|
Using Multiple Qualitative Methods to Improve Participation and Validity in an Evaluation Involving a Disenfranchised Population of Individuals with Severe Mental Illness
|
| Presenter(s):
|
| Gary Walby,
Ounce of Prevention Fund of Florida,
gwalby@ounce.org
|
| Abstract:
Multiple qualitative methods were used in an evaluation of a comprehensive community mental health program servicing individuals with severe mental illness. Focus groups, participant observation, content analysis of documents, and semi-structured interviews targeted service delivery processes. These methods were also used to establish outcome consensus for a follow-up quantitative evaluation. Principles of empowerment evaluation (emphasis on improvement, inclusion, democratic participation, and social justice) guided the evaluation. Changes in service delivery resulted during and after the evaluation process. Participants included management, service providers, support staff, service recipients, and multiple community stakeholders. This paper describes the design and implementation of the evaluation, embedding of qualitative methods in an empowerment evaluation model, and the analysis of qualitative data. Checking back, thick description, and triangulation, reliability and validity assurance procedures used in qualitative research, were successfully adapted to the evaluation to increase the usefulness of results and to encourage change based on evaluation findings.
|
|
Exploring the Social and Communicative Processes of Focus Groups: Implications for Evaluation Policy and Practice
|
| Presenter(s):
|
| Melissa Freeman,
University of Georgia,
freeman9@uga.edu
|
| Judith Preissle,
University of Georgia,
jude@uga.edu
|
| Kathryn Roulston,
University of Georgia,
roulston@uga.edu
|
| Steven Havick,
University of Georgia,
havick74@yahoo.com
|
| Abstract:
Focus groups have been customarily used by evaluators to gather information to contribute to the data pool for evaluation judgments and decision making. However, the social and dialogical nature of focus group interaction permits participants to appropriate and make use of the situation for purposes other than what the moderator intended. What participants produce in their dialogue may thus be analyzed for participant as well as moderator intentions. This paper first reviews the research on the social and dynamic nature of focus groups. Then, using data from our own evaluation work, we show how participants use the focus group interaction to, for example, forge alliances, resolve old disputes, or clarify positions. We end by considering how a deeper understanding of these communicative and social processes can be integrated into the evaluation design itself.
|
|
Ethics in Multisite Case Study Evaluation
|
| Presenter(s):
|
| Judith Preissle,
University of Georgia,
jude@uga.edu
|
| Amy DeGroff,
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention,
adegroff@cdc.gov
|
| Rebecca Glover-Kudon,
University of Georgia,
rebglover@yahoo.com
|
| Jennifer Boehm,
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention,
jboehm@cdc.gov
|
| Abstract:
We examine the ethical challenges and implications involved in conducting a multi-site case study evaluation using three frameworks: the U.S. Common Rule, professional standards such as those endorsed by the American Evaluation Association, and selected moral theories. Based on our experience of conducting a three-year evaluation of a colorectal cancer screening program funded and evaluated by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, we explore methodological decisions regarding who to interview, what to explore, the role of the evaluators, and how to use the information generated all which reflect a range of values and ethical decision making. We are also identifying how what we are learning from various facets of the screening programs illustrates different priorities in healthcare delivery in the U.S., priorities that reflect unique moral positions.
|
| | |