Process evaluation in a multisite, primary obesity-prevention trial in American Indian schoolchildren1–3

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, Deborah L, Davis, Sally M, Gittelsohn, Joel, Going, Scott B, Murray, David M, Snyder, Patricia, Steckler, Allan B
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
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, Deborah L
Davis, Sally M
Gittelsohn, Joel
Going, Scott B
Murray, David M
Snyder, Patricia
Steckler, Allan 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.
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>pubmedcentral</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_4863494</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_4863494</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_48634943</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqlT0tqwzAUFKWlcT930AFqkCzHtTeFEBLaXRbdi2f5JX5BloxkG7LrHXLDnqROyabrrgbmy9ywRFaqTFUmXm9ZIoTI0koWywV7iPEohMzysrhnCylktSxEmbDjLniDMXKcwI4wkHecHAfejXagSAO-8D5QB-HEfY0zcUr7gBO6X-sQCOwlsOowkAHHP1xDM0TTem9NS7YJ6OT311k9sbs92IjPV3xkb9vN5_o97ce6w8bMlQGsvq5pD6T_Ko5affCTnj-ovMrVvwt-ABwmZD4</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype></control><display><type>article</type><title>Process evaluation in a multisite, primary obesity-prevention trial in American Indian schoolchildren1–3</title><source>EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals</source><source>Alma/SFX Local Collection</source><creator>Helitzer, Deborah L ; Davis, Sally M ; Gittelsohn, Joel ; Going, Scott B ; Murray, David M ; Snyder, Patricia ; Steckler, Allan B</creator><creatorcontrib>Helitzer, Deborah L ; Davis, Sally M ; Gittelsohn, Joel ; Going, Scott B ; Murray, David M ; Snyder, Patricia ; Steckler, Allan 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>PMID: 10195608</identifier><language>eng</language><ispartof>The American journal of clinical nutrition, 1999-04, Vol.69 (4 Suppl), p.816S-824S</ispartof><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>230,314,780,784,885</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Helitzer, Deborah L</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Davis, Sally M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gittelsohn, Joel</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Going, Scott B</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Murray, David M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Snyder, Patricia</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Steckler, Allan B</creatorcontrib><title>Process evaluation in a multisite, primary obesity-prevention trial in American Indian schoolchildren1–3</title><title>The American journal of clinical nutrition</title><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><issn>0002-9165</issn><issn>1938-3207</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>1999</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNqlT0tqwzAUFKWlcT930AFqkCzHtTeFEBLaXRbdi2f5JX5BloxkG7LrHXLDnqROyabrrgbmy9ywRFaqTFUmXm9ZIoTI0koWywV7iPEohMzysrhnCylktSxEmbDjLniDMXKcwI4wkHecHAfejXagSAO-8D5QB-HEfY0zcUr7gBO6X-sQCOwlsOowkAHHP1xDM0TTem9NS7YJ6OT311k9sbs92IjPV3xkb9vN5_o97ce6w8bMlQGsvq5pD6T_Ko5affCTnj-ovMrVvwt-ABwmZD4</recordid><startdate>19990401</startdate><enddate>19990401</enddate><creator>Helitzer, Deborah L</creator><creator>Davis, Sally M</creator><creator>Gittelsohn, Joel</creator><creator>Going, Scott B</creator><creator>Murray, David M</creator><creator>Snyder, Patricia</creator><creator>Steckler, Allan B</creator><scope>5PM</scope></search><sort><creationdate>19990401</creationdate><title>Process evaluation in a multisite, primary obesity-prevention trial in American Indian schoolchildren1–3</title><author>Helitzer, Deborah L ; Davis, Sally M ; Gittelsohn, Joel ; Going, Scott B ; Murray, David M ; Snyder, Patricia ; Steckler, Allan B</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_48634943</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>1999</creationdate><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Helitzer, Deborah L</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Davis, Sally M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gittelsohn, Joel</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Going, Scott B</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Murray, David M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Snyder, Patricia</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Steckler, Allan B</creatorcontrib><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><jtitle>The American journal of clinical nutrition</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Helitzer, Deborah L</au><au>Davis, Sally M</au><au>Gittelsohn, Joel</au><au>Going, Scott B</au><au>Murray, David M</au><au>Snyder, Patricia</au><au>Steckler, Allan B</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Process evaluation in a multisite, primary obesity-prevention trial in American Indian schoolchildren1–3</atitle><jtitle>The American journal of clinical nutrition</jtitle><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><pmid>10195608</pmid></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_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_4863494
source EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals; Alma/SFX Local Collection
title Process evaluation in a multisite, primary obesity-prevention trial in American Indian schoolchildren1–3
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-29T09%3A38%3A16IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-pubmedcentral&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%20schoolchildren1%E2%80%933&rft.jtitle=The%20American%20journal%20of%20clinical%20nutrition&rft.au=Helitzer,%20Deborah%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/&rft_dat=%3Cpubmedcentral%3Epubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_4863494%3C/pubmedcentral%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_id=info:pmid/10195608&rfr_iscdi=true