Davidson Rosemary, Randhawa Gurch, Cash Stephanie
Institute for Health Research, University of Bedfordshire, Luton, United Kingdom.
Flying Start, Luton, United Kingdom.
JMIR Res Protoc. 2019 Mar 5;8(3):e10075. doi: 10.2196/10075.
There is extensive literature on the methodology of evaluation research and the development and evaluation of complex interventions but little guidance on the formative stages before evaluation and how to work with partner organizations that wish to have their provision evaluated. It is important to be able to identify suitable projects for evaluation from a range of provision and describe the steps required, often with academic institutions working in partnership with external organizations, in order to set up an evaluation. However, research evaluating programs or interventions rarely discusses these stages.
This study aimed to extend work on evaluability assessment and pre-evaluation planning by proposing an 8-Step Scoping Framework to enable the appraisal of multiple programs in order to identify interventions suitable for evaluation. We aimed to add to the literature on evaluability assessment and more recent evaluation guidance by describing the processes involved in working with partner organizations.
This paper documents the steps required to identify multiple complex interventions suitable for process and outcome evaluation. The steps were developed using an iterative approach by working alongside staff in a local government organization, to build an evidence base to demonstrate which interventions improve children's outcomes. The process of identifying suitable programs for evaluation, thereby establishing the pre-evaluation steps, was tested using all Flying Start provision.
The 8-Step Scoping Framework was described using the example of the local government organization Flying Start to illustrate how each step contributes to finding projects suitable for process and outcome evaluation: (1) formulating overarching key questions that encompass all programs offered by an organization, (2) gaining an in-depth understanding of the work and provision of an organization and engaging staff, (3) completing a data template per project/program offered, (4) assessing the robustness/validity of data across all programs, (5) deciding on projects suitable for evaluation and those requiring additional data, (6) negotiating with chosen project leads, both within and outside the organization, (7) developing individual project evaluation protocols, and (8) applying for ethical approval from the university and partner organization.
This paper describes the processes involved in identifying suitable projects for evaluation. It adds to the existing literature on the assessment of specific programs suitable for evaluation and guidance for conducting evaluations by establishing the formative steps required to identify suitable programs from a range of provision. This scoping framework particularly relates to academic partners and organizations tasked with delivering evidence-based services designed to meet local needs. The steps identified have been described in the context of early years provision but can be applied to a range of community-based evaluations, or more generally, to cases where an academic partner is working with external stakeholders to identify projects suitable for academic evaluation.
关于评估研究方法以及复杂干预措施的开发与评估,已有大量文献,但对于评估前的形成性阶段以及如何与希望对其服务进行评估的合作伙伴组织合作,却鲜有指导。能够从一系列服务中识别出适合评估的项目,并描述所需步骤非常重要,通常这需要学术机构与外部组织合作开展,以便进行评估。然而,评估项目或干预措施的研究很少讨论这些阶段。
本研究旨在通过提出一个8步范围界定框架来扩展可评估性评估和评估前规划的工作,以便对多个项目进行评估,从而识别适合评估的干预措施。我们旨在通过描述与合作伙伴组织合作所涉及的过程,为可评估性评估及最新评估指南的文献增添内容。
本文记录了识别多个适合进行过程和结果评估的复杂干预措施所需的步骤。这些步骤是通过与当地政府组织的工作人员合作,采用迭代方法制定的,以建立一个证据基础,证明哪些干预措施能改善儿童的状况。使用“启步早教”的所有服务对识别适合评估的项目的过程(即确定评估前步骤)进行了测试。
以当地政府组织“启步早教”为例,描述了8步范围界定框架,以说明每个步骤如何有助于找到适合进行过程和结果评估的项目:(1)制定涵盖组织提供的所有项目的总体关键问题;(2)深入了解组织的工作和服务,并让工作人员参与进来;(3)为每个提供的项目/计划填写数据模板;(4)评估所有项目数据的稳健性/有效性;(5)确定适合评估的项目以及那些需要额外数据的项目;(6)与组织内外选定的项目负责人进行协商;(7)制定各个项目的评估方案;(8)申请大学和合作伙伴组织的伦理批准。
本文描述了识别适合评估的项目所涉及的过程。它通过确定从一系列服务中识别适合项目所需的形成性步骤,为现有的关于适合评估的特定项目评估及评估指导的文献增添了内容。这个范围界定框架特别适用于学术合作伙伴以及负责提供旨在满足当地需求的循证服务的组织。所确定的步骤是在早期教育服务的背景下进行描述,但也可应用于一系列基于社区的评估,或者更广泛地说,适用于学术合作伙伴与外部利益相关者合作识别适合学术评估的项目的情况。