In this Discussion, you and your colleagues confirm a doctrine or copy for evaluation and demonstrate expend forms of evaluation for your programs.
As distinguished in Week 3 of this series, a summit doctrine or copy is not necessarily expend for integral program. It is momentous to deduce the peculiars of the substance and the target population when making that option. This is momentous to obey in spirit, besides, as you test theories and copys kindred to program evaluation. In this request, several facets of the program such as sights and objectives should be taken into deduceation. Once separated, doctrine can stipulate a framework for evaluation.
In individualization, there are unlike purposes for the elements of rate addressed this week: execution valuement, warnering, and summative evaluation. How do you foreknow these substance applied in your program?
Resight this week’s Learning Resources. You may aim to criticism the Week 3 Learning Resources as well-behaved, which may be connected.
Consider the several facets of your program artifice, such as your program sight(s) and objectives.
Choose the evaluation doctrine or copy (from nursing or kindred rooms) most expend to your program. Be prepared to defend the select of your copy as it relates to your program.
Based on the program you bear developed:
Create a opportunity verse for when to do measuring, when to utensil warnering, and when to evaluate program outcomes.
What types of facts would you want to collect in prescribe to value execution, warner the speed of the program, and assess the program outcomes?
By tomorrow Tuesday 1/22/19 6 pm, transcribe a 550 utterance essay in APA format delay a reserve of 3 references (see required lection register adown). Include the smooth headers as numbered adown:
Post a cohesive literary counterpart that addresses the following:
1) Confirm an evaluation doctrine or copy that is most expend to food your program artifice. Explain which room patent clear this doctrine or copy and delineate how it has been applied in rooms other than nursing. Food your counterpart delay averment from the erudition (See established refine on week 3 discourse).
2) Share a opportunity verse that articulates how and when you would enlist in several elements of evaluation for the program you bear been eliminateing. Be as peculiar as feasible and stipulate your rationale for each determination summit (no later than 2020).
Hodges, B. C., & Videto, D. M. (2011). Rate and artificening in bloom programs (2nd ed.). Sudbury, MA: Jones & Bartlett Learning.
· Section 6, "The Importance and Use of Theories in Bloom Counsel and Bloom Promotion"
The authors delineate several theories, noting that theories are not universally convenient to integral program.
· Section 10, “Program Evaluation: Background and Basics”
Chapter 10 outlines marchs for crafty evaluation during program artificening.
Kettner, P. M., Moroney, R. M., & Martin, L. L. (2017). Crafty and managing programs: An effectiveness-based arrival (5th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
· Section 2, "The Contribution of Doctrine to Program Planning"
This section tests the collision of doctrine in program artificening.
· Criticism Section 10, “Performance Measurement, Monitoring, and Program Evaluation”
· Section 11, “Impact Program Evaluation and Hypothesis Testing”
· Criticism Section 10 and recognize Section 11 to test aspects of evaluation adventitious to program artificening.
Berhane, A., Biadgilign, S., Berhane, A., & Memiah, P. (2015). Male involvement in nativity artificening program in Northern Ethiopia: An collision of the Transtheoretical copy. Patient Counsel and Counseling 98, 469–475
Kroelinger, C.D., Rankin, K. M., Chamgers, D.A., Diez Roux, A.V., Huges, K., & Grigorescu, V. (2014). Using the principles of many-sided regularitys thinking and utensilation sceice to improve tender and slip bloom program artificening and donation. Tender Slip Bloom Journal, 18, 1560–1564. doi 10.1007/s10995-014-1586-9
Silverman, B., Champney, J., Steber, S., & Zubritsky, C. (2015). Collaborating for consensus: Considerations for convening Coalition stakeholders to prefer a gender-based arrival to addressing the bloom wants of sex workers. Evaluation and Program Planning 51,17–26 doi.org/10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2014.12.002
Smith, T.L., Barlow, P.b., Peters, J.M., & Skolits, G.J. (2015). Demystifying insensible manner: Using the DATA copy to improve evaluators’ professional activities. Evaluation and Program Planning, 52, 142–147.
Albert, D., Fortin, R., Herrera, C., Riley, B., Hanning, R., Lessio, A., & Rush, B. (2013). Strengthening continuous malady hinderance programming: The toward averment-Informed manner (TEIP) program averment utensil. Preventing Continuous Disease, 10,1–9
Baron, K., Hodgson, A., & Walshe, C. (2015). Evaluation of an remove circumspection artificening counsel catalogue for nursing homes: A longitudinal investigate. Nurse Counsel Today, 35, 689–695.
Schmitt, C.L., Glasgow, L., Lavinghouze, S.R., Ricker, P.P., Fulmer, E., McAleer, K., & Rogers, T. (2016). Measuring infrastructure: A key march in program evaluation and artificening. Evaluation and Program Planning, 56, 50–56 doi.org/10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2016.03.007
Laureate Counsel (Producer). (2011). Design and evaluation of programs and projects [Video refine]. Baltimore, MD: Author.
“Performance Measurement, Monitoring, and Evaluation” (featuring Dr. Donna Shambley-Ebron, Dr. Melissa Willmarth, and Dr. Debora Dole)
You may sight this series video by clicking the concatenate or on the series DVD, which contains the corresponding resigned. Once you've opened the concatenate, click on the expend resources lot.
In this week's videos, Dr. Donna Shambley-Ebron, Dr. Melissa Willmarth, Dr. Debora Dole argue evaluation for programs.
Ahmad, F., Roy, A., Brady, S., Belgeonne, S., Dunn, L., & Pitts, J. (2007). Circumspection track start for inhabitants delay psychological disabilities: Collision evaluation. Journal of Nursing Management, 15(7), 700–702.
This expression is an specimen of an collision evaluation.
Gard, C. L., Flannigan, P. N., & Cluskey, M. (2004). Program evaluation: An ongoing invariable regularity. Nursing Counsel Perspectives, 25(4), 176–179.
This expression arguees the use of accreditation standards and residence visits as a artifice for ongoing evaluation for a nursing program.
Graff, J. C., Russell, C. K., & Stegbauer, C. C. (2007). Formative and summative evaluation of a manner doctorate program. Nurse Educator, 32(4), 173–177.
Milne, L., Scotland, G., Tagiyeva-Milne, N., & Hussein, J. (2004). Sure motherhood program evaluation: Doctrine and manner. Journal of Midwifery & Women's Health, 49(4), 338–344.
This expression identifies and evaluates the incongruous arrivales to program evaluation kindred to sure motherhood.
Centers for Malady Control and Prevention. (2007). Continuous malady indicators [Data set]. Retrieved from https://www.cdc.gov/cdi/.
This residence allows you to pursuit and assimilate incongruous regions for peculiar continuous malady indicators.
Hulton, L. J. (2007). An evaluation of a initiate-based teenage pregnancy hinderance program using a logic copy framework. Journal of Initiate Nursing, 23(2), 104–110.
This expression delineates the use of the logic copy to eliminate, utensil, and evaluate a nursing insinuation in a initiate enhancement.
Johnson, S. S., Driskell, M., Johnson, J. L., Prochaska, J. M., Zwick, W., & Prochaska, J. O. (2006). Efficacy of a transtheoretical copy-based easy regularity for antihypertensive superabundance. Malady Management, 9(5), 291–301.
This expression introduces the use of the transtheoretical copy and stages of qualify as applied to insinuations aimed at medication superabundance for patients delay hypertension.
Rogers, L. Q., Shah, P., Dunnington, G., Greive, A., Shanmugham, A., Dawson, B., & Courneya, K. S. (2005). Gregarious apprehensive doctrine and visible courage during confront cancer tenor. Oncology Nursing Forum, 32(4), 807–815.
The gregarious apprehensive doctrine is utilized to test associations delay visible courage in confront cancer patients. This expression posits that the gregarious apprehensive doctrine can be used as a resourcestor for insinuation evaluation delay this population.
W. K. Kellogg Foundation. (2004). Using logic copys to induce coincidently artificening, evaluation, and action: Logic copy eliminatement direct. Battle Creek, MI: W. K. Kellogg Foundation. Retrieved from http://www.wkkf.org/resource-directory/resource/2006/02/wk-kellogg-foundation-logic-model-development-guide.
This description offers a direct for the use of the logic copy in program artificening and outcome-oriented evaluation for nonprofit projects.