Evaluating community coalition characteristics and functioning: a summary of measurement tools

Abstract

Community coalitions and partnerships are frequently used to promote community health; however, little research to evaluate measurement tools for assessing their effectiveness has been reported. This summary identified measurement tools for coalition or partnership characteristics and functioning. The largest numbers of measures were identified for assessing individual and group characteristics, with impact and outcome measures being the least numerous. Published measures often lacked information regarding validity and reliability, with internal consistency reliability being the most commonly reported statistic. Some measures were well defined, but others lacked conceptual clarity. Valid and reliable tools that can be applied across multiple coalitions are necessary in order to achieve a better understanding of the associations among factors influencing optimal coalition functioning and community health impacts and outcomes.

Gauging the Impact of Community University Engagement Initiatives in India

“…Despite widespread acknowledgement that universities should contribute to the development of the society of which they are a part, the problems in measuring CUE include: a lack of focus on outcomes; a lack of standardized instruments and tools; and the variety of approaches currently being adopted (Hart, 2010: 3). The lack of standardized measurement instruments for evaluation of civic engagement is widely noted (Rowe and Frewer, 2000;Granner and Sharpe, 2004).…”

Institutional processes to determine community engagement impact : a collective case study.

“…By approaching this research using grounded theory, data are derived directly from those involved in the process, giving voice and expertise to not only the university stakeholders involved in assessment, but community representatives as well. Community engagement researchers know more about how engagement partners work well together than the outcomes and impact these partnerships produce (Granner & Sharpe, 2004;Nichols et al, 2015). This study builds toward better understanding of outcomes resultant from community engagement by examining institutional processes to determine impact.…”

“…Bess, Doykos, Geller, Craven, & Nation, 2016;Brown, 2010;Plumb, Collins, Cordeiro, & Kavanaugh-Lynch, 2008), community coalition work (e.g. Garland, Crane, Marino, Stone-Wiggins, Ward, & Friedell, 2004;Granner & Sharpe, 2004), and larger community networks, such as collective impact models, designed to address local development needs including education reform (e.g. Flood, Minkler, Lavery, Estrada, & Falbe, 2015;Henig, Riehl, Houston, Rebell, & Wolff, 2016).…”

“…Fewer articles that would address the research question have been empirical in nature, in particular quantitative studies (Granner & Sharpe, 2004;Henderson & Mapp, 2002;Rubin, 2000). There is also a lack of research on community impact (Stoecker et al, 2010).…”

“…According to Amey et al (2007), in order for partnership processes to move toward desired effects, a framework is needed that questions the outcomes, benefits, and costs to a partnership. Within the body of literature on campus-community partnerships, partnership characteristics and processes are well-established, while the outcomes and impacts they produce are less understood (Granner & Sharpe, 2004;Grobe, 1990;Nichols et al, 2015;Noonan, Erickson, McCall, Frey, & Zheng, 2014). "Highlighting elements of educational collaborations is a way of evaluating their effectiveness and efficiency" (Amey et al, 2007, p. 8-9), and informs effective process, yet it does not fully address the question of what observed outcomes result from processes.…”