Evaluation Continued. . . .

Getting answers to the evaluation questions.

There are many methods, each with their own uses, advantages and difficulties. Methods include:

·      Surveys

·      Analysis of Administrative Data

·      Key Informant Interviews

·      Observation

·      Focus Groups

Evaluations could use any, not necessarily all, of these methods, depending on the question and goal of the evaluation.

Surveys are a set of questions that are asked of everyone in the same way. Surveys can answer question about how many and how often. For example:

·      How many clients are satisfied with services?

·      How often do people have difficulties using the services?

Typical questions might be like this:

How satisfied are you with the program?

Very                Satisfied          Neither            Dissatisfied     Very

Satisfied                                                                                  Dissatisfied

Surveys might be used to describe the entire client population, if respondents were chosen randomly or systematically and if the sample is sufficiently large.

Randomly or systematically choosing people to respond to surveys means using some defined method to select people. For example:

·      Randomly choosing – generate a list of random numbers, assign each person a random number, sort the people by the random number and take the people listed first. They were put on top of the list randomly.

·      Systematic selection – a typical method is to start with the 5^th person and then select every 7th person after that. The numbers, the 5 th and the 7 th are also chosen randomly.

Randomly select locations to be in the sample, and then survey everyone in that location.

Random or systematic selection means that the group of people you select are more likely to be similar to your clients, in general. You aren't excluding any particular groups, or including only certain groups. You are avoiding bias, in sampling terms. If you do use random or systematic selection, then most likely you can use the results of your survey to make conclusions about your

clients. If you don't use random or systematic selection, you can NOT use the results of your survey to make conclusions about your clients population. That is, you cannot generalize from your study to your client population. You can only say “The people who took this

survey said ...”

Analysis of administrative data is just using statistical analysis on program data that is already collected.

Administrative data has advantages:

·      No new data collection is required

·      Many databases are relatively large

·      Data may be available electronically

Disadvantages:

·      Data were gathered for another purpose, so may not have necessary variables.

·      In all administrative data sets, some fields are likely to be more accurate than others.

Focus groups are structured discussions among small groups of people. Generally, a facilitator leads a group of 8-10 people in a discussion about selected topics with planned questions, while allowing for interesting, new or unplanned follow up questions.

Typical focus group questions are like these:

·      What is your overall impression of the program?

·      What are the things you like or dislike about the program?

·      What have you gained in this program?

·      If you have not noticed any changes in yourself, what do you think are the reasons?

Key informant interviews are qualitative, in-depth interviews of 15 to 35 people selected for their first-hand knowledge about a topic of interest.

Key informant interviews also include a planned set of questions on the topics of interest.

Key informant interviews are useful to when candid information about sensitive topics are needed. Group discussions may inhibit people from giving candid feedback.

Interviews should include a very diverse range of people.

Observations are methods that yield a systematic description of events or behaviors in the social setting chosen for study. Observation methods can be highly structured, for example:

Systematic Social Observation - a field research method in which teams of researchers observe the object of study in its natural setting. Researchers record events as they see and hear them and do not rely upon others to describe or interpret events. The researchers follow well-specified procedures that can be duplicated.

Observations can also be unstructured, for example, participant observation, or taking an active part in group activities. The premise underlying participant observation is that the researcher becomes a more effective observer by taking an active role in the performance of regular activities. In other words, knowledge gained through doing is of a higher quality than what is obtained only through observation. In many cases, involvement with ordinary chores will not only enhance the researcher's understanding of the processes, techniques, and words associated with these activities, but will also result in better rapport with informants.

Focus groups, interviews and observation are qualitative research methods, that is, methods that are less likely to rely on statistical analysis.

Advantages

·      Useful to help figure out major program problems that cannot be explained by more formal methods of analysis.

·      The evaluator may see things that participants and staff may not see.

·      The evaluator can learn about things which participants or staff may be unwilling to reveal in more formal methods

·      Useful when it's not clear what the program problems might be.

·      Useful to give good ideas of what topics program participants and staff think are important.

·      Useful in developing surveys, in determining what questions or issues are important to include.

·      Useful when a main purpose is to generate recommendations

·      Useful when quantitative data collected through other methods need to be interpreted.

Disadvantages:

·      The evaluator's subjective views can introduce error.

·      The focus of the evaluator is only on what is observed at one time in one place.

·      Information from observations/ interviews/ groups can be time consuming and difficult to interpret.

·      Focus groups could be dominated by one individual and his/her point of view.

·      Generally, information from focus groups, interviews, and observations CANNOT be used to describe the client population.