EVALUATION 2.0

EVALUATION 2.0 ≠ STATS!

KIRKPATRICK“In the guidelines… no information is given on how to use statistics. The subject is too complex to be included here.” pg 42

5 LEVELS OF EVALUATIONI. Reaction

II. Knowledge

III. Behavior

IV. Society

V. ROI

BASED ON:Kirkpatrick, D. L., & Kirkpatrick, J. D. (2006). Evaluating training programs (ed.). San Francisco: TATAMcgraw Hill. ix-3.

AND:Phillips, J. J. (2012). Return on investment in training and performance improvement programs. Routledge.

AND JOE ARTICLESChazdon, S., Horntvedt, J., Templin, E. (2016). From Knowledge to Action: Tips for Encouraging and Measuring Program-Related Behavior Change. Journal of Extension, 54(2).

Clements, J. (1999). Results? Behavior change. Journal of Extension, 37(2).

Martin, E., & Warner, L.A. (2015). Using commitment as a tool to promote behavior change in Extension Programming, Journal of Extension, 53(4).

Pratt, C., & Bowman, S. (2008). Principles of Effective Behavior Change: Application to Extension family educational programming. Journal of Extension, 46(5).

THE GOAL IS CHANGEDesire

Know what to do and how to do it

Climate

Benefits for change

CHALLENGES• Each level becomes more difficult and time consuming.

• Each level builds on the success of the previous level.

• It is difficult to achieve success at each level, but even more difficult to measure success at each level.

• Forces your program to strengthen itself or retire.

• Requires planning and long-term commitment.

• Shouldn’t do entire process for every program.

OPPORTUNITIES• They like it! Word-of-mouth support from clientele.

• Improved confidence, knowledge and skills.

• Lives actually improved in a clear and measurable way.

• Society actually improved in a clear and measurable way.

• Systematic long-term administrative, financial, and moral support to continue your programs.

EXPERIMENTAL DESIGNPre-post Tests

Experimental and Control Groups

Random Assignment

Anonymity

THERE IS SUCH A THING AS OVERKILLExperimental design is not always necessary.

Make sure the final usage of data merits the time and costs associated with the use of rigid data controls.

In Extension we don’t have the luxury of wasting time collecting data that we don’t really need.

RETROSPECTIVE - SELF EVALUATION

Did they like it?

Did they learn it?

Did they use it?

Does it matter?

Can we keep doing it?

1 - REACTIONAKA Customer satisfactionWhat did you like?

What didn’t you like?

Easiest form of evaluation.

DID YOU LIKE…TopicInstructorFacilitiesScheduleMealsActivitiesAudio/visualHandoutsTemperatureEtc.

QUANTIFY: LIKERT SCALE

IF SATISFACTION NEEDS TO IMPROVEMake a change. Leader, instructor, location, etc.

Modify the situation – train the leader, instructor, audiovisuals, etc.

Live with it.

Change the standard.

100% RESPONSE RATEPencil and paper.

Show of hands.

No anonymity.

DRAFT YOUR OWN QUESTION USING A LIKERT SCALEGroup Discussion

Group Share

SOMETIMES LIKING THE PROGRAM ISN’T ENOUGH!

2 - KNOWLEDGEAKA Knowledge, Skills and AttitudePrerequisite for Level 3 behavior change.

More difficult and time-consuming than Level 1 evaluation.

MAIN POINTSUse experimental design when practical

Content-based tests

Use paper and pencil test for 100% response rate.

Use live performance test for skills.

SKILL VS BEHAVIORSkill: What you are able to do. The ability to perform a specific task/action. Short-term.

Behavior: What you actually do. The cumulative set of specific tasks/actions. Long-term.

SKILLSTeach someone how to use Google.

Measurement: Can they find a specific web page?

Time how long it takes to find a specific web page.

PROS AND CONSSelf assessment VS Knowledge/skill based assessment.

Retrospective VS Pre/post

RETROSPECTIVE

DRAFT YOUR OWN QUESTION USING A LIKERT SCALEGroup Discussion

Group Share

100 % RESPONSE?50-70 % is a more realistic goal.

3. BEHAVIORLevel 2 changes are prerequisite to Level 3 behavior change.

Much more complex and time-consuming than Levels 1 and 2

NIFAMost important, perhaps, is that the National Institute for Food and Agriculture continues to push for impacts that affect conditions rather than simply knowledge changes. Their effort to collect impacts from across the country encourages evaluation specialists to look beyond knowledge change (National Institute for Food and Agriculture, 2015).

BEHAVIOR CHANGE AND EXTENSIONIn 1975, Claude Bennett noted in the Journal of Extension that behavior change was among the highest levels of evidence for evaluation of Extension education (Bennett, 1975).

Workman and Scheer's (2012) meta-analysis of evaluation articles published in the Journal of Extension found that about 27% of articles focused on behavior change.

OPPORTUNITY TO CHANGE BEHAVIOR1-3 days after program?

1 month after program?

3 months after program?

6 months?

1 year?

3 years?

TIMING OF EVALUATION“…it is impossible to predict when a change in behavior will occur....change in behavior may occur at any time or it may not happen at all.” pg 52

EVALUATE BEHAVIORWhen?

Too soon…

Too late…

How frequent?

Different stages of behavior change will be manifested at different points in time. How to get a good response?

1-3 assessments?

INCENTIVES/REWARDSIntrinsic – Participants know and respect you on some personal level. Rapport.

Satisfaction, pride, sense of achievement in program or behavior itself.

Extrinsic – Praise, recognition, gift cards, payment, raise.

100 % RESPONSE RATE?Very difficult.

Always consider the costs and benefits.

Something is better than nothing.

25-35% of programs.

COSTS AND BENEFITS“Another important consideration is how many times the program will be taught. If it is run only once and it will not be repeated, there is little justification for spending time and money to evaluate possible changes in behavior. However if program is going to be repeated, the time and money spent evaluating it can be justified by the possible improvements in future programs.” Kirkpatrick, pg 60

“...something beats nothing, and I encourage trainers to do some evaluating of behavior even if it isn't elaborate or scientific.” Kirkpatrick, pg 61

SOMETHING IS BETTER THAN NOTHINGSample your participants:

Low response rates.

Pros and cons

Intentionally single out certain participants for a case study on

their behavior.

CHAZDON, HORNTVED, TEMPLIN (JOE)Participants define their own action plan.

Set their own specific action goals.

Follow-up is expected, and more personal.

Requires more class time to implement.

Post-program education/social media groups.

Social networking, learning “buddies.”

CHAZDON, HORNTVED, TEMPLINThe intensity or length of a program is not an impediment to measuring behavior change. Even a one-time, 1-hr workshop can produce behavior change.

TTMThe move from one stage of change to another indicates we have made an impact, even though the practice has not been completely internalized.

TRANSTHEORETICAL MODEL (TTM) OF BEHAVIOR CHANGEPrecontemplationContemplationPreparationAction

Maintenance

MARTIN, WARNER (JOE) 2015By asking target audience members to commit to something, Extension professionals can increase the likelihood of audience members adopting a new behavior.

4 - SOCIETYWorkman and Scheer (2012) noted, "Too often, Extension personnel fail to document impact of programs by collecting real evidence of behavior change or greater end results that benefit society" (Problem Statement, Purpose, and Objectives section, para. 1).

CHALLENGESClearly identify what your program is supposed to do.

Clearly measure that your program accomplishes what you want it to do.

WHAT SHOULD YOUR PROGRAM DO?What should participants learn and do?

Cumulative behavior changes across all participants?

Quality of life

For participants specifically.

For society in general.

HOW TO MEASUREThird-party research!

You don’t have to do it yourself.

OPR (Other People’s Research) - There is usually some amount of research that helps connect

individual behavior to larger society benefits.

COSTSDue to OPR, this is usually not as complex or time consuming as level 3.

FAITHDirect evidence usually does not exist.

It is almost always prohibitively costly.

The ability to extrapolate meaning and believe in it, and sell it is where the real value is found.

TIME AND EFFORTLevel 4 evaluation should not happen on every program.

10% of all programs (Phillips, 2012).

“HOW TO EVALUATE AT LEVEL 4?”Culmination of levels 1-3.

5 – ROI (RETURN ON INVESTMENT)$$$ input vs $$$ output

MOST DIFFICULT FOR TWO REASONSNot only because levels 1-4 must be accomplished first.

Results have potential to be either very supportive or very threatening of what we are doing. You won’t know until you actually do it.

FORMULASBenefits/Costs Ratio

BCR = Program Benefits/Program Costs

ROI (%) = Net Program Benefits/Program Costs X 100

CRITERIASimple

Economical (3-5% of the total program buget)

Credible

Part of the program from the beginning

5% of your programs (Phillips, 2012).

CHALLENGESNobody cares?

May set expectations high for future programs.

Fear of failure.

Fear of the unknown.

Discipline and planning.

BENEFITSIndisputable worth of program.

“You will lose money/value if you choose not to support my

program.”

Help your program compete for support and resources.

Helps you prioritize your own programs.

Forces you to improve long-term programs.

LEVEL 5 WORKSHEET

ROI (%) = 47,000-13,000/13,000 X 100 = 261%

BCR = 47,000/13,000 = $3.61

CONTACTLuke Erickson

Erickson@uidaho.edu

208-359-6215

Rexburg, Idaho