Process evaluation in a multisite, primary obesity-prevention trial in American Indian schoolchildren

We describe the development, implementation, and use of the process evaluation component of a multisite, primary obesity prevention trial for American Indian schoolchildren. We describe the development and pilot testing of the instruments, provide some examples of the criteria for instrument selecti...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:The American journal of clinical nutrition 1999-04, Vol.69 (4 Suppl), p.816S-824S
Hauptverfasser: Helitzer, D L, Davis, S M, Gittelsohn, J, Going, S B, Murray, D M, Snyder, P, Steckler, A B
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 824S
container_issue 4 Suppl
container_start_page 816S
container_title The American journal of clinical nutrition
container_volume 69
creator Helitzer, D L
Davis, S M
Gittelsohn, J
Going, S B
Murray, D M
Snyder, P
Steckler, A B
description We describe the development, implementation, and use of the process evaluation component of a multisite, primary obesity prevention trial for American Indian schoolchildren. We describe the development and pilot testing of the instruments, provide some examples of the criteria for instrument selection, and provide examples of how process evaluation results were used to document and refine intervention components. The theoretical and applied framework of the process evaluation was based on diffusion theory, social learning theory, and the desire for triangulation of multiple modes of data collection. The primary objectives of the process evaluation were to systematically document the training process, content, and implementation of 4 components of the intervention. The process evaluation was developed and implemented collaboratively so that it met the needs of both the evaluators and those who would be implementing the intervention components. Process evaluation results revealed that observation and structured interviews provided the most informative data; however, these methods were the most expensive and time consuming and required the highest level of skill to undertake. Although the literature is full of idealism regarding the uses of process evaluation for formative and summative purposes, in reality, many persons are sensitive to having their work evaluated in such an in-depth, context-based manner as is described. For this reason, use of structured, quantitative, highly objective tools may be more effective than qualitative methods, which appear to be more dependent on the skills and biases of the researcher and the context in which they are used.
doi_str_mv 10.1093/ajcn/69.4.816S
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_69677768</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>40786659</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c358t-dc066cf7a8edaf3489bfaf7db448676f92591f39f1993a790d39e0b28e7298563</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNpdkM1LwzAYxoMobk6vHqV48GRn0rT5OI7hFwgK6jmk6RvMaJOZtIP993ZuB_H0wMvveXj5IXRJ8JxgSe_0yvg7JuflXBD2foSmRFKR0wLzYzTFGBe5JKyaoLOUVhiTohTsFE0IJrJiWEwRvMVgIKUMNroddO-Cz5zPdNYNbe-S6-E2W0fX6bjNQg3jYZuvI2zA_6J9dLrdFRYdRGe0z55948ZI5iuE1ny5tongz9GJ1W2Ci0PO0OfD_cfyKX95fXxeLl5yQyvR543BjBnLtYBGW1oKWVtteVOX49ucWVlUklgqLZGSai5xQyXguhDACykqRmfoZr-7juF7gNSrziUDbas9hCEpJhnnnIkRvP4HrsIQ_fibKiiRBSO8HKH5HjIxpBTBqoMJRbDa2Vc7--OoKtXO_li4OqwOdQfNH3yvm_4ARmmCKQ</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>231926174</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Process evaluation in a multisite, primary obesity-prevention trial in American Indian schoolchildren</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals</source><source>Alma/SFX Local Collection</source><creator>Helitzer, D L ; Davis, S M ; Gittelsohn, J ; Going, S B ; Murray, D M ; Snyder, P ; Steckler, A B</creator><creatorcontrib>Helitzer, D L ; Davis, S M ; Gittelsohn, J ; Going, S B ; Murray, D M ; Snyder, P ; Steckler, A B</creatorcontrib><description>We describe the development, implementation, and use of the process evaluation component of a multisite, primary obesity prevention trial for American Indian schoolchildren. We describe the development and pilot testing of the instruments, provide some examples of the criteria for instrument selection, and provide examples of how process evaluation results were used to document and refine intervention components. The theoretical and applied framework of the process evaluation was based on diffusion theory, social learning theory, and the desire for triangulation of multiple modes of data collection. The primary objectives of the process evaluation were to systematically document the training process, content, and implementation of 4 components of the intervention. The process evaluation was developed and implemented collaboratively so that it met the needs of both the evaluators and those who would be implementing the intervention components. Process evaluation results revealed that observation and structured interviews provided the most informative data; however, these methods were the most expensive and time consuming and required the highest level of skill to undertake. Although the literature is full of idealism regarding the uses of process evaluation for formative and summative purposes, in reality, many persons are sensitive to having their work evaluated in such an in-depth, context-based manner as is described. For this reason, use of structured, quantitative, highly objective tools may be more effective than qualitative methods, which appear to be more dependent on the skills and biases of the researcher and the context in which they are used.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0002-9165</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1938-3207</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1093/ajcn/69.4.816S</identifier><identifier>PMID: 10195608</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: American Society for Clinical Nutrition, Inc</publisher><subject>Asian Continental Ancestry Group ; Child ; Child Welfare ; Children &amp; youth ; Diet ; Female ; Health Education ; Humans ; Indians, North American ; Male ; Models, Educational ; Native Americans ; Obesity ; Obesity - ethnology ; Obesity - prevention &amp; control ; Pilot Projects ; Process Assessment (Health Care) ; Schools ; Studies ; United States</subject><ispartof>The American journal of clinical nutrition, 1999-04, Vol.69 (4 Suppl), p.816S-824S</ispartof><rights>Copyright American Society for Clinical Nutrition, Inc. Apr 1999</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c358t-dc066cf7a8edaf3489bfaf7db448676f92591f39f1993a790d39e0b28e7298563</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c358t-dc066cf7a8edaf3489bfaf7db448676f92591f39f1993a790d39e0b28e7298563</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,778,782,27907,27908</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10195608$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Helitzer, D L</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Davis, S M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gittelsohn, J</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Going, S B</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Murray, D M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Snyder, P</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Steckler, A B</creatorcontrib><title>Process evaluation in a multisite, primary obesity-prevention trial in American Indian schoolchildren</title><title>The American journal of clinical nutrition</title><addtitle>Am J Clin Nutr</addtitle><description>We describe the development, implementation, and use of the process evaluation component of a multisite, primary obesity prevention trial for American Indian schoolchildren. We describe the development and pilot testing of the instruments, provide some examples of the criteria for instrument selection, and provide examples of how process evaluation results were used to document and refine intervention components. The theoretical and applied framework of the process evaluation was based on diffusion theory, social learning theory, and the desire for triangulation of multiple modes of data collection. The primary objectives of the process evaluation were to systematically document the training process, content, and implementation of 4 components of the intervention. The process evaluation was developed and implemented collaboratively so that it met the needs of both the evaluators and those who would be implementing the intervention components. Process evaluation results revealed that observation and structured interviews provided the most informative data; however, these methods were the most expensive and time consuming and required the highest level of skill to undertake. Although the literature is full of idealism regarding the uses of process evaluation for formative and summative purposes, in reality, many persons are sensitive to having their work evaluated in such an in-depth, context-based manner as is described. For this reason, use of structured, quantitative, highly objective tools may be more effective than qualitative methods, which appear to be more dependent on the skills and biases of the researcher and the context in which they are used.</description><subject>Asian Continental Ancestry Group</subject><subject>Child</subject><subject>Child Welfare</subject><subject>Children &amp; youth</subject><subject>Diet</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Health Education</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Indians, North American</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Models, Educational</subject><subject>Native Americans</subject><subject>Obesity</subject><subject>Obesity - ethnology</subject><subject>Obesity - prevention &amp; control</subject><subject>Pilot Projects</subject><subject>Process Assessment (Health Care)</subject><subject>Schools</subject><subject>Studies</subject><subject>United States</subject><issn>0002-9165</issn><issn>1938-3207</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>1999</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNpdkM1LwzAYxoMobk6vHqV48GRn0rT5OI7hFwgK6jmk6RvMaJOZtIP993ZuB_H0wMvveXj5IXRJ8JxgSe_0yvg7JuflXBD2foSmRFKR0wLzYzTFGBe5JKyaoLOUVhiTohTsFE0IJrJiWEwRvMVgIKUMNroddO-Cz5zPdNYNbe-S6-E2W0fX6bjNQg3jYZuvI2zA_6J9dLrdFRYdRGe0z55948ZI5iuE1ny5tongz9GJ1W2Ci0PO0OfD_cfyKX95fXxeLl5yQyvR543BjBnLtYBGW1oKWVtteVOX49ucWVlUklgqLZGSai5xQyXguhDACykqRmfoZr-7juF7gNSrziUDbas9hCEpJhnnnIkRvP4HrsIQ_fibKiiRBSO8HKH5HjIxpBTBqoMJRbDa2Vc7--OoKtXO_li4OqwOdQfNH3yvm_4ARmmCKQ</recordid><startdate>19990401</startdate><enddate>19990401</enddate><creator>Helitzer, D L</creator><creator>Davis, S M</creator><creator>Gittelsohn, J</creator><creator>Going, S B</creator><creator>Murray, D M</creator><creator>Snyder, P</creator><creator>Steckler, A B</creator><general>American Society for Clinical Nutrition, Inc</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7QP</scope><scope>7T7</scope><scope>7TS</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>19990401</creationdate><title>Process evaluation in a multisite, primary obesity-prevention trial in American Indian schoolchildren</title><author>Helitzer, D L ; Davis, S M ; Gittelsohn, J ; Going, S B ; Murray, D M ; Snyder, P ; Steckler, A B</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c358t-dc066cf7a8edaf3489bfaf7db448676f92591f39f1993a790d39e0b28e7298563</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>1999</creationdate><topic>Asian Continental Ancestry Group</topic><topic>Child</topic><topic>Child Welfare</topic><topic>Children &amp; youth</topic><topic>Diet</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Health Education</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Indians, North American</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Models, Educational</topic><topic>Native Americans</topic><topic>Obesity</topic><topic>Obesity - ethnology</topic><topic>Obesity - prevention &amp; control</topic><topic>Pilot Projects</topic><topic>Process Assessment (Health Care)</topic><topic>Schools</topic><topic>Studies</topic><topic>United States</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Helitzer, D L</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Davis, S M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gittelsohn, J</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Going, S B</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Murray, D M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Snyder, P</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Steckler, A B</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Calcium &amp; Calcified Tissue Abstracts</collection><collection>Industrial and Applied Microbiology Abstracts (Microbiology A)</collection><collection>Physical Education Index</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Health &amp; Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>The American journal of clinical nutrition</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Helitzer, D L</au><au>Davis, S M</au><au>Gittelsohn, J</au><au>Going, S B</au><au>Murray, D M</au><au>Snyder, P</au><au>Steckler, A B</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Process evaluation in a multisite, primary obesity-prevention trial in American Indian schoolchildren</atitle><jtitle>The American journal of clinical nutrition</jtitle><addtitle>Am J Clin Nutr</addtitle><date>1999-04-01</date><risdate>1999</risdate><volume>69</volume><issue>4 Suppl</issue><spage>816S</spage><epage>824S</epage><pages>816S-824S</pages><issn>0002-9165</issn><eissn>1938-3207</eissn><abstract>We describe the development, implementation, and use of the process evaluation component of a multisite, primary obesity prevention trial for American Indian schoolchildren. We describe the development and pilot testing of the instruments, provide some examples of the criteria for instrument selection, and provide examples of how process evaluation results were used to document and refine intervention components. The theoretical and applied framework of the process evaluation was based on diffusion theory, social learning theory, and the desire for triangulation of multiple modes of data collection. The primary objectives of the process evaluation were to systematically document the training process, content, and implementation of 4 components of the intervention. The process evaluation was developed and implemented collaboratively so that it met the needs of both the evaluators and those who would be implementing the intervention components. Process evaluation results revealed that observation and structured interviews provided the most informative data; however, these methods were the most expensive and time consuming and required the highest level of skill to undertake. Although the literature is full of idealism regarding the uses of process evaluation for formative and summative purposes, in reality, many persons are sensitive to having their work evaluated in such an in-depth, context-based manner as is described. For this reason, use of structured, quantitative, highly objective tools may be more effective than qualitative methods, which appear to be more dependent on the skills and biases of the researcher and the context in which they are used.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>American Society for Clinical Nutrition, Inc</pub><pmid>10195608</pmid><doi>10.1093/ajcn/69.4.816S</doi><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0002-9165
ispartof The American journal of clinical nutrition, 1999-04, Vol.69 (4 Suppl), p.816S-824S
issn 0002-9165
1938-3207
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_69677768
source MEDLINE; EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals; Alma/SFX Local Collection
subjects Asian Continental Ancestry Group
Child
Child Welfare
Children & youth
Diet
Female
Health Education
Humans
Indians, North American
Male
Models, Educational
Native Americans
Obesity
Obesity - ethnology
Obesity - prevention & control
Pilot Projects
Process Assessment (Health Care)
Schools
Studies
United States
title Process evaluation in a multisite, primary obesity-prevention trial in American Indian schoolchildren
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-16T14%3A33%3A48IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Process%20evaluation%20in%20a%20multisite,%20primary%20obesity-prevention%20trial%20in%20American%20Indian%20schoolchildren&rft.jtitle=The%20American%20journal%20of%20clinical%20nutrition&rft.au=Helitzer,%20D%20L&rft.date=1999-04-01&rft.volume=69&rft.issue=4%20Suppl&rft.spage=816S&rft.epage=824S&rft.pages=816S-824S&rft.issn=0002-9165&rft.eissn=1938-3207&rft_id=info:doi/10.1093/ajcn/69.4.816S&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E40786659%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=231926174&rft_id=info:pmid/10195608&rfr_iscdi=true