From the Ground Up: Building a Participatory Evaluation Model

Sánchez, Victoria; Carrillo, Cristihan; Wallerstein, Nina

doi:10.1353/cpr.2011.0007

Cited by 14 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…We have continued to improve the evaluation process over time, and now use a modified RE-AIM (Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, Maintenance) framework (Glasgow, Klesges, Dzewaltowski, Estabrooks, & Vogt, 2006) to guide our evaluation. A logic model (Fielden et al, 2007; Sanchez, Carrillo, & Wallerstein, 2011; Sandoval et al, 2012; Scarinci, Johnson, Hardy, Marron, & Partridge, 2009) in Figure 1 summarizes the overall plan.

Reach : To evaluate reach of the CES-P, we monitor (a) number/types of participants that inquire about the program (via phone, e-mail, and/or information sessions) and their representative organizations; (b) number/types of participants that apply for the program and their representative organizations; and (c) types of participants that are selected, including organizations, areas of health interest, experience in CBPR, and previous history/ experience of the CBPR partnerships.

Effectiveness : To evaluate effectiveness of the CES-P, we use standardized evaluation tools for each training session (content, expertise of speakers, usefulness, etc.

…”

Section: Program Evaluationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Training Partnership Dyads for Community-Based Participatory Research

Andrews

Cox

Newman

et al. 2012

Health Promotion Practice

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article describes the development, implementation, evaluation framework, and initial outcomes of a unique campus–community training initiative for community-based participatory research (CBPR). The South Carolina Clinical & Translational Research Center for Community Health Partnerships, which functions as the institution’s Clinical Translational and Science Award Community Engagement Program, leads the training initiative known as the Community Engaged Scholars Program (CES-P). The CES-P provides simultaneous training to CBPR teams, with each team consisting of at least one community partner and one academic partner. Program elements include 12 months of monthly interactive group sessions, mentorship with apprenticeship opportunities, and funding for a CBPR pilot project. A modified RE-AIM (Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, Maintenance) framework guides the process, impact, and outcome evaluation plan. Lessons learned include challenges of group instruction with varying levels of readiness among the CBPR partners, navigating the institutional review board process with community co-investigators, and finding appropriate academic investigators to match community research interests. Future directions are recommended for this promising and unique dyadic training of academic and community partners.

show abstract

Effectiveness : To evaluate effectiveness of the CES-P, we use standardized evaluation tools for each training session (content, expertise of speakers, usefulness, etc.

…”

Section: Program Evaluationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Training Partnership Dyads for Community-Based Participatory Research

Andrews

Cox

Newman

et al. 2012

Health Promotion Practice

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Although the utility of CER is perceived as well established in the literature (Campbell & Jovchelovitch, 2007; Israel et al, 1998; Israel, 2005; Minkler & Wallerstein, 2010; Nelson et al, 1998; Wallerstein & Duran, 2006; Wallerstein & Duran, 2010; Zeldin, 2004), measuring and evaluating community engagement in research activities (the extent to which community members are involved with the decisions and activities of the research project) have been limited and have primarily focused on qualitative approaches (Francisco, Paine, & Fawcett, 1993; Goodman et al, 1998; Khodyakov et al, 2013; Lantz, Viruell-Fuentes, Israel, Softley, & Guzman, 2001; McCloskey et al, 2012; Sanchez, Carrillo, & Wallerstein, 2011; Schulz, Israel, & Lantz, 2003). Qualitative methods are effective at assessing community engagement at a project or program level; however, they are time consuming, do not easily scale up for the evaluation of large-scale or multicommunity projects.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluating Community Engagement in Research: Quantitative Measure Development

Goodman¹,

Thompson

Arroyo³

et al. 2016

Journal Community Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Although the importance of community engagement in research has been previously established, there are few evidence-based approaches for measuring the level of community engagement in research projects. A quantitative community engagement measure was developed, aligned with 11 engagement principles (EPs) previously established in the literature. The measure has 96 Likert response items; 3–5 quality items and 3–5 quantity items measure each EP. Cronbach’s alpha is used to examine the internal consistency of items that measure a single EP. Every EP item group had a Cronbach’s alpha > .85, which indicates strong internal consistency for all question groups across both scales (quality and quantity). This information determines the level of community engagement, which can be correlated with other research outcomes.

show abstract

“…11 Others have addressed the formation and evolution of CBPR partnerships, including partnership development, capacity building, strategies for integrating multiculturalism into partnership processes, 12,13 and planning for sustainability. 14 …”

Section: Qualitative Data Related To the Journal’s Vision And Contentmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Retrospective on the Vision for Progress in Community Health Partnerships: Research, Education, and Action

Eder

Holzer²,

Calhoun³

et al. 2017

Progress in Community Health Partnerships

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The organizers founded Progress in Community Health Partnerships with a commitment to improving our understanding of community-based participatory research (CBPR) and its use in community–academic/institutional health partnerships. Following Rogers’s Diffusion of Innovations, they reasoned that expanded adoption would occur through academic and community partner recognition of CBPR’s relative advantage over previous approaches; its compatibility with the values, past experience and needs of potential adopters; its ease of understanding and use; its capacity for experimentation and refinement; and its production of observable results. We now assess the journal’s progress toward realizing the vision, as well as issues and problems the organizers identified. We map the journal’s content over its first decade onto the initial vision by examining the record of submissions and publications across the eight types of articles and the journal’s record of rejections and publications. In remembering that Rogers’s study of innovations requires both technical and social change, we discuss the difference between understanding how to do something and actually putting an innovation into action that becomes standard practice at both individual and systemic levels. We observe that the large number of Original Research and Works-in-Progress/Lessons Learned manuscripts, submitted and published, reflect traditional expectations for faculty research productivity. We suggest that sustainability, which rated of lower importance within the initial vision, has gained in importance among community and academic partners; however, it will gain added attention only with changed university expectations of researchers. We further suggest that the study of partnerships involved in researching and improving public health should be expanded beyond the current focus on CBPR.

show abstract

From the Ground Up: Building a Participatory Evaluation Model

Cited by 14 publications

References 20 publications

Training Partnership Dyads for Community-Based Participatory Research

Training Partnership Dyads for Community-Based Participatory Research

Evaluating Community Engagement in Research: Quantitative Measure Development

A Retrospective on the Vision for Progress in Community Health Partnerships: Research, Education, and Action

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About