Evaluation Review: Choose One Article From The List B 495133

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

In this evaluation review, I have selected the article by Palm Reed et al. (2015), which investigates an experimental bystander prevention program aimed at reducing sexual assault and dating violence among college students. The purpose of this review is to analyze and critique the evaluation process employed in the study, assess its effectiveness, and provide recommendations for improvement based on scholarly standards and course concepts.

Understanding the structure of program evaluation is fundamental to assessing the validity and utility of research outcomes. Evaluation typically comprises several phases: formative assessment, process evaluation, and summative assessment. Each phase serves distinct purposes—formative evaluation often guides program development, process evaluation examines implementation fidelity, and summative evaluation assesses overall effectiveness. The article by Palm Reed et al. (2015) primarily focuses on the process and impact evaluations, aiming to establish whether the bystander intervention effectively reduces incidents of sexual violence.

Program Description

The program evaluated by Palm Reed et al. (2015) was a bystander intervention initiative targeting college students. Designed around social psychological theories, the program intended to empower students to intervene in situations that could lead to sexual assault or dating violence. The intervention consisted of educational sessions, role-playing exercises, and distribution of informational materials. The overarching goal was to change attitudes, increase intervention behaviors, and ultimately reduce the incidence of sexual violence on campus.

Summary of the Evaluation

The authors implemented a quasi-experimental design where participants were randomly assigned to either the intervention group or a control group. Data collection involved pre- and post-intervention surveys measuring attitudes, perceived norms, intervention intentions, and actual intervention behaviors. The evaluation aimed to determine if the program influenced behavioral and attitudinal outcomes associated with bystander intervention.

Findings from the evaluation indicated significant increases in positive attitudes towards bystander intervention and self-reported intervention behaviors among participants who received the training. Moreover, there was a statistically significant reduction in reported sexual assault incidents in the intervention group compared to the control group at follow-up. The authors concluded that the program was effective in fostering behavioral change and reducing sexual violence.

Phases of Evaluation Conducted

The evaluation by Palm Reed et al. (2015) incorporated several phases consistent with best practices. The formative phase involved the development and tailoring of the intervention based on existing literature and preliminary focus groups. The process evaluation included monitoring attendance, engagement levels, and fidelity to the intervention protocol. The summative or outcome phase involved analyzing pre- and post-intervention data to assess changes in attitudes, intentions, and behaviors.

The formative data ensured the program was relevant and appropriate for the target population, while process data confirmed that the program was delivered as intended. The outcome data provided evidence of effectiveness, aligning with the typical evaluation framework.

Results in Each Phase

In the formative phase, feedback from participants helped refine program materials, ensuring cultural and contextual relevance. The process evaluation revealed high participation rates and adherence to protocol, indicating strong fidelity. The outcome phase demonstrated positive shifts in attitudes, intentions, and behaviors, with statistical analyses supporting the program's effectiveness.

However, the evaluation encountered limitations, such as reliance on self-reported data, which introduces potential bias. Additionally, long-term follow-up was limited, restricting insights into the durability of behaviors change. These results, while promising, suggest areas for refinement in future evaluations.

Comparison with Course Evaluation Frameworks

Compared to standard evaluation frameworks outlined in our coursework, the study's evaluation process addressed several key elements, including clear objectives, methodological rigor, and outcome measurement. Nonetheless, it lacked an extensive assessment of contextual factors and external validity measures, such as community or organizational factors influencing outcomes.

Course literature emphasizes the importance of a comprehensive evaluation plan that includes mixed methods, stakeholder engagement, and iterative feedback loops—which were only partially implemented here. For instance, integrating qualitative data could have enriched understanding of participant experiences and contextual barriers or facilitators.

Effectiveness of Evaluation Methods

The methods used—random assignment, surveys, and statistical analyses—were appropriate for assessing changes in attitudes and behaviors. The utilization of pre- and post-test measures allowed for evaluating changes over time, aligning with best practices. However, when considering internal validity, the study mitigated threats such as selection bias through randomization, but external validity remained limited due to the single-site setting.

The reliance on self-reports for intervention behavior is a common limitation, potentially affecting the validity of outcome measures. Incorporating behavioral observations or peer reports could have strengthened the evaluation. Overall, the methods provided valuable insights, but additional measures might have enhanced the validity and reliability of findings.

Gaps and Additional Data Needed

One significant missing element was the absence of qualitative data exploring participant perceptions and experiences with the intervention. Such insights could identify barriers to implementation or unanticipated effects. Moreover, the short follow-up period limited understanding of long-term behavior change. Future evaluations should include longitudinal data collection and potentially peer or instructor assessments to triangulate self-report data.

Enhanced qualitative components could be collected through focus groups or interviews at multiple time points, providing richer context and understanding of how attitudes evolve over time.

Recommendations for Improvement

1. Integrate Mixed Methods: To obtain a comprehensive understanding of program impact, future evaluations should combine quantitative surveys with qualitative methods. This integration will provide depth to findings and uncover mechanisms driving change or resistance.
2. Extend Follow-Up Periods: Longer-term assessments are necessary to determine sustainability of behavioral changes. Implementing follow-up evaluations at 6 months and 1 year post-intervention would provide insight into lasting effects.
3. Enhance External Validity: Replicating the evaluation across multiple campuses and diverse populations can improve the generalizability of findings. Including organizational context variables will also reveal conditions necessary for successful implementation.

Based on the evaluation results, it appears the program is effectively addressing key determinants of bystander behavior. However, improvements in evaluation design—such as inclusion of qualitative data, longer follow-up, and broader sampling—could strengthen confidence in these findings and inform scalable implementation. It is essential for program developers and evaluators to consider these recommendations to enhance both program effectiveness and the robustness of evaluations.

Conclusion

The evaluation conducted by Palm Reed et al. (2015) exemplifies a systematic approach to measuring program impact, aligning with standard evaluation frameworks. While the methods employed provided valuable evidence of effectiveness, incorporating additional qualitative data, extended follow-ups, and broader sampling would deepen understanding and ensure more reliable and valid outcomes. Future evaluations should prioritize these enhancements, ensuring that interventions are both impactful and adaptable across diverse contexts.

References

• 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. https://doi.org/10.1037/a
• Clark, H., & Brown, M. (2020). Program evaluation and research methods in public health. Journal of Public Health Management & Practice, 26(3), 231-239.
• Fitzpatrick, J. L., Sanders, J. R., & Worthen, B. R. (2011). Program evaluation: Alternative approaches and practical guidelines. Pearson.
• Patton, M. Q. (2015). Qualitative research & evaluation methods: Integrating theory and practice. Sage publications.
• Rossi, P. H., Lipsey, M. W., & Freeman, H. E. (2004). Evaluation: A systematic approach. Sage.
• Scriven, M. (1991). Evaluation therory: review, principles, and practice. Evaluation Practice, 12(4), 265–270.
• Rogers, P. J., & McDonald, R. (2012). Program evaluation models and approaches. Jossey-Bass.
• Shadish, W. R., Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (2002). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for generalized causal inference. Houghton Mifflin.
• Patton, M. Q. (2008). Utilization-focused evaluation. Sage.
• Bamberger, M., Rugh, J., & Mabry, L. (2012). RealWorld evaluation: Working under budget, time, data, and political constraints. Sage.