Drafting a Process Evaluation
Description
Submit APA formatted 5-page plan for a process evaluation. Include the following 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
Here are requires references for the assignment
Dudley, J. R. (2014). Social work evaluation: Enhancing what we do. (2nd ed.) Chicago, IL: Lyceum Books.
- Chapter 8, “Improving How Programs and Practice Work” (pp. 167–207)
Becker, L. A. (1999). Statistical and clinical significance. Retrieved from https://www.uccs.edu/lbecker/clinsig
Man-Son-Hing, M., Laupacis, A., O’Rourke, K., Molnar, F. J., Mahon, J., Chan, K. B., & Wells, G. (2002). Determination of the clinical importance of study results. Journal of general internal medicine, 17(6), 469–476.
Note: Retrieved from the Walden Library databases.
Plummer, S.-B., Makris, S., & Brocksen S. (Eds.). (2014b). Social work case studies: Concentration year. Baltimore, MD: Laureate International Universities Publishing. [Vital Source e-reader].
Read the following section:
- “Social Work Research: Qualitative Groups” (pp. 68–69)
Document: Bliss, M. J., & Emshoff, J. G. (2002). Workbook for designing a processevaluation. Retrieved from http://beta.roadsafetyevaluation.com/evaluationgui… (PDF)
Georgia Department of Human Resources, Division of Public Health.
Excellent Good Fair Poor Main Posting 45 (45%) – 50 (50%) Answers all parts of the discussion question(s) expectations with reflective critical analysis and synthesis of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module and current credible sources.
Supported by at least three current, credible sources.
Written clearly and concisely with no grammatical or spelling errors and fully adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style.
40 (40%) – 44 (44%) Responds to the discussion question(s) and is reflective with critical analysis and synthesis of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module.
At least 75% of post has exceptional depth and breadth.
Supported by at least three credible sources.
Written clearly and concisely with one or no grammatical or spelling errors and fully adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style.
35 (35%) – 39 (39%) Responds to some of the discussion question(s).
One or two criteria are not addressed or are superficially addressed.
Is somewhat lacking reflection and critical analysis and synthesis.
Somewhat represents knowledge gained from the course readings for the module.
Post is cited with two credible sources.
Written somewhat concisely; may contain more than two spelling or grammatical errors.
Contains some APA formatting errors.
0 (0%) – 34 (34%) Does not respond to the discussion question(s) adequately.
Lacks depth or superficially addresses criteria.
Lacks reflection and critical analysis and synthesis.
Does not represent knowledge gained from the course readings for the module.
Contains only one or no credible sources.
Not written clearly or concisely.
Contains more than two spelling or grammatical errors.
Does not adhere to current APA manual writing rules and style.
Main Post: Timeliness 10 (10%) – 10 (10%) Posts main post by day 3.
0 (0%) – 0 (0%) 0 (0%) – 0 (0%) 0 (0%) – 0 (0%) Does not post by day 3.
First Response 17 (17%) – 18 (18%) Response exhibits synthesis, critical thinking, and application to practice settings.
Responds fully to questions posed by faculty.
Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by at least two scholarly sources.
Demonstrates synthesis and understanding of learning objectives.
Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues.
Responses to faculty questions are fully answered, if posed.
Response is effectively written in standard, edited English.
15 (15%) – 16 (16%) Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice settings.
Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues.
Responses to faculty questions are answered, if posed.
Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by two or more credible sources.
Response is effectively written in standard, edited English.
13 (13%) – 14 (14%) Response is on topic and may have some depth.
Responses posted in the discussion may lack effective professional communication.
Responses to faculty questions are somewhat answered, if posed.
Response may lack clear, concise opinions and ideas, and a few or no credible sources are cited.
0 (0%) – 12 (12%) Response may not be on topic and lacks depth.
Responses posted in the discussion lack effective professional communication.
Responses to faculty questions are missing.
No credible sources are cited.
Second Response 16 (16%) – 17 (17%) Response exhibits synthesis, critical thinking, and application to practice settings.
Responds fully to questions posed by faculty.
Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by at least two scholarly sources.
Demonstrates synthesis and understanding of learning objectives.
Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues.
Responses to faculty questions are fully answered, if posed.
Response is effectively written in standard, edited English.
14 (14%) – 15 (15%) Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice settings.
Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues.
Responses to faculty questions are answered, if posed.
Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by two or more credible sources.
Response is effectively written in standard, edited English.
12 (12%) – 13 (13%) Response is on topic and may have some depth.
Responses posted in the discussion may lack effective professional communication.
Responses to faculty questions are somewhat answered, if posed.
Response may lack clear, concise opinions and ideas, and a few or no credible sources are cited.
0 (0%) – 11 (11%) Response may not be on topic and lacks depth.
Responses posted in the discussion lack effective professional communication.
Responses to faculty questions are missing.
No credible sources are cited.
Participation 5 (5%) – 5 (5%) Meets requirements for participation by posting on three different days.
0 (0%) – 0 (0%) 0 (0%) – 0 (0%) 0 (0%) – 0 (0%) Does not meet requirements for participation by posting on 3 different days.
Total Points: 100