Evaluation Review: Choose One Article From The List Below

Evaluation Reviewchoose One Article From the Below List To Use As The

Choose one article from the below list to use as the basis of the evaluation review. All articles are available via the Ashford Library in the database listed. Coulon, S. M., Wilson, D. K., Griffin, S., St George, S. M., Alia, K. A., Trumpeter, N. N.,. . . Gadson, B. (2012). Formative process evaluation for implementing a social marketing intervention to increase walking among African Americans in the positive action for today's health trial. American Journal of Public Health, ). Retrieved from the ProQuest database. Klesges, R. C., Talcott, W., Ebbert, J. O., Murphy, J. G., McDevitt-Murphy, M. E., Thomas, F., & ... Nicholas, R. A. (2013). Effect of the alcohol misconduct prevention program (AMPP) in Air Force technical training. Military Medicine, 178 (4), . doi:10.7205/MILMED-D-. Retrieved from the EBSCO database. Mason-Jones, A., Mathews, C., & Flisher, A. J. (2011). Can peer education make a difference? Evaluation of a South African adolescent peer education program to promote sexual and reproductive health. AIDS and Behavior, 15 (8), . doi: Retrieved from the ProQuest database. Palm Reed, K. M., Hines, D. A., Armstrong, J. L., & Cameron, A. Y. (2015). Experimental evaluation of a bystander prevention program for sexual assault and dating violence. Psychology Of Violence, 5 (1), 95-102. doi:10.1037/a. Retrieved from the EBSCO database.

Paper For Above instruction

The evaluation of public health programs is a critical process that ensures interventions are effective, efficient, and capable of achieving desired outcomes. Among the selected articles for review, the study by Coulon et al. (2012) on the social marketing intervention aimed at increasing walking among African Americans offers valuable insights into the evaluation methodologies applied in health promotion programs. This evaluation exemplifies a thorough process that encompasses multiple phases, each designed to assess different facets of the intervention's implementation and impact.

Program Description

The targeted program by Coulon et al. (2012) was a social marketing intervention structured to promote increased walking activity among African American communities. Rooted in behavioral change theories, the program employed culturally tailored messaging, community engagement strategies, and environmental modifications to encourage physical activity. The intervention aimed to address barriers such as lack of motivation, limited access to safe walking environments, and cultural perceptions about exercise.

Summary of Evaluation and Findings

The evaluation conducted by Coulon et al. (2012) employed a formative process evaluation approach, focusing on understanding the implementation process, community reception, and preliminary outcomes. The study utilized mixed methods, including surveys, focus groups, and observational assessments, to gather comprehensive data. The findings indicated that the intervention was well-received by the community, with increased awareness and participation in walking activities. However, challenges such as inconsistent message dissemination and environmental constraints were identified. The evaluation demonstrated that culturally tailored marketing messages, combined with community involvement, were effective in fostering initial engagement.

Evaluation Phases and Methodology

Each phase of the evaluation was meticulously conducted. The formative phase involved qualitative methods such as focus groups and key informant interviews to assess community needs and perceptions. This initial phase informed the adaptation of program components to better align with community contexts. The process evaluation then monitored implementation fidelity through observational checklists and participant feedback, ensuring the intervention was delivered as planned. The outcome evaluation measured behavioral changes via pre- and post-intervention surveys assessing walking frequency and attitudes.

Results from the formative phase revealed positive community engagement, while the process evaluation highlighted implementation strengths and areas needing reinforcement, such as message consistency. The outcome data showed a statistically significant increase in walking activity among participants, suggesting early effectiveness of the intervention.

Comparison with Course Recommendations

According to course literature, an effective evaluation process consists of formative, process, and summative components, each with specific objectives and methodologies (W.K. Kellogg Foundation, 2004). Coulon et al.’s approach aligns well with these standards, incorporating qualitative insights during formative phases, ongoing monitoring during process evaluation, and preliminary outcome assessments. However, the course emphasizes the importance of rigorous control groups and longitudinal follow-ups, which were limited in Coulon et al.’s study, potentially affecting the internal and external validity of the findings. Nonetheless, their comprehensive mixed-methods approach adheres to best practices outlined in the literature.

Analysis of Evaluation Methods

The methods employed were appropriate in capturing the multifaceted nature of program implementation. Qualitative methods provided contextual richness, while observational tools ensured fidelity monitoring. The use of surveys allowed quantification of behavioral change. These combined methods support the internal validity by triangulating evidence and enhancing reliability. External validity was partly supported through community engagement; however, limited geographic scope may restrict generalizability.

Despite the strengths, potential limitations include self-report biases in behavioral surveys and possible observer effects during fidelity assessments. Moreover, the short evaluation window may not fully capture long-term behavioral sustainability, a critical element in public health interventions.

Missing Data and Recommendations

Additional data could have included objective measures such as pedometer or accelerometer data to verify self-reported activity levels. Also, assessing environmental factors like neighborhood walkability using Geographic Information System (GIS) tools would provide contextual insights. Collecting long-term follow-up data is essential to determine behavioral maintenance. Future evaluations should incorporate controlled comparisons with similar communities not receiving the intervention, to enhance causal inferences.

Recommendations for improvement include: 1) Integrating objective physical activity measures for more accurate data; 2) Extending follow-up periods to assess sustainability; and 3) employing randomized controlled trial designs in future studies to strengthen internal validity.

Conclusion

The evaluation of the social marketing intervention by Coulon et al. demonstrates a comprehensive approach that effectively captures implementation processes, community response, and initial behavioral outcomes. While aligned with best practices from course literature, opportunities exist to strengthen the evaluation through longer-term follow-up, more rigorous control conditions, and integration of objective measurement tools. Enhancing these aspects would provide a more robust understanding of program efficacy and inform future health promotion strategies.

References

• W.K. Kellogg Foundation. (2004). Logic model development guide. W.K. Kellogg Foundation.
• Coulon, S. M., Wilson, D. K., Griffin, S., St George, S. M., Alia, K. A., Trumpeter, N. N., & Gadson, B. (2012). Formative process evaluation for implementing a social marketing intervention to increase walking among African Americans in the positive action for today's health trial. American Journal of Public Health.
• Anderson, L. M., & Shapiro, M. (2005). Process evaluation in public health interventions. Journal of Public Health Management & Practice, 11(5), 404-407.
• Messeri, P. (2006). The art and science of evaluation: A case study. American Journal of Evaluation, 27(4), 447-456.
• Patton, M. Q. (2008). Utilization-focused evaluation. Sage Publications.
• Chen, H. T. (2005). Practical program evaluation: Theory-driven approaches. Sage Publications.
• Rossi, P. H., Lipsey, M. W., & Freeman, H. E. (2004). Evaluation: A systematic approach. Sage Publications.
• Fitzgerald, H. E., & Craig, R. L. (2010). Program evaluation theory and practice. Wiley.
• Scriven, M. (1991). Evaluation thesaurus. Sage Publications.
• Rainey, D. L. (2010). Advances in evaluation theory and practice. American Journal of Evaluation, 31(2), 206-220.