Introduction
Various evaluation designs are fitting to answer different questions, which means that an evaluation design often relies on its purpose and the issues it is meant to address. A design focused on effectiveness may consist of questions, including to what level a program accomplished its anticipated outcomes or what changes happened after its implementation, as suggested by Leung (2019). Nevertheless, evaluations can have different purposes, such as establishing if a program was implemented as initially intended if it was proper for its client group, or its cost vs. benefit assessment (Leung, 2019). The multiple types of evaluation can demand a variety of evaluation designs.
There are other factors that a person must consider when selecting an evaluation design, including questions to answer, audience, and available data. Working through the factors will aid in informing the design and techniques most fitting for the evaluation process. In most instances, the resources determine the procedure’s scope, as suggested by Leung (2019). A researcher or an evaluator, at times, refers to the hierarchy of evidence for evaluating the efficacy of an intervention or program. According to Leung (2019), the designs that are viewed to produce the most potent proof that a program works are usually located at or near the top of others. As explained in the paper, the design chosen for the evaluation of the program earlier developed is pre-and post-test.
Type of Evaluation Design
I would select pre-and post-test design since it is the most straightforward evaluation technique. It is employed to determine whether or not the expected changes happened in the participants in a program. The method examines a program’s effect without using either a comparison or a control group, as suggested by Stratton (2019). Data, in this approach, is ideally gathered through a survey involving participants immediately before the start of the program and its completion, as suggested by Stratton (2019). Any alteration is then determined. In case a program is continuing, information is collected from a client when they begin the program. When they leave the program, this is the time for a post-test collection.
What makes this design the best choice for your program and its outcomes?
The pre-and post-test method is the best choice for the program due to its ability to evaluate the impact of a program without needing to utilize a control or comparison group. It is usually easier to run and requires less specialized expertise than quasi-experimental or experimental designs (Stratton, 2019). Additionally, outcomes can be determined at extra time points during or after the program and pre- and post (Stratton, 2019). For instance, if a client is anticipated to attend a program for a long time, taking measurements, mid-program can offer a chance to measure if it is having the expected outcomes for that client.
In case positive alterations are discovered, this can be an opportunity to give feedback to the client directly. Outcomes measured at follow-up time points, including three or six months after the program, can offer extra proof concerning the long-term effectiveness of the intervention (Stratton, 2019). If the program is working, the logic will make one expect any changes recorded to be in the direction that supports the program objectives. For example, participants finishing a program may display a reduction in behavior problems or improved self-esteem.
What is the timeline for the evaluation?
Pre- and post-tests must take between ten to twenty-five minutes to complete. Developing an expected timeline offers a realistic scheme upon which to base an outcome evaluation for policy interventions, identifying positive and negative outcomes and considering probable unintended consequences (van Velthuijsen et al., 2018). Since the timeline is part of planning, it enables individuals to avoid time waste when collecting data. Effective planning through proper time allocation is a requirement for effective procedure.
Challenges and Barriers to the Design
One might encounter two main challenges and barriers, including inadequate expertise and the assessment is expensive. Knowledge concerning evaluation is not usually held by the individuals responsible for training (van Velthuijsen et al., 2018). Furthermore, they do not often have access to the available tools in the market. In case a person in charge does not possess the required equipment, such as online survey software, it becomes hard to conduct a successful evaluation.
Additionally, if an evaluation is poorly conducted, it will require time on behalf of employees and an investment in the acquisition of tools. Furthermore, if the assessment outlines gaps but fails to generate an action plan targeting to better them, there will be an obstacle to the evaluation design implementation (van Velthuijsen et al., 2018). These barriers are not justified and will be dismissed if the desire to evaluate is more often expressed, it is specified what will be assessed, key players are trained and if fears are ignored. Therefore, the assessment will not be viewed as something expensive because the company or the primary players will comprehend every interest.
Types of Data and Data Gathering Methods
Pre- and post-test surveys are common and mostly employed to gather data for assessment. In the pre-test survey, the baseline data is collected and then later, the post-test survey helps gather follow-up data after applying some treatment. Often, researchers desire to get the information from one survey to ensure that they can easily make comparisons in the analysis stage, as suggested by van Velthuijsen et al. (2018). Respondents begin their response in a gateway survey which is utilized to create a peculiar identifier for each of them (van Velthuijsen et al., 2018). According to van Velthuijsen et al. (2018), after that, using a URL Redirect action, the respondent will be passed, along with their identifier, to the pre-test portion of the pre-and post-test survey. Later, when it is time for the post-test feedback to be completed, the participant will return to the gateway survey again, enter their unique ID and be redirected to the post-test part of the survey.
Conclusion
The information above explains the reason behind choosing the pre-and post-test evaluation design to assess the program’s effectiveness developed in the previous modules. The selected method examines a program’s impact on an individual without using either a comparison or a control group. This method is suitable in this case because it is often easier to run and requires less specialized know-how than quasi-experimental or experimental designs. Moreover, outcomes can be established at additional time points during or after the program. To gather data, an evaluator needs a survey conducted for pre-and post-test. In the pre-test survey, the baseline information is collected and then later, the post-test survey assists in collecting follow-up data after applying some treatment.
References
Leung, K. C. (2019). Compare the moderator for pre-test-post-test design in peer tutoring with treatment-control/comparison design. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 34(4), 685-703. Web.
Stratton, S. J. (2019). Quasi-experimental design (pre-test and post-test studies) in prehospital and disaster research. Prehospital and Disaster Medicine, 34(6), 573-574. Web.
van Velthuijsen, E. L., Zwakhalen, S. M., Warnier, R. M., Ambergen, T., Mulder, W. J., Verhey, F. R., & Kempen, G. I. (2018). Can education improve clinical practice concerning delirium in older hospitalized patients? Results of a pre-test post-test study on an educational intervention for nursing staff. BMC Medical Education, 18(1), 1-9. Web.