The Selection Of Measures Is An Incredibly Important Aspect

The Selection Of Measures Is An Incredibly Important Aspect Of Program

The selection of measures is an incredibly important aspect of program evaluation. Discuss possible measures that could be used in your program evaluation at your agency, including the pros and cons of the possible options as they relate to the following: Who are the participants that will be evaluated? Who are the staff who will be administering the evaluations? How many participants will be evaluated? What is the assessment schedule? (In other words, how often/when will the participants be evaluated?) What is the evidence of the instruments' validity? (Provide sources) What is the evidence of the instruments' reliability? (Provide sources) What is the cost of the instruments? Can your agency afford to pay for instruments? Are there alternatives in the public domain that would work? Please read transcript before doing work.

Paper For Above instruction

Effective program evaluation hinges on selecting appropriate measurement tools that accurately reflect the outcomes and processes within the agency’s initiatives. The choice of measures impacts the validity, reliability, cost, and practicality of evaluation, ultimately influencing the insights gained and decisions made based on those insights.

In evaluating programs within a social service agency, several measurement options are available, each with distinct advantages and disadvantages depending on the context and specific evaluation goals. Quantitative measures, such as standardized surveys and assessment instruments, offer the benefit of statistical rigor and comparability. For example, using validated scales like the Client Satisfaction Questionnaire (CSQ) provides measurable data on service satisfaction (Hanlon et al., 1992). However, these can be costly and may have limitations in capturing the nuanced experiences of participants.

Qualitative measures, including interviews and focus groups, provide deeper insight into participant experiences and perceptions. They are particularly useful in understanding complex issues that are not easily quantifiable. Their main drawback, however, is the time-intensive nature of data collection and analysis, which can also introduce subjectivity and variability (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2017).

The target participants—such as clients, families, or community members—must be carefully considered when selecting measures. For instance, if evaluating a mental health intervention, standardized symptom checklists like the PHQ-9 or GAD-7 are valid, reliable, and widely used, aligning with evidence-based practices (Kroenke et al., 2001; Spitzer et al., 2006). To assess staff performance or program implementation, observational checklists or fidelity measures can be employed, though these are often resource-dependent and require trained evaluators (Odom et al., 2017).

Regarding the administration of evaluations, staffing considerations are critical. Ideally, staff conducting assessments should be trained in administering instruments consistently to maintain reliability. The number of participants evaluated can range from a small sample for pilot assessments to entire client populations for comprehensive overviews. The evaluation schedule—such as pre- and post-intervention measurements at defined intervals—must balance resource availability with the need for timely data to inform program adjustments (Patton, 2015).

Instrument validity—the degree to which an instrument measures what it claims to measure—is established through prior research and psychometric testing. Many standardized tools, such as the Beck Depression Inventory, have extensive validation studies included in their manuals and peer-reviewed literature (Beck et al., 1961). Reliability, indicating consistency over time and across different evaluators, is similarly supported by psychometric data, often reported through Cronbach’s alpha or test-retest coefficients (Nunnally & Bernstein, 1994).

Cost considerations are vital, especially for agencies with limited budgets. Commercial instruments can be expensive, sometimes costing hundreds to thousands of dollars per license. For example, the Behavior Assessment System for Children (BASC) has licensing fees that may be prohibitive for some agencies (Reynolds & Kamphaus, 2015). Public domain instruments offer a cost-effective alternative. For instance, the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9) is freely available and validated for screening depression (Kroenke et al., 2001). Such tools are advantageous because they eliminate licensing costs and facilitate widespread implementation.

In summary, selecting assessment measures requires balancing validity, reliability, cost, and practicality. Agencies must consider their specific populations, staffing capabilities, and budget constraints. When resources are limited, leveraging public domain instruments and customizing evaluation strategies can be effective solutions. The ultimate goal is to choose measures that provide accurate, reliable data to inform program improvements and demonstrate accountability.

References

• Beck, A. T., Ward, C. H., Mendelson, M., Mock, J., & Erbaugh, J. (1961). An inventory for measuring depression. Archives of General Psychiatry, 4(6), 561–571.
• Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2017). Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research. Sage Publications.
• Hanlon, T. E., Bushnell, J. A., Breakey, W. R., Madsen, R., & Mulloy, R. H. (1992). Client satisfaction survey: A validity and reliability study. Community Mental Health Journal, 28(4), 321–331.
• Kroenke, K., Spitzer, R. L., & Williams, J. B. (2001). The PHQ-9: Validity of a brief depression severity measure. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 16(9), 606–613.
• Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric Theory (3rd ed.). McGraw-Hill.
• Odom, S. L., et al. (2017). Evidence-Based Practices in Autism. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 47(3), 644–654.
• Patton, M. Q. (2015). Qualitative Research & Evaluation Methods. Sage Publications.
• Reynolds, C. R., & Kamphaus, R. W. (2015). Behavior Assessment System for Children (BASC). Pearson.
• Spitzer, R. L., Kroenke, K., Williams, J. B. W., & Löwe, B. (2006). A brief measure for assessing generalized anxiety disorder: The GAD-7. Archives of Internal Medicine, 166(10), 1092–1097.