It took a long while to reach my conclusions about which model to apply to this program evaluation. In reviewing as much as I could about the various models presented in our first class, I settled into an internal debate about either applying Provus’ Discrepancy Model or Scriven’s Goal Free method.
After repeatedly reviewing the program details, I have settled on using a concurrent application of Scriven’s Goal Based Evaluation (GBE) and Goal Free Evaluation (GFE) models in order to provide the program with as much clear and useful information as possible, especially as it appears from the provided summary that some of the goals were altered due to limitations in finding enough participants from the original target population.
Goal Based Evaluation
First, I believe a thorough GBE would benefit the program as the program developers clearly identified the rationale for and primary objectives of the program before it was implemented. These objectives would give the evaluator a solid basis from which to determine whether or not the program is, and to what level of effectiveness, able to support the needs of the originally identified target end-users.
Another reason for conducting a GBE would be to explore the effectiveness of the various elements of the program that were used to support of the direct exercise program, such as the social elements and the provision of childcare during the sessions. While these elements were not explicitly defined as primary objectives of the program, the developers clearly felt they were necessary in order to build a sense of community and ensure all potential users were able to access the program. A GBE would assess the impact of such ‘added features’ against the intended outcomes of this exercise program and determine whether or not they should be continued in order for the program to be successful.
Goal Free Evaluation
As previously mentioned, the summary clearly outlines that the program developers had to reach out to a broader population of potential users due to limitations in the availability of participants from the specified target population. This would have inevitably had an impact on the success of the program when compared to the original objectives.
To an outside evaluator, conducting a GFE, the differences between the original target users and those included to increase the number of participants would not be obvious without access to medical records. This would allow the individual conducting the evaluation to focus on the effect the program is actually having on all the participating individuals, providing information about program effectiveness from a new perspective. The evaluator could then provide conclusions and recommendations that reflect the current state of the program as opposed what was initially planned before implementation without being influenced by the initial objectives.
By concurrently using both of these methods, the program developers would be provided with rich data, conclusions and recommendations about both their desired outcomes and those that arose when they were forced to alter their selection of participants. This multi-faceted information could then be applied to improve the program and determine whether the unintended outcomes and program aspects should be continued.
After repeatedly reviewing the program details, I have settled on using a concurrent application of Scriven’s Goal Based Evaluation (GBE) and Goal Free Evaluation (GFE) models in order to provide the program with as much clear and useful information as possible, especially as it appears from the provided summary that some of the goals were altered due to limitations in finding enough participants from the original target population.
Goal Based Evaluation
First, I believe a thorough GBE would benefit the program as the program developers clearly identified the rationale for and primary objectives of the program before it was implemented. These objectives would give the evaluator a solid basis from which to determine whether or not the program is, and to what level of effectiveness, able to support the needs of the originally identified target end-users.
Another reason for conducting a GBE would be to explore the effectiveness of the various elements of the program that were used to support of the direct exercise program, such as the social elements and the provision of childcare during the sessions. While these elements were not explicitly defined as primary objectives of the program, the developers clearly felt they were necessary in order to build a sense of community and ensure all potential users were able to access the program. A GBE would assess the impact of such ‘added features’ against the intended outcomes of this exercise program and determine whether or not they should be continued in order for the program to be successful.
Goal Free Evaluation
As previously mentioned, the summary clearly outlines that the program developers had to reach out to a broader population of potential users due to limitations in the availability of participants from the specified target population. This would have inevitably had an impact on the success of the program when compared to the original objectives.
To an outside evaluator, conducting a GFE, the differences between the original target users and those included to increase the number of participants would not be obvious without access to medical records. This would allow the individual conducting the evaluation to focus on the effect the program is actually having on all the participating individuals, providing information about program effectiveness from a new perspective. The evaluator could then provide conclusions and recommendations that reflect the current state of the program as opposed what was initially planned before implementation without being influenced by the initial objectives.
By concurrently using both of these methods, the program developers would be provided with rich data, conclusions and recommendations about both their desired outcomes and those that arose when they were forced to alter their selection of participants. This multi-faceted information could then be applied to improve the program and determine whether the unintended outcomes and program aspects should be continued.