Short Paper: Gender Dysphoria

Short Paper: Gender Dysphoria

Based on the articles on gender dysphoria, write a short paper about the influence of acceptance, parenting styles, and how these can directly steer a child’s gender identity.
Moreover, think about society today and acceptance of varied gender roles compared to the 1950s. What is different today in parenting styles compared to the 1950s? Additionally, think about the criteria and changes made in the DSM in the most recent version (DSM-5) compared to earlier, outdated versions.
Also, consider and explore society’s influence on gender dysphoria in your argument. Is there a direct correlation to gender identity and society or not?
Paper should be 3-5 full pages and 3 resources formatted in APA.

 

Resources:

1. Library Article: Gender Dysphoria: Two Steps Forward, One Step Back
This article examines the newly revised diagnostic criteria for gender dysphoria and illustrates the substantial step forward in understanding the population it encompasses.
The article discusses there is much improvement in the definition, there still leaves room for growth in labeling such population. This article is required for all of this module’s tasks.

Lev, A. I. (2013). Gender dysphoria: Two steps forward, one step back. Clinical Social Work  Journal, 41(3), 288-296. doi:http://dx.doi.org.ezproxy.snhu.edu/10.1007/s10615-013- 0447-0

2. PDF: Gender Dysphoria  This article provides an overview of the newly established guidelines for gender dysphoria adopted by the DSM-5.
The article reviews the criteria for a gender dysphoria diagnosis and areas in which there still remains a struggle for those with this diagnosis. This article is required for all of this module’s tasks.

https://web.archive.org/web/20150829003822/http://www.dsm5.org/documents/gender%20dysphoria%20fact%20sheet.pdf

3. Library Article: Gender Stereotypes in the Family Context: Mothers, Fathers, and Siblings
This article explores gender stereotyping of children by their parents. The study examines parental expectations and stereotypes and how these differ compared to siblings of different genders. This article is required for all of this module’s tasks.

Endendijk, J. J., Groeneveld, M. G., van Berkel, S.,R., Hallers-haalboom, E., Mesman, J., &  Bakermans-kranenburg, M. (2013). Gender stereotypes in the family context: Mothers,  fathers, and siblings. Sex Roles, 68(9-10), 577-590.  doi:http://dx.doi.org.ezproxy.snhu.edu/10.1007/s11199-013-0265-4

4. Library Article: The Early Development of Gender Differences
The study examines the inception of gender differences and influence of developmental roles. This article is required for all of this module’s tasks.

McIntyre, M., & Edwards, C. (2009). The Early Development of Gender Differences. Annual  Review of Anthropology, 38, 83-97. Retrieved from  http://www.jstor.org.ezproxy.snhu.edu/stable/20622642

CLINICAL SOCIAL WORK FORUM

Gender Dysphoria: Two Steps Forward, One Step Back

Arlene Istar Lev

Published online: 18 July 2013

� Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Abstract The long-awaited DSM-5 has finally been

published, generating controversy in many areas, including

the revised diagnostic category of Gender Dysphoria. This

commentary contextualizes the history and reform of the

pathologization of diverse gender identities and expres-

sions, within a larger perspective of examining psycho-

logical viewpoints on sexual minority persons, and the

problems with continuing to label gender identities and

expressions as pathological or disordered.

Keywords Transgender � Gender � Diagnosis � GID � Gender dysphoria � Gender identity � LGBT � Trans � LGBTQ

Sexualities keep marching out of the Diagnostic and

Statistical Manual and on to the pages of social

history.

Gayle Rubin 1984, p. 287.

Clinical Social Work has just celebrated its 40th anni-

versary, and this volume marks the first special issue devoted

to lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) mental

health and psychotherapy. The lives of LGBT people, people

who are now reclaiming the word queer as a proud self-

descriptor to encompass the term LGBTQ (Tilsen 2013),

have changed dramatically in this same period of time.

LGBTQ people were leading clandestine, marginalized

lives, ostracized by family and friends, unable to have chil-

dren (or retain custody of them), living with a constant threat

of unemployment, creating false narratives about their social

lives to appease others and protect their private lives. Now

LGBTQ people have the potentiality of full lives—out,

proud, married, with families, serving in the military,

working for the government—with strong communities and

federal laws that protect us against bias-related violence.

Forty years ago, I was a 15-year-old Jewish working-class

adolescent, growing up in the tail end of 1960s counter-cul-

ture, and deeply in love with my best girlfriend. My journals

were full of endless, painful monologues about her, about

society, and about where I would fit into the grownup world I

would soon be entering. I wasn’t exactly closeted—I called

myself bisexual—but I was filled with angst and confusion

and drowning in myriad social messages of what it meant to be

a lesbian (which in my journals I spelled ‘‘lesibean’’ because

even simple access to seeing words that reflected my experi-

ences in print was non-existent). I did not know how to talk

with my mother, my friends, my boyfriend, my girlfriend

about my emerging queer identity. What could be the future

for a young dyke? Where could I find a home, a job, a lover, a

life? And if I found my way to therapy, what would the psy-

chotherapist say to me that would affirm my identity? What

education did she have, what trainings had he attended, what

journal articles could she/he have read to help her or him help

me to grow to be a healthy secure and very queer adult?

In entering into this discourse with you, the reader, I must

start with a moment of silence, for all that has not been said

within the therapy professions, within social work and family

therapy—the professional communities I call home—these

past 40 years. The LGBTQ communities have been hard at

work informing politics, changing policy, opening minds,

indeed transforming the world in many ways—and our clin-

ical communities have followed along, taking a mostly pro-

gressive, supportive stance on issues as they have arisen,

incorporating a ‘‘gay-affirmative’’ approach into our clinical

A. I. Lev (&) School of Social Welfare, State University New York at Albany,

Albany, NY, USA

e-mail: arlene.lev@gmail.com

123

Clin Soc Work J (2013) 41:288–296

DOI 10.1007/s10615-013-0447-0

 

 

practices (Levy and Koff 2001), but as a social work com-

munity, I wonder if we have done enough (Levy and Koff

2001). Have we been at the vanguard of advocacy and pro-

gressive change, or have we merely followed the evolving

trends (Hegarty 2009)? I hope that this inaugural issue heralds

a change not just in direction, but in conceptualization, so that

LGBTQ issues become not a ‘‘special issue,’’ but are incor-

porated into the framework and organization of the journal. I

was taught many years ago to always ask the questions ‘‘Who

is not present at the table? Whose voice is not being heard?’’

The challenge of fully incorporating LGBTQ clinical

knowledge into the mainstream of clinical social work is to

deconstruct heteronormative thinking, to queer the discourse. I

will try in the words that follow to move this discussion past

‘‘gay-affirmative’’ therapy, and to imagine a more queer psy-

chotherapy, one that truly challenges the pathologizing of

LGBTQ lives, and heteronormativity of non-queer ones. I want

to look at the role that diagnoses play in the development of

identity, communities, and the therapeutic gaze. The context of

this discussion is the change from Gender Identity Disorder to

Gender Dysphoria in the fifth edition of the Diagnostic and

Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5; American

Psychiatric Association (APA) 2013), but it is by necessity a

wider discourse about both sexual orientation and gender

identity, the social and political context of the holding envi-

ronment we call therapy, as well as an emerging queer sensi-

bility that challenges the hegemony of pathological labeling.

The shift in diagnostic nomenclature initiates a potential shift in

clinical conceptualization from gender nonconformity as

‘‘other,’’ ‘‘mentally ill,’’ or ‘‘disordered’’ to understanding that

gender, as a biological fact and as a social construct, can be

variable, diverse, and changeable, and existing without the

specter of pathology. De-centering the cisgender assumption

that normal people remain in the natal sex (cis) and that dis-

ordered people change (trans) is at the root of debate regarding

gender diagnoses in the DSM and the battle for their reform.

I became a social worker 25 years ago to work with what

we then called the gay community. I fought and lost the battle

as the Chair of the ‘‘Gay Issues Committee’’ of the New York

State Chapter of the National Association of Social Workers

(NASW) to change the name to the ‘‘Lesbian and Gay Issues

Committee’’; the word lesbian was still foreboden. Although

this was over a decade after homosexuality had been removed

from the DSM, ‘‘gay’’ issues were poorly integrated in my

social work education. The only time I heard the word trans-

sexual as a student (the word transgender had not yet been

coined) was when a teacher said, ‘‘You know that some people

want to change sex?! Really!’’ She leaned into the class and

repeated in a loud incredulous whisper for emphasis,

‘‘Really!’’ When I became an adjunct professor (in the same

Social Work program in the late 1980s) and I asked my col-

leagues how they addressed issues of sexual orientation in the

curricula, I was met with blank stares. Was there really

nothing to say about homosexuality now that it was no longer a

diagnosis in the DSM? Really?!

However, despite the silence within training institutions,

there have been many positive changes for LGB people

socially and politically. In the past few decades lesbian and

gay people have secured many civil rights. It is worth

pondering whether these social changes would have hap-

pened if homosexuality had remained in the DSM. Do you

think we would be seeing these massive social changes,

like marriage equality? Throwing off the yoke and stigma

of ‘‘pathology’’ allowed not only for the coming out of gay,

lesbian, and bisexual people, but also allowed for legal,

political, and clinical transformations that could never have

been granted a ‘‘mentally ill’’ population. How would your

psychotherapy practice look different than it currently

does, if homosexuality was still a mental disorder? These

questions are an important prelude to the discussion of

Gender Dysphoria in the DSM.

The acronym LGBT has become a moniker, a catch-all

expression meant to include a group of people who may not

have all that much in common. It has become a practice of

mine, whenever I receive new classroom textbooks, to look

in the index for the phrase LGBT, and then see what the

content reveals. Most of the time what is revealed is gen-

eral information on lesbian and gay people. The B and T

are too often silent. Although I mentioned above that I feel

relatively secure that lesbians and gay men are receiving

competent care when seeking therapy, I do not pretend to

feel that trusting about the clinical treatment received when

we toss in the unique issues bisexual people face in either

heterosexual or same-sex partnerships (see Scherrer, this

issue for an in-depth discussion regarding bisexual indi-

viduals). And what about the complex issues transgender,

transsexual, and gender non-conforming people experience

within the confines of the consulting room?

Action Planning And Overcoming Barriers

If counseling is all talk and no action it is not effective counseling. The problem is that clients encounter many barriers in carrying out actions they identify in the counseling process.

Write a 750-1,000-word paper discussing action planning and overcoming barriers for client treatment. Please use headings and include the following in your paper:

  1. Discuss the principles for effectively implementing an action plan.
  2. Describe at least five barriers that might interfere with client implementation of the action plans that are created. Include a case example of each barrier.
  3. Outline a counselor intervention that would help to overcome each barrier.
  4. A list of your local community resources for different types of needs.
  5. Outline an aftercare plan that utilized local community resources.

Include at least three scholarly references in your paper.

Prepare this assignment according to the guidelines found in the APA Style Guide, located in the Student Success Center. An abstract is not required.

Discuss how Augustine changed the locus of control human behavior, from forces outside the person to forces inside the person.

Discussion Questions
All assignments MUST be typed, double-spaced, in APA style and must be written at graduate level English. You must integrate the material presented in the text to support your discussion, citing in APA format. Outside sources may be used to support the text information, but not replace the text.
Your response to each question should be approx. 1 page per question.
Assignment should be 16 pages total plus a title and reference page
1.   There are many reasons why the history of psychology is important.  Pick two reasons and explain why they are important.
2.  Socrates, Plato and Aristotle were important figures in Philosophy leading up to Psychology.  Discuss how these three paved the way for Psychology.
3.  Discuss how Augustine changed the locus of control human behavior, from forces outside the person to forces inside the person.
4.  Discuss the mind-Body interaction as seen by Descartes.  How did Descartes theories contribute to the beginning of Psychology?
5.  Compare the roles of Locke, Berkeley, and Hume, and their importance in early Psychology.
6.   Herbert was an important transitional figure between philosophy and psychology.  How do his theories bring these two disciplines together?
7.  Discus the commonalities and the differences between existentialism and romanticism.
8.  What were Fechner’s contributions to the development of psychology as a science?

9.  Compare and contrast Wundt’s view of Psychology with Titchener’s views.  Which one do you agree with more?
10.  There were many controversies over intelligence testing.  Discuss the importance of Cattell, Binet, Spearman, Goddard, Terman and Yerkes in testing history.  Briefly discuss the Bell Curve theory (without pictures), as it applies to testing IQ.
11.  Discuss the difference between Structuralism and Functionalism.  How were the two schools (Chicago and Columbia) similar and different?
12.  Pavlov and Watson are major behaviorists.   Explain William McDougall’s outlook and theories and why he is not as well known.
13.  Skinner was known as the leading neobehavorist.  Why were Tolman, Hull and Gutherie not as well known?  Be sure to include Tolman, Hull and Gutherie’s theories.
14.  Discuss the founding of Gestalt theory.  What impact did it have on psychology and therapy?
15.  Summarize the medical, psychological and supernatural models of mental illness and give examples of each.
16.  Sigmund Freud is credited with being the Father of Psychoanalysis.  Compare and contrast how Anna Freud, Carl Jung, Alfred Adler and Karen Horney morphed Freud’s original theories into working theories that we still use today.

Assignment: Drafting A Process Evaluation

The steps for process evaluation outlined by Bliss and Emshoff (2002) may seem very similar to those for conducting other types of evaluation that you have learned about in this course; in fact, it is the purpose and timing of a process evaluation that most distinguish it from other types of evaluation. A process evaluation is conducted during the implementation of the program to evaluate whether the program has been implemented as intended and how the delivery of a program can be improved. A process evaluation can also be useful in supporting an outcome evaluation by helping to determine the reason behind program outcomes.

There are several reasons for conducting process evaluation throughout the implementation of a program. Chief among them is to compare the program that is being delivered to the original program plan, in order to identify gaps and make improvements. Therefore, documentation from the planning stage may prove useful when planning a process evaluation.

 

For this Assignment, you either build on the work that you completed in Weeks 6, 7, and 8 related to a support group for caregivers, or on your knowledge about a program with which you are familiar. Review the resource “Workbook for Designing a Process Evaluation”.

 

Submit a 4- to 5-page plan for a process evaluation. Include the following minimal information:

A description of the key program elements

A description of the strategies that the program uses to produce change

A description of the needs of the target population

An explanation of why a process evaluation is important for the program

A plan for building relationships with the staff and management

Broad questions to be answered by the process evaluation

Specific questions to be answered by the process evaluation

A plan for gathering and analyzing the information

Workbook

for Designing a Process Evaluation

 

Produced for the

Georgia Department of Human Resources

Division of Public Health

By

Melanie J. Bliss, M.A. James G. Emshoff, Ph.D.

Department of Psychology Georgia State University

 

July 2002

 

 

Evaluation Expert Session July 16, 2002 Page 1

 

What is process evaluation?

Process evaluation uses empirical data to assess the delivery of programs. In contrast to outcome evaluation, which assess the impact of the program, process evaluation verifies what the program is and whether it is being implemented as designed. Thus, process evaluation asks “what,” and outcome evaluation asks, “so what?”

When conducting a process evaluation, keep in mind these three questions:

1. What is the program intended to be? 2. What is delivered, in reality? 3. Where are the gaps between program design and delivery?

This workbook will serve as a guide for designing your own process evaluation for a program of your choosing. There are many steps involved in the implementation of a process evaluation, and this workbook will attempt to direct you through some of the main stages. It will be helpful to think of a delivery service program that you can use as your example as you complete these activities. Why is process evaluation important? 1. To determine the extent to which the program is being

implemented according to plan 2. To assess and document the degree of fidelity and variability in

program implementation, expected or unexpected, planned or unplanned

3. To compare multiple sites with respect to fidelity 4. To provide validity for the relationship between the intervention

and the outcomes 5. To provide information on what components of the intervention

are responsible for outcomes 6. To understand the relationship between program context (i.e.,

setting characteristics) and program processes (i.e., levels of implementation).

7. To provide managers feedback on the quality of implementation 8. To refine delivery components 9. To provide program accountability to sponsors, the public, clients,

and funders 10. To improve the quality of the program, as the act of evaluating is

an intervention.

 

 

Evaluation Expert Session July 16, 2002 Page 2

Stages of Process Evaluation Page Number

1. Form Collaborative Relationships 3 2. Determine Program Components 4 3. Develop Logic Model* 4. Determine Evaluation Questions 6 5. Determine Methodology 11 6. Consider a Management Information System 25 7. Implement Data Collection and Analysis 28 8. Write Report**

Also included in this workbook:

a. Logic Model Template 30 b. Pitfalls to avoid 30 c. References 31

 

Evaluation can be an exciting, challenging, and fun experience

Enjoy!

 

* Previously covered in Evaluation Planning Workshops. ** Will not be covered in this expert session. Please refer to the Evaluation Framework

and Evaluation Module of FHB Best Practice Manual for more details.

 

 

 

 

 

Evaluation Expert Session July 16, 2002 Page 3

Forming collaborative relationships

A strong, collaborative relationship with program delivery staff and management will likely result in the following:

Feedback regarding evaluation design and implementation Ease in conducting the evaluation due to increased cooperation Participation in interviews, panel discussion, meetings, etc. Increased utilization of findings

Seek to establish a mutually respectful relationship characterized by trust, commitment, and flexibility.

Key points in establishing a collaborative relationship:

Start early. Introduce yourself and the evaluation team to as many delivery staff and management personnel as early as possible.

Emphasize that THEY are the experts, and you will be utilizing their knowledge and

information to inform your evaluation development and implementation.

Be respectful of their time both in-person and on the telephone. Set up meeting places that are geographically accessible to all parties involved in the evaluation process.

Remain aware that, even if they have requested the evaluation, it may often appear as

an intrusion upon their daily activities. Attempt to be as unobtrusive as possible and request their feedback regarding appropriate times for on-site data collection.

Involve key policy makers, managers, and staff in a series of meetings throughout the

evaluation process. The evaluation should be driven by the questions that are of greatest interest to the stakeholders. Set agendas for meetings and provide an overview of the goals of the meeting before beginning. Obtain their feedback and provide them with updates regarding the evaluation process. You may wish to obtained structured feedback. Sample feedback forms are throughout the workbook.

Provide feedback regarding evaluation findings to the key policy makers, managers,

and staff when and as appropriate. Use visual aids and handouts. Tabulate and summarize information. Make it as interesting as possible.

Consider establishing a resource or expert “panel” or advisory board that is an official

group of people willing to be contacted when you need feedback or have questions.

 

 

 

 

 

Evaluation Expert Session July 16, 2002 Page 4

Determining Program Components

Program components are identified by answering the questions who, what, when, where, and how as they pertain to your program.

Who: the program clients/recipients and staff What: activities, behaviors, materials When: frequency and length of the contact or intervention Where: the community context and physical setting How: strategies for operating the program or intervention

BRIEF EXAMPLE: Who: elementary school students What: fire safety intervention When: 2 times per year Where: in students’ classroom How: group administered intervention, small group practice

1. Instruct students what to do in case of fire (stop, drop and roll). 2. Educate students on calling 911 and have them practice on play telephones. 3. Educate students on how to pull a fire alarm, how to test a home fire alarm and how to

change batteries in a home fire alarm. Have students practice each of these activities. 4. Provide students with written information and have them take it home to share with their

parents. Request parental signature to indicate compliance and target a 75% return rate. Points to keep in mind when determining program components Specify activities as behaviors that can be observed

If you have a logic model, use the “activities” column as a starting point

Ensure that each component is separate and distinguishable from others

Include all activities and materials intended for use in the intervention

Identify the aspects of the intervention that may need to be adapted, and those that should

always be delivered as designed. Consult with program staff, mission statements, and program materials as needed.

 

 

 

 

 

Evaluation Expert Session July 16, 2002 Page 5

Your Program Components

After you have identified your program components, create a logic model that graphically portrays the link between program components and outcomes expected from these components.

Now, write out a succinct list of the components of your program. WHO: WHAT: WHEN: WHERE: HOW:

 

 

 

 

 

Evaluation Expert Session July 16, 2002 Page 6

What is a Logic Model

A logical series of statements that link the problems your program is attempting to address (conditions), how it will address them (activities), and what are the expected results (immediate and intermediate outcomes, long-term goals).

Benefits of the logic model include:

helps develop clarity about a project or program, helps to develop consensus among people, helps to identify gaps or redundancies in a plan, helps to identify core hypothesis, helps to succinctly communicate what your project or program is about.

When do you use a logic model Use… – During any work to clarify what is being done, why, and with what intended results – During project or program planning to make sure that the project or program is logical and complete – During evaluation planning to focus the evaluation – During project or program implementation as a template for comparing to the actual program and as a filter to determine whether proposed changes fit or not. This information was extracted from the Logic Models: A Multi-Purpose Tool materials developed by Wellsys Corporation for the Evaluation Planning Workshop Training. Please see the Evaluation Planning Workshop materials for more information. Appendix A has a sample template of the tabular format.

 

 

 

 

 

Evaluation Expert Session July 16, 2002 Page 7

Determining Evaluation Questions

As you design your process evaluation, consider what questions you would like to answer. It is only after your questions are specified that you can begin to develop your methodology. Considering the importance and purpose of each question is critical.

BROADLY…. What questions do you hope to answer? You may wish to turn the program components that you have just identified into questions assessing: Was the component completed as indicated? What were the strengths in implementation? What were the barriers or challenges in implementation? What were the apparent strengths and weaknesses of each step of the intervention? Did the recipient understand the intervention? Were resources available to sustain project activities? What were staff perceptions? What were community perceptions? What was the nature of the interaction between staff and clients?

These are examples. Check off what is applicable to you, and use the space below to write additional broad, overarching questions that you wish to answer.

 

 

 

 

 

Evaluation Expert Session July 16, 2002 Page 8

SPECIFICALLY … Now, make a list of all the specific questions you wish to answer, and organize your questions categorically. Your list of questions will likely be much longer than your list of program components. This step of developing your evaluation will inform your methodologies and instrument choice. Remember that you must collect information on what the program is intended to be and what it is in reality, so you may need to ask some questions in 2 formats. For example:

How many people are intended to complete this intervention per week?” How many actually go through the intervention during an average week?”

Consider what specific questions you have. The questions below are only examples! Some may not be appropriate for your evaluation, and you will most likely need to add additional questions. Check off the questions that are applicable to you, and add your own questions in the space provided. WHO (regarding client): Who is the target audience, client, or recipient? How many people have participated? How many people have dropped out? How many people have declined participation? What are the demographic characteristics of clients?

Race Ethnicity National Origin Age Gender Sexual Orientation Religion Marital Status Employment Income Sources Education Socio-Economic Status

What factors do the clients have in common? What risk factors do clients have? Who is eligible for participation? How are people referred to the program? How are the screened? How satisfied are the clients?

YOUR QUESTIONS:

 

 

 

 

 

Evaluation Expert Session July 16, 2002 Page 9

WHO (Regarding staff): Who delivers the services? How are they hired? How supportive are staff and management of each other? What qualifications do staff have? How are staff trained? How congruent are staff and recipients with one another? What are staff demographics? (see client demographic list for specifics.)

YOUR QUESTIONS: WHAT: What happens during the intervention? What is being delivered? What are the methods of delivery for each service (e.g., one-on-one, group session, didactic instruction,

etc.) What are the standard operating procedures? What technologies are in use? What types of communication techniques are implemented? What type of organization delivers the program? How many years has the organization existed? How many years has the program been operating? What type of reputation does the agency have in the community? What about the program? What are the methods of service delivery? How is the intervention structured? How is confidentiality maintained?

YOUR QUESTIONS: WHEN: When is the intervention conducted? How frequently is the intervention conducted? At what intervals? At what time of day, week, month, year? What is the length and/or duration of each service?

 

 

 

 

 

 

Evaluation Expert Session July 16, 2002 Page 10

YOUR QUESTIONS: WHERE: Where does the intervention occur? What type of facility is used? What is the age and condition of the facility? In what part of town is the facility? Is it accessible to the target audience? Does public transportation access

the facility? Is parking available? Is child care provided on site?

YOUR QUESTIONS: WHY: Why are these activities or strategies implemented and why not others? Why has the intervention varied in ability to maintain interest? Why are clients not participating? Why is the intervention conducted at a certain time or at a certain frequency?

YOUR QUESTIONS:

 

 

 

 

 

Evaluation Expert Session July 16, 2002 Page 11

Validating Your Evaluation Questions

Even though all of your questions may be interesting, it is important to narrow your list to questions that will be particularly helpful to the evaluation and that can be answered given your specific resources, staff, and time.

Go through each of your questions and consider it with respect to the questions below, which may be helpful in streamlining your final list of questions. Revise your worksheet/list of questions until you can answer “yes” to all of these questions. If you cannot answer “yes” to your question, consider omitting the question from your evaluation.

Validation

Yes

No

Will I use the data that will stem from these questions?

 

 

Do I know why each question is important and /or valuable?

 

 

Is someone interested in each of these questions?

 

 

Have I ensured that no questions are omitted that may be important to someone else?

 

 

Is the wording of each question sufficiently clear and unambiguous?

 

 

Do I have a hypothesis about what the “correct” answer will be for each question?

 

 

Is each question specific without inappropriately limiting the scope of the evaluation or probing for a specific response?

 

 

Do they constitute a sufficient set of questions to achieve the purpose(s) of the evaluation?

 

 

Is it feasible to answer the question, given what I know about the resources for evaluation?

 

 

Is each question worth the expense of answering it?

 

 

Derived from “A Design Manual” Checklist, page 51.

 

 

 

 

 

Evaluation Expert Session July 16, 2002 Page 12

Determining Methodology Process evaluation is characterized by collection of data primarily through two formats: 1) Quantitative, archival, recorded data that may be managed by an computerized

tracking or management system, and 2) Qualitative data that may be obtained through a variety of formats, such as

surveys or focus groups.

When considering what methods to use, it is critical to have a thorough understanding and knowledge of the questions you want answered. Your questions will inform your choice of methods. After this section on types of methodologies, you will complete an exercise in which you consider what method of data collection is most appropriate for each question.

Do you have a thorough understanding of your questions?

Furthermore, it is essential to consider what data the organization you are evaluating already has. Data may exist in the form of an existing computerized management information system, records, or a tracking system of some other sort. Using this data may provide the best reflection of what is “going on,” and it will also save you time, money, and energy because you will not have to devise your own data collection method! However, keep in mind that you may have to adapt this data to meet your own needs – you may need to add or replace fields, records, or variables.

What data does your organization already have? Will you need to adapt it?

If the organization does not already have existing data, consider devising a method for the organizational staff to collect their own data. This process will ultimately be helpful for them so that they can continue to self-evaluate, track their activities, and assess progress and change. It will be helpful for the evaluation process because, again, it will save you time, money, and energy that you can better devote towards other aspects of the evaluation. Management information systems will be described more fully in a later section of this workbook.

Do you have the capacity and resources to devise such a system? (You may need to refer to a later section of this workbook before answering.)

 

 

 

 

 

Evaluation Expert Session July 16, 2002 Page 13

Who should collect the data?

 

Given all of this, what thoughts do you have on who should collect data for your evaluation? Program staff, evaluation staff, or some combination?

Program Staff: May collect data from activities such as attendance, demographics, participation, characteristics of participants, dispositions, etc; may conduct intake interviews, note changes regarding service delivery, and monitor program implementation.

Advantages: Cost-efficient, accessible, resourceful, available, time-efficient,

and increased understanding of the program. Disadvantages: May exhibit bias and/or social desirability, may use data for critical

judgment, may compromise the validity of the program; may put staff in uncomfortable or inappropriate position; also, if staff collect data, may have an increased burden and responsibility placed upon them outside of their usual or typical job responsibilities. If you utilize staff for data collection, provide frequent reminders as well as messages of gratitude.

 

Evaluation staff: May collect qualitative information regarding implementation, general characteristics of program participants, and other information that may otherwise be subject to bias or distortion.

Advantages: Data collected in manner consistent with overall goals and timeline

of evaluation; prevents bias and inappropriate use of information; promotes overall fidelity and validity of data.

Disadvantages: May be costly and take extensive time; may require additional

training on part of evaluator; presence of evaluator in organization may be intrusive, inconvenient, or burdensome.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Evaluation Expert Session July 16, 2002 Page 14

When should data be collected?

Conducting the evaluation according to your timeline can be challenging. Consider how much time you have for data collection, and make decisions regarding what to collect and how much based on your timeline. In many cases, outcome evaluation is not considered appropriate until the program has stabilized. However, when conducting a process evaluation, it can be important to start the evaluation at the beginning so that a story may be told regarding how the program was developed, information may be provided on refinements, and program growth and progress may be noted. If you have the luxury of collecting data from the start of the intervention to the end of the intervention, space out data collection as appropriate. If you are evaluating an ongoing intervention that is fairly quick (e.g., an 8-week educational group), you may choose to evaluate one or more “cycles.” How much time do you have to conduct your evaluation? How much time do you have for data collection (as opposed to designing the evaluation, training, organizing and analyzing results, and writing the report?) Is the program you are evaluating time specific? How long does the program or intervention last? At what stages do you think you will most likely collect data?

Soon after a program has begun Descriptive information on program characteristics that will not change; information requiring baseline information During the intervention Ongoing process information such as recruitment, program implementation After the intervention Demographics, attendance ratings, satisfaction ratings

 

 

 

 

 

Evaluation Expert Session July 16, 2002 Page 15

Before you consider methods