Utilizing Needs Assessment and Asset Capacity Building Model in Training Program Planning and Evaluation by Hsinling Sonya Hung

Date: Saturday, February 7, 2026

I am Hsinling Sonya Hung, an affiliate faculty at the Department of Social and Behavioral Sciences, School of Public Health, the Virginia Commonwealth University.  Utilization of methods of the Needs assessment (NA) and Asset Capacity Building (ACB) model in planning and evaluating training programs can enhance funding opportunities and better meet the needs of the trainees for building their capacities to be competitive in the fields after the training. Below is a sample of techniques or methods commonly used in NA and ACB that can be employed in planning and evaluating research training programs.

Needs and Asset Identification, Resources Allocation and Prioritization

In program planning and/or research funding proposal development stage, identifying training needs and program assets are essential for developing effective training program activities or curriculum focusing on meeting the trainees’ needs for their professional development and capacity building with available resources.

Hot Tips

• Trainee competency needs assessment survey, double-scale or multiple scale, is commonly used for identifying the gap of skills or competencies of the trainees between their current or prior training program levels and expected or ideal levels for the targeted field of profession of the training programs.
• Measured discrepancy between two conditions is key for needs identification. Gap analysis, Means Difference Analysis (MDA) for example, is one mechanism for finding gaps and prioritizing.
• Asset inventory or mapping can be applied for identifying assets/resources, social structure, people, and existing programs and explores the strengths and capacity of organizations, communities, and participants.

Program Effectiveness Assessment, Training Activity/Curriculum Modification and Evaluation

During program implementation and post training program evaluation stages, understanding program implementation effect (e.g., strengths and weaknesses) is essential for planning future program with implementation effectiveness. Several methods can be done to decide what program components are to be continued, modified, or eliminated.

Hot Tips

• Appreciative inquiry method via focus group interview can be used to understand program strengths and weaknesses, participants’ suggestions for improvement, and so on, for future program planning and modification
• Nominal Group Technique (NGT) can be used for prioritization of retaining the existing and/or developing new training program activities
• SWOTs (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, Threats) and Listening Sessions are ways to obtain information about program positive and negative aspects of implanting the program as well as needs and assets for the next stage/future program planning.
• Surveys or interviews can be used to evaluate the program modification effect and overall program effectiveness.

Rad Resources

• Altschuld, J. W., Hung, H.-L., & Lee, Y.-F. (2014). Needs Assessment and Asset/Capacity Building: A Promising Development in Practice. In J. W. Altschuld & R. Watkins (Eds.), Needs Assessment: Trends and a View Toward the Future. New Directions for Evaluation, 144, 89–103. DOI: 10.1002/ev.20105.
• Bridging the Gap between Asset/Capacity Building and Needs Assessment by James W. Altschuld

The American Evaluation Association is hosting International and Cross-Cultural (ICCE) TIG Week with our colleagues in the International and Cross-Cultural Topical Interest Group. The contributions all this week to AEA365 come from our ICCE TIG members. Do you have questions, concerns, kudos, or content to extend this AEA365 contribution? Please add them in the comments section for this post on theAEA365 webpageso that we may enrich our community of practice. Would you like to submit an AEA365 Tip? Please send a note of interest to AEA365@eval.org. AEA365 is sponsored by theAmerican Evaluation Associationand provides a Tip-a-Day by and for evaluators. The views and opinions expressed on the AEA365 blog are solely those of the original authors and other contributors. These views and opinions do not necessarily represent those of the American Evaluation Association, and/or any/all contributors to this site.