SOCW 6311 wk 11 discussion 1 peer responses  Respond to at least two colleagues’ by doing the following: Respond to at least two colleagues by offering critiques of their analyses. Identify strengths in their analyses and strategies for presenting evaluation results to others.  Identify ways your colleagues might improve their presentations.  Identify potential needs or questions of the audience that they may not have considered.  Provide an additional strategy for overcoming the obstacles or challenges in communicating the content of the evaluation reports. Name first and references after every person Instructor wants lay out like this: Respond to at least two colleagues ( 2 peers posts are provided) by doing all of the following: Identify strengths of your colleagues’ analyses and areas in which the analyses could be improved. Your response Address his or her evaluation of the efficacy and applicability of the evidence-based practice, Your response [Evaluate] his or her identification of factors that could support or hinder the implementation of the evidence-based practice, Your response And [evaluate] his or her solution for mitigating those factors. Your response Offer additional insight to your colleagues by either identifying additional factors that may support or limit implementation of the evidence-based practice or an alternative solution for mitigating one of the limitations that your colleagues identified. Your response References Your response Peer 1: McKenna Bull  RE: Katie Otte Initial Post-Discussion 1 - Week 11 COLLAPSE Top of Form Identify strengths in their analyses and strategies for presenting evaluation results to others. You provided an insightful analysis of this particular process evaluation, and it seems that you were able to design a comprehensive presentation guideline. I agree with your tactic to break the presentation up into categories, and the categories you have selected seem to address the major components of the program, the evaluation itself, and the findings of said evaluation. You also provided a great analysis and summary of the PATHS program. The purpose of the program is clear, and the overarching purpose of the evaluation was made clear in your synopsis as well. Identify ways your colleagues might improve their presentations. You addressed outcome measures very well, however, there may have been some lacking information in regards to overall evaluation methods as a whole. Addressing factors such as who was collecting the data, how they were trained, how their training or standing could limit potential bias, and similar information. This may be an important piece of information that could help to provide audience members with a better understanding of the evaluation processes as a whole. Identify potential needs or questions of the audience that they may not have considered. As mentioned by Law and Shek (2011), this program was designed and facilitated in Hong Kong, Chi.

1. SOCW 6311 wk 11 discussion 1 peer responses
Respond
to
at least two
colleagues’ by doing the following:
Respond to at least two colleagues by offering critiques of their
analyses. Identify strengths in their analyses and strategies for
presenting evaluation results to others.
Identify ways your colleagues might improve their
presentations.
Identify potential needs or questions of the audience that they
may not have considered.
Provide an additional strategy for overcoming the obstacles or
challenges in communicating the content of the evaluation
reports.
Name first and references after every person
Instructor wants lay out like this:
Respond to at least two colleagues ( 2 peers posts are provided)
by doing all of the following:
Identify strengths of your colleagues’ analyses and areas in
which the analyses could be improved.
Your response

2. Address his or her evaluation of the efficacy and applicability
of the evidence-based practice,
Your response
[Evaluate] his or her identification of factors that could support
or hinder the implementation of the evidence-based practice,
Your response
And [evaluate] his or her solution for mitigating those factors.
Your response
Offer additional insight to your colleagues by either identifying
additional factors that may support or limit implementation of
the evidence-based practice or an alternative solution for
mitigating one of the limitations that your colleagues identified.
Your response
References
Your response
Peer 1: McKenna Bull
RE: Katie Otte Initial Post-Discussion 1 - Week 11
COLLAPSE
Top of Form
Identify strengths in their analyses and strategies for presenting
evaluation results to others.

3. You provided an insightful analysis of this particular process
evaluation, and it seems that you were able to design a
comprehensive presentation guideline. I agree with your tactic
to break the presentation up into categories, and the categories
you have selected seem to address the major components of the
program, the evaluation itself, and the findings of said
evaluation. You also provided a great analysis and summary of
the PATHS program. The purpose of the program is clear, and
the overarching purpose of the evaluation was made clear in
your synopsis as well.
Identify ways your colleagues might improve their
presentations.
You addressed outcome measures very well, however, there may
have been some lacking information in regards to overall
evaluation methods as a whole. Addressing factors such as who
was collecting the data, how they were trained, how their
training or standing could limit potential bias, and similar
information. This may be an important piece of information that
could help to provide audience members with a better
understanding of the evaluation processes as a whole.
Identify potential needs or questions of the audience that they
may not have considered.
As mentioned by Law and Shek (2011), this program was
designed and facilitated in Hong Kong, China. As such, the
program takes on a more eastern based holistic approach to care
and treatment. In western society, the beliefs for treatment seem
to be quite different and take a far different approach most of
the time. Would these more traditional and holistic beliefs
translate into a more western culture? Would this program have
a similar effect or simply be pushed aside for a more western
approach?

4. Provide an additional strategy for overcoming the obstacles or
challenges in communicating the content of the evaluation
reports.
There are a number of methods one may use to disseminate the
findings to others. This step can be challenging and present a
number of different hurdles one must overcome. One strategy
one may suggest could be using multiple strategies. Dudley
(2014) suggests that a variety of evaluation reports should be
prepared and disseminated that are relevant to different
stakeholders, rather than taking the approach that one report
“fits all” (p. 310). This approach will help to provide evaluators
be prepared for various audiences, and have presentations able
to meet the needs of many.
References
Dudley, J. R. (2014).
Social work evaluation: Enhancing what we do.
(2nd ed.) Chicago, IL: Lyceum Books.
Law, B., & Shek, D. (2011) Process Evaluation of a Positive
Youth Development Program: Project P.A.T.H.S.
Research on Social Work Practice
, 21(5) 539-548.
Bottom of Form
Bottom of Form
Bottom of Form

5. Bottom of Form
Peer 2: Katie Otte
Katie Otte Initial Post-Discussion 1 - Week 11
COLLAPSE
Top of Form
Initial Post: By Day 3 post an analysis of how you would
present the results of the evaluation to a group of social work
colleagues.
In presenting the results of an evaluation to a group of
colleagues, I would break the presentation into the following
categories including:
1.
Overview of the program being evaluated
2.
Research questions
3.
Outcome Measures
4.
Data collection method

6. 5.
Results
6.
Analysis
The evaluation I am presenting focuses on a process evaluation
for a large-scale positive youth development program in Hong
Kong called Positive Adolescent Training through Holistic
Social Programs (PATHS) (Law & Shek, 2011). The goal of
this program was to promote holistic development among junior
secondary school students in Hong Kong focusing on 15
constructs that can affect adolescent development (Law & Shek,
2011). The process evaluation focuses on program adherence,
process factors, program quality, and success.
The process evaluation addressed two research questions:
1. What is the implementation quality of the Secondary 3
curriculum of the Tier 1 Program of Project P.A.T.H.S. in Hong
Kong?
2. How are program adherence and other indicators related to
the implementation quality and success of the Secondary 3 Tier
1 Program?
The results are based on these parameters and data was
collected through observations of actual program delivery (Law
& Shek, 2011). The two items that were used to evaluate the
observation outcome were implementation quality and
implementation success. The observers were requested to
indicate their observations using a 7-point Likert scale ranging
from 1 (poor) to 7 (excellent) with a higher score representing
better implementation quality or success (Law & Shek, 2011).

7. The overall
program adherence
to the program manual ranged from 12.5% to 95.0%, with an
average overall adherence of 76.18% (Law & Shek, 2011). The
scores for
implementation quality and success
were 4.63 and 4.68 which are both high. The current study
found that program adherence, implementation process, and
implementation context are closely associated with
implementation quality and success. Implementation quality and
success had the highest correlation (Law & Shek, 2011).
Identify the background information that you think they would
need and the key message of your presentation.
The background information my colleagues might need includes
an understanding of the program and its goals. Additionally,
my colleagues might want to know if any other studies had been
done with similar programs and if so, what the results were.
The key message of the presentation would be to see the value
in the program based on the evaluation results.
Explain the strategies that you might use to meet your
colleagues’ interests and goals.
To facilitate providing this information, I would ensure I had a
thorough understanding of the program. I would also make sure
to have information about similar programs and if studies have
already been done.
Identify questions that your colleagues might have and what
their reactions might be.
Do these findings warrant any changes to the program?

8. Why is there a range within program adherence?
Why did time management and reflective learning receive low
ratings?
Can these findings be applied in other social work services,
settings, programs?
I believe their overall reaction would be supportive of the
results and the program based on the results.
References
Law, B., & Shek, D. (2011) Process Evaluation of a Positive
Youth Development Program: Project P.A.T.H.S.
Research on Social Work Practice, 21
,(5) 539-548.
Bottom of Form