice or sentence structure are recurrent. |
Occasional mechanical errors are present. Language choice is generally appropriate. Varied sentence structure is attempted. |
Few mechanical errors are present. Suitable language choice and sentence structure are used. |
No mechanical errors are present. Skilled control of language choice and sentence structure are used throughout. |
|
Format/Documentation |
5% |
Appropriate format is not used. No documentation of sources is provided. |
Appropriate format is attempted, but some elements are missing. Frequent errors in documentation of sources are evident. |
Appropriate format and documentation are used, although there are some obvious errors. |
Appropriate format and documentation are used with only minor errors. |
No errors in formatting or documentation are present. Selectivity in the use of direct quotations and synthesis of sources is demonstrated. |
Rubric: MPH Capstone Project Part 2 (Topic 8)
(Capstone Option 4 – Program Evaluation Plan)
|
Criteria |
% Value |
Unsatisfactory |
Insufficient |
Approaching |
Acceptable |
Target |
|
% Scaling |
|
0% |
74% |
79% |
87% |
100% |
|
Content – 70% |
||||||
|
Program Description |
10% |
Program description is not present. |
Program description is presented, but incomplete. |
Program description is presented but needs more detail. |
Program description is presented, but minor detail is needed. |
Program description is complete and well-described. |
|
Program and Evaluation Objectives |
15% |
Program and evaluation objectives are not included. |
Program and evaluation objectives are included but are incomplete. |
Program and evaluation objectives are insufficiently developed or not aligned with the program evaluation. |
Program and evaluation objectives are correct but minor detail is needed. |
Program and evaluation objectives are clearly presented, correct, and aligned well to the program evaluation. |
|
Evaluation Questions |
15% |
Evaluation questions are not present. |
Evaluation questions are presented but incomplete. |
Evaluation questions are presented but need more detail. |
Evaluation questions are presented, but minor detail is needed. |
Well-developed evaluation questions for the program evaluation are presented. |
|
Program Evaluation Design and Intended Sample |
15% |
Description of the program evaluation design and intended sample is not present. |
Description of the program evaluation design and intended sample is presented but is incomplete or incorrect. |
Description of the program evaluation design and intended sample is presented but needs more detail. The methods may be insufficiently described or not aligned with the program evaluation. |
Description of the program evaluation design and intended sample is presented. The methods described are correct but minor detail is needed. |
Description of the program evaluation design and intended sample is clearly presented, correct, and aligned well with the evaluation objectives. |
|
Logic Model |
15% |
Logic model is not present. |
Logic model is presented but is incomplete. |
Logic model is presented but needs more detail. |
Logic model is presented, but minor detail is needed. |
Logic model is complete. |
|
Organization, Effectiveness, and Format – 30% |
||||||
|
Thesis, Position, or Purpose |
7% |
The thesis, position, or purpose is not discernible. No awareness of the appropriate audience is evident. |
The thesis, position, or purpose is discernable in most aspects but is occasionally weak or unclear. There is limited awareness of the appropriate audience. |
The thesis, position, or purpose is adequately developed. An awareness of the appropriate audience is demonstrated. |
The thesis, position, or purpose is clearly communicated throughout and clearly directed to a specific audience. |
The thesis, position, or purpose is persuasively developed throughout and skillfully directed to a specific audience. |
|
Development, Structure, and Conclusion |
8% |
No advancement of the thesis, position, or purpose is evident. Connections between paragraphs are missing or inappropriate. No conclusion is offered. |
Limited advancement of thesis, position, or purpose is discernable. There are inconsistencies in organization or the relationship of ideas. Conclusion is simplistic and not fully aligned to the development of the purpose. |
The thesis, position, or purpose is advanced in most aspects. Ideas clearly build on each other. Conclusion aligns to the development of the purpose. |
The thesis, position, or purpose is logically advanced throughout. The progression of ideas is coherent and unified. A clear and plausible conclusion aligns to the development of the purpose. |
The thesis, position, or purpose is coherently and cohesively advanced throughout. The progression of ideas is coherent and unified. A convincing and unambiguous conclusion aligns to the development of the purpose. |
|
Evidence |
5% |
Evidence to support the thesis, position, or purpose is absent. The writing relies entirely on the perspective of the writer. |
Evidence is used but is insufficient or of limited relevance. Simplistic explanation or integration of other perspectives is present. |
Relevant evidence that includes other perspectives is used. |
Specific and appropriate evidence is included. Other perspectives are integrated. |
Comprehensive and compelling evidence is included. Multiple other perspectives are integrated effectively. |
|
Mechanics of Writing |
5% |
Errors in grammar or syntax are pervasive and impede meaning. Incorrect language choice or sentence structure errors are found throughout. |
Frequent and repetitive mechanical errors are present. Inconsistencies in language choice or sentence structure are recurrent. |
Occasional mechanical errors are present. Language choice is generally appropriate. Varied sentence structure is attempted. |
Few mechanical errors are present. Suitable language choice and sentence structure are used. |
No mechanical errors are present. Skilled control of language choice and sentence structure are used throughout. |
|
Format/Documentation |
5% |
Appropriate format is not used. No documentation of sources is provided. |
Appropriate format is attempted, but some elements are missing. Frequent errors in documentation of sources are evident. |
Appropriate format and documentation are used, although there are some obvious errors. |
Appropriate format and documentation are used with only minor errors. |
No errors in formatting or documentation are present. Selectivity in the use of direct quotations and synthesis of sources is demonstrated. |
Rubric: MPH Capstone Project Part 3 (Topic 12)
(Capstone Option 4 – Program Evaluation Plan)
|
Criteria |
% Value |
Unsatisfactory |
Insufficient |
Approaching |
Acceptable |
Target |
|
% Scaling |
|
0% |
74% |
79% |
87% |
100% |
|
Content – 70% |
||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gathering Credible Evidence |
30% |
Description of the data to be collected is not present. |
Description of the data to be collected is presented but is incomplete or incorrect. |
Description of the data to be collected is presented but needs more detail. The discussion is insufficient or missing details relevant to the program evaluation. |
Description of the data to be collected is presented. The discussion is relevant to the evaluation, but minor detail is needed. |
Description of the data to be collected is clearly presented and appropriate for the program evaluation. Details are thorough and aligned with the purpose. |
|
Dissemination of Evaluation Findings |
20% |
Description of a plan to disseminate evaluation findings is not present. |
Description of the dissemination plan is presented but is incomplete or incorrect. |
Description of the dissemination plan is presented but needs more detail. The plan may be insufficient or missing details relevant to the program evaluation. |
Description of the dissemination plan is presented. The plan is relevant to the evaluation, but minor detail is needed. |
Description of the dissemination plan is clearly presented and appropriate for the program evaluation. Details are thorough and aligned with the purpose. |
|
Workplan/Analytic Strategy |
20% |
Workplan/Analytic strategy is not presented. |
Workplan/Analytic strategy is presented but is incomplete or incorrect. |
N/A |
Workplan/Analytic strategy is presented, but minor detail is needed. |
Workplan/Analytic strategy is clearly presented and appropriate for the program evaluation. |
|
Organization, Effectiveness, and Format – 30% |
||||||
|
Thesis, Position, or Purpose |
7% |
The thesis, position, or purpose is not discernible. No awareness of the appropriate audience is evident. |
The thesis, position, or purpose is discernable in most aspects but is occasionally weak or unclear. There is limited awareness of the appropriate audience. |
The thesis, position, or purpose is adequately developed. An awareness of the appropriate audience is demonstrated. |
The thesis, position, or purpose is clearly communicated throughout and clearly directed to a specific audience. |
The thesis, position, or purpose is persuasively developed throughout and skillfully directed to a specific audience. |
|
Development, Structure, and Conclusion |
8% |
No advancement of the thesis, position, or purpose is evident. Connections between paragraphs are missing or inappropriate. No conclusion is offered. |
Limited advancement of thesis, position, or purpose is discernable. There are inconsistencies in organization or the relationship of ideas. Conclusion is simplistic and not fully aligned to the development of the purpose. |
The thesis, position, or purpose is advanced in most aspects. Ideas clearly build on each other. Conclusion aligns to the development of the purpose. |
The thesis, position, or purpose is logically advanced throughout. The progression of ideas is coherent and unified. A clear and plausible conclusion aligns to the development of the purpose. |
The thesis, position, or purpose is coherently and cohesively advanced throughout. The progression of ideas is coherent and unified. A convincing and unambiguous conclusion aligns to the development of the purpose. |
|
Evidence |
5% |
Evidence to support the thesis, position, or purpose is absent. The writing relies entirely on the perspective of the writer. |
Evidence is used but is insufficient or of limited relevance. Simplistic explanation or integration of other perspectives is present. |
Relevant evidence that includes other perspectives is used. |
Specific and appropriate evidence is included. Other perspectives are integrated. |
Comprehensive and compelling evidence is included. Multiple other perspectives are integrated effectively. |
|
Mechanics of Writing |
5% |
Errors in grammar or syntax are pervasive and impede meaning. Incorrect language choice or sentence structure errors are found throughout. |
Frequent and repetitive mechanical errors are present. Inconsistencies in language choice or sentence structure are recurrent. |
Occasional mechanical errors are present. Language choice is generally appropriate. Varied sentence structure is attempted. |
Few mechanical errors are present. Suitable language choice and sentence structure are used. |
No mechanical errors are present. Skilled control of language choice and sentence structure are used throughout. |
|
Format/Documentation |
5% |
Appropriate format is not used. No documentation of sources is provided. |
Appropriate format is attempted, but some elements are missing. Frequent errors in documentation of sources are evident. |
Appropriate format and documentation are used, although there are some obvious errors. |
Appropriate format and documentation are used with only minor errors. |
No errors in formatting or documentation are present. Selectivity in the use of direct quotations and synthesis of sources is demonstrated. |
Rubric: MPH Capstone Project – Final Project (Topic 16)
(Capstone Option 4 – Program Evaluation Plan)
|
Criteria |
% Value |
1: Unsatisfactory |
2: Insufficient |
3: Approaching |
4: Acceptable |
5: Target |
|
% Scaling |
|
0% |
74% |
79% |
87% |
100% |
|
Content – 70% |
||||||
|
Executive Summary |
10% |
Executive summary is not present. |
Executive summary is presented but is incomplete, incorrect, or not aligned with the program evaluation.
|
Executive summary is presented and summarizes the program evaluation, but detail is needed. One or more parts may be missing. |
Executive summary is presented and summarizes the program evaluation, but minor detail is needed. |
Executive summary is presented clearly and accurately summarizes the program evaluation. The executive summary provides sufficient detail. |
|
Revised Literature Review |
5% |
Literature review is not present. The final literature review contains no (or very minimal) revisions or incorporation of feedback. |
Literature review is presented but is incomplete. An attempt at revising the literature review is made, but the changes offer minimal improvement. |
N/A |
Literature review is presented and mostly complete but needs more detail. A revision of the final literature review is made. Overall, revisions or incorporation of feedback from prior assignments provide an effective literature review. |
Literature review is complete and presented with enough detail to understand the background. The revision of the literature review is evident, and improvement is significant. The changes provide an exemplary literature review. |
|
Revised Introduction, Purpose, and Type of Evaluation |
5% |
Introduction, purpose, and type of evaluation are not present. The final introduction, purpose, and type of evaluation contain no (or very minimal) revisions or incorporation of feedback. |
Introduction, purpose, and type of evaluation are presented but are incomplete. An attempt at revising the introduction, purpose, and type of evaluation is made. The changes offer minimal improvement. |
Introduction, purpose, and type of evaluation are presented but are insufficiently described. A general revision of the description of the introduction, purpose, and type of evaluation is made. Overall, the changes offer some improvement. |
Introduction, purpose, and type of evaluation are presented and mostly complete but need more detail. Overall, the changes create an effective introduction, purpose, and type of evaluation. |
Introduction, purpose, and type of evaluation are complete and presented with enough detail to understand why the evaluation is being conducted. The revision of the introduction, purpose, and type of evaluation is evident, and improvement is significant. The changes provide an exemplary introduction and purpose of evaluation. |
|
Revised Intended Users and Stakeholders |
5% |
Description of intended users and stakeholders is not present. The final version of description of intended users and stakeholders contains no (or very minimal) revisions or incorporation of feedback. |
Description of intended users and stakeholders is incomplete. An attempt at revising the description of intended users and stakeholders is made. The changes offer minimal improvement. |
N/A |
Description of intended users and stakeholders is included but minor detail is needed. A revision of the description of intended users and stakeholders is made. Overall, the changes create an effective description of the intended users and stakeholders. |
Intended users and stakeholders for the program evaluation are clear. The revision of the description of the intended users and stakeholders is evident, and improvement is significant. The changes provide an exemplary description of the intended users and stakeholders. |
|
Revised Program Description |
5% |
Program description is not present. The final version of the program description contains no (or very minimal) revisions or incorporation of feedback. |
Program description is incomplete. An attempt at revising the program description is made. The changes offer minimal improvement. |
Program description is presented but needs more detail. A general revision of the program description is made. Overall, the changes offer some improvement. |
Program description is presented, but minor detail is needed. A revision of the program description is made. Overall, the changes create an effective program description. |
A well-developed program description is presented. The revision of the program description is evident, and improvement is significant. The changes provide an exemplary program description. |
|
Revised Program and Evaluation Objectives |
5% |
Program and evaluation objectives are not included. The final version of program and evaluation objectives contains no (or very minimal) revisions or incorporation of feedback. |
Program and evaluation objectives are included but are incomplete. An attempt at revising program and evaluation objectives is made. The changes offer minimal improvement. |
Program and evaluation objectives are insufficiently developed. A general revision of the program and evaluation objectives is made. Overall, the changes offer some improvement. |
Program and evaluation objectives are correct but minor detail is needed. A revision of the program and evaluation objectives is made. Overall, the changes create an effective description. |
Program and evaluation objectives are clearly presented, correct, and well aligned to the program evaluation. The revision of program and evaluation objectives is evident, and improvement is significant. The changes provide an exemplary description. |
|
Revised Evaluation Questions |
10% |
Evaluation questions are not present. Evaluation methods are not present. The final version of the evaluation questions and methods contains no (or very minimal) revisions or incorporation of feedback from prior assignments. |
An attempt at revising the evaluation questions is made. Evaluation methods are incomplete. The changes offer minimal improvement. |
A general revision of the final evaluation questions and methods is made. Overall, the changes offer some improvement. |
A revision of the final evaluation questions and method is made, but more detail is needed. Overall, the changes create an effective description of the evaluation questions and methods. |
The revision of the evaluation questions and methods is evident, and improvement is significant. The changes provide an exemplary description of the evaluation questions and methods. |
|
Revised Evaluation Design and Intended Sample |
5% |
Description of the program evaluation design and intended sample are not present. The final version of the design and sample contains no (or very minimal) revisions or incorporation of feedback. |
Description of the program evaluation design and intended sample are presented but is incomplete or incorrect. An attempt at revising is made. The changes offer minimal improvement.
|
A general revision of the final evaluation design and intended sample is made. Overall, the changes offer some improvement. |
A revision of the final evaluation design and intended sample is made, but more detail is needed. Overall, the changes create an effective description of the design and sample. |
The revision of the evaluation design and intended sample is evident, and improvement is significant. The changes provide an exemplary description of the design and sample. |
|
Revised Gathering Credible Evidence |
5% |
Description of the data to be collected is not present. The final version contains no (or very minimal) revisions or incorporation of feedback from prior assignments. |
Description of the data to be collected is presented but is incomplete or incorrect. An attempt at revising the dissemination plan is made. The changes offer minimal improvement. |
Description of the data to be collected is presented but needs more detail. A general revision of the dissemination plan is made. Overall, the changes show some improvement. |
A revision of the data to be collected is made. Overall, the changes create an effective description of data collection methods. |
The revision of the data to be collected is evident and is aligned with the program evaluation objectives. The improvement is significant. The changes provide an exemplary description of data collection methods. |
|
Revised Logic Model |
5% |
Logic model is present. The final version of the logic model contains no (or very minimal) revisions or incorporation of feedback from prior assignments. |
Logic model is incomplete. The changes offer minimal improvement. |
Logic model is presented but needs more detail. Overall, the changes offer some improvement. |
Logic model is presented, but minor detail is needed. Overall, the changes create an effective logic model. |
Logic model is well developed. The changes provide an exemplary logic model. |
|
Revised Dissemination of Evaluation Findings |
5% |
Description of the dissemination of evaluation findings is not present. The dissemination plan contains no (or very minimal) revisions or incorporation of feedback from prior assignments. |
Description of the dissemination of evaluation findings is incomplete or incorrect. An attempt at revising the dissemination plan is made. The changes offer minimal improvement. |
Description of the dissemination of evaluation findings is presented and described, but more detail is needed. A general revision of the dissemination plan is made. Overall, the changes show some improvement. |
A revision of the final dissemination of evaluation findings is made. Overall, the changes create an effective dissemination plan. |
The revision of the dissemination of evaluation findings is evident and is aligned with the program evaluation objectives. The improvement is significant. The changes provide an exemplary dissemination plan. |
|
Revised Workplan/Analytic Strategy |
5% |
Description of the workplan/analytic strategy method is not present. The workplan/analytic strategy contains no (or very minimal) revisions or incorporation of feedback from prior assignments. |
Description of the workplan/analytic strategy method is presented but is incomplete or incorrect. An attempt at revising the workplan/analytic strategy is made. The changes offer minimal improvement. |
Description of the workplan/analytic strategy method is presented but needs more detail. A general revision of workplan/analytic strategy is made. Overall, the changes show some improvement. |
Description of the workplan/analytic strategy is presented. A revision of the final workplan/analytic strategy is made. Overall, the changes have created an effective workplan/analytic strategy. |
Description of the workplan/analytic strategy is clearly presented, correct, and well aligned with the evaluation objectives. The changes provide an exemplary workplan/analytic strategy. |
|
Organization, Effectiveness, and Format – 30% |
||||||
|
Thesis, Position, or Purpose |
7% |
The thesis, position, or purpose is not discernible. No awareness of the appropriate audience is evident. |
The thesis, position, or purpose is discernable in most aspects but is occasionally weak or unclear. There is limited awareness of the appropriate audience. |
The thesis, position, or purpose is adequately developed. An awareness of the appropriate audience is demonstrated. |
The thesis, position, or purpose is clearly communicated throughout and clearly directed to a specific audience. |
The thesis, position, or purpose is persuasively developed throughout and skillfully directed to a specific audience. |
|
Development, Structure, and Conclusion |
8% |
No advancement of the thesis, position, or purpose is evident. Connections between paragraphs are missing or inappropriate. No conclusion is offered. |
Limited advancement of thesis, position, or purpose is discernable. There are inconsistencies in organization or the relationship of ideas. Conclusion is simplistic and not fully aligned to the development of the purpose. |
The thesis, position, or purpose is advanced in most aspects. Ideas clearly build on each other. Conclusion aligns to the development of the purpose. |
The thesis, position, or purpose is logically advanced throughout. The progression of ideas is coherent and unified. A clear and plausible conclusion aligns to the development of the purpose. |
The thesis, position, or purpose is coherently and cohesively advanced throughout. The progression of ideas is coherent and unified. A convincing and unambiguous conclusion aligns to the development of the purpose. |
|
Evidence |
5% |
Evidence to support the thesis, position, or purpose is absent. The writing relies entirely on the perspective of the writer. |
Evidence is used but is insufficient or of limited relevance. Simplistic explanation or integration of other perspectives is present. |
Relevant evidence that includes other perspectives is used. |
Specific and appropriate evidence is included. Other perspectives are integrated. |
Comprehensive and compelling evidence is included. Multiple other perspectives are integrated effectively. |
|
Mechanics of Writing |
5% |
Errors in grammar or syntax are pervasive and impede meaning. Incorrect language choice or sentence structure errors are found throughout. |
Frequent and repetitive mechanical errors are present. Inconsistencies in language choice or sentence structure are recurrent. |
Occasional mechanical errors are present. Language choice is generally appropriate. Varied sentence structure is attempted. |
Few mechanical errors are present. Suitable language choice and sentence structure are used. |
No mechanical errors are present. Skilled control of language choice and sentence structure are used throughout. |
|
Format/Documentation |
5% |
Appropriate format is not used. No documentation of sources is provided. |
Appropriate format is attempted, but some elements are missing. Frequent errors in documentation of sources are evident. |
Appropriate format and documentation are used, although there are some obvious errors. |
Appropriate format and documentation are used with only minor errors. |
No errors in formatting or documentation are present. Selectivity in the use of direct quotations and synthesis of sources is demonstrated. |
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.
Get ZERO PLAGIARISM, HUMAN WRITTEN ESSAYS
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.
