Question.2491 - At the heart of any evaluation is the evaluation design. It is now common consensus in policy evaluation that no amount of sophisticated analysis can repair a poorly designed study. There is no such thing as a perfect evaluation design and there are always tradeoffs. One of the most important tradeoffs has to do with internal and external validity. This is true whether you are doing a quantitative, qualitative, or mixed methods evaluation. For this Assignment, review this week’s Learning Resources and begin the process of developing your evaluation design by outlining its main features. By Day 7 Submit by Day 7 a 2- to 3-page paper that addresses the following: Explain how you would implement your evaluation design within an official policy evaluation. Be sure to include specific examples from the course readings, academic research and professional experience. Provide a rationale for your implementation choices, including examples and references. To access your rubric: Week 4 Discussion RubricTo participate in this Discussion: Week 4 DiscussionExplain how you would address validity threats, particularly internal validity (plausible rival hypothesis). Provide a rationale for these plans, including any expected outcomes, using examples and references. Submission and Grading Information To submit your completed Assignment for review and grading, do the following: Please save your Assignment using the naming convention “WK4Assgn+last name+first initial. (extension)” as the name. Click the Week 4 Assignment Rubric to review the Grading Criteria for the Assignment. Click the Week 4 Assignment link. You will also be able to “View Rubric” for grading criteria from this area. Next, from the Attach File area, click on the Browse My Computer button. Find the document you saved as “WK4Assgn+last name+first initial.(extension)” and click Open. If applicable: From the Plagiarism Tools area, click the checkbox for I agree to submit my paper(s) to the Global Reference Database. Click on the Submit button to complete your submission.
Answer Below:
Table xx contentsImplement xxxx evaluation xxxxxx Rationale xxx your xxxxxxxxxxxxxx choices xxxxxxxxx examples xxxxxxx validity xxxxxxx particularly xxxxxxxx validity xxxxxxxxx for xxxxx plans xxxxxxxxx any xxxxxxxx outcomes xxxxx examples xxxxxxxxxx Implement xxxx evaluation xxxxxxxxx Government xxxxxx of xxxx has xxxx taken xxx this xxxxxxxxxx design xx is xxxxx observed xxxx there xx a xxxx for xxxxxxxxxxx among xxx people xxx are xxxxxxxx by xxxx in xxxxxxxxxx policy xxxxxxxx For xxxx the xxxxxxxxxx design xx being xxxx for xxx AIDS xxxxxxxxxx plan xxxxxxx Huse xxx Hawthorn xxxxxx of xxxxxxxxxx and xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx this xxxxxxxxxx design xxx panel xxxx involve xxx three xxxxxx of xxxxxxxxxx namely xxxxxxx formative xxx outcome xxxxxxxxxx This xx important xxx learning xxx system xx which xxx prevention xxxxxxx of xxxx will xxxxxxxxxx to xxxx epidemic xx this xxxx Formative xxxxxxxxxx will xx employed xxx the xxxxxxxxxxxxx amp xxxxx and xxx making xxxxxxxxx decisions xxxxxxxxx its xxxxxxx of xxxxxxxxxxxxx or xxxxxxxxxxxxxx Scholtes xx al xxxxxx the xxxxxxxxx evaluation xxx the xxxxxxxxxxx related xx the xxxx preventive xxxxxxx will xx gathered xxx then xx will xx fed xxxx to xxx administrators xxx designers xx the xxxxxxx for xxxxxxxxx the xxxxxxxxxxx of xxx AIDS xxxxxxx and xxxxxxxxxx the xxxxxxxxxxxx rsquo x success xx The xxxx stage xx the xxxxxxx evaluation xx will xx used xx the xxxx program xx determine xxx the xxxxxxx amp x delivery xxxxx will xx met xxx how xxxx it xxxx be xxx It xxxx help xx improving xxx intervention xx the xxxx program xxxx the xxxxxxxxx of xxxxxxxxx information xx changing xxx delivery xxxxxxxxxx Siddiqui xxxxxx and xxx The xxxxxxxx designs xxxx will xx used xxxxx this xxxxxxxxxx are xxxxxx observation xxxxxxx and xxxxxx keeping xxx outcome xxxxxxxxxx will xx used xxxxx this xx identify xxx AIDS xxxxxxxx amp xxxxxxxxxxxx and xxxxxxxxx that xxxxxxxxxxxx are xxxxxxxxxx to xxx project xxxx will xxxxxx questions xxxx the xxxxxxx that xxxx be xxxxxxxx and xxxx those xxxxxxx will xxxx Klaassen xx al xxxx will xx carried xxx at xxxxxxxxx during xxx ongoing xxxx preventive xxxxxxx The xxxxxxxx designs xxxx the xxxxx will xxx for xxxxxxx evaluation xxxx be xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx along xxxx quasi- xxxxxxxxxxxx designs xxx randomised xxxxxxxxxxx Rationale xxx your xxxxxxxxxxxxxx choices xxxxxxxxx examplesThe xxxxx has xxxxxxx to xxx the xxxxxxxxxx experiments xx the xxxxx as xxx intervention xxxx be xxxxxxx implemented xxx the xxxxx will xxxx it xx be xxxxxxxxxx This xxxxxxxx will xx far xxxxxx than xxx quasi-experimental xxx the xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx designs xx per xxx panel xxx panel xxx recommended xxxx the xxxxxxxxxxxx must xx pilot xxxxxx during xxx randomised xxxxxxxxxx of xxx field xxxx will xx held xxxx the xxxxxxxxxxxxx group xx control xxx the xxxxxxxxxx of xxx interventions xxx example xxxx has xxxx used xx a xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx program xxx risk-reduction xxxx used xxx delayed xxxxxxxxx for xxxxx randomised xxxxxxxxxx Address xxxxxxxx threats xxxxxxxxxxxx internal xxxxxxxxxxxx evaluation xxxx provide xxxx benefits xxxxxx but xx will xxxxx possess xxxx pitfalls xxxxxxxxxxx must xx maintained xxx evaluating xxxx threats xxx validity xxxxxxx that xxxx evaluation xxxxxx will xx possessing xxx the xxxxxxxxx effect xxx attrition xxx Hawthorne xxxxxx will xxxxxx the xxxxxxxx stages xxxx will xxxx to xx contemplated xxxxxx the xxxxxxxxx effect xxxx not xxxx any xxxxx impact xxx hazards xxxx still xx evaluated xxxxxxx et xx On xxx other xxxx attrition xxxx have xxxx impact xx the xxxxxx rather xxxx the xxxxxxxxx effect xx attrition xxxx be xxxxxxx in xxxxx to xxxxxxx and xxxxxxxx the xxxxxxxxxxxx project xxxxxxxxxxx adjustments xxxx will xx made xxx making xxxxxxxxxx regarding xxx effectiveness xx the xxxxxxxxx in xxxxx circumstances xxxx have xxx possibility xx introduce xxxx uncertainties xxxx will xx worrisome xxxxxxx that xxx affect xxx quasi-experimental xxx the xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx designs xxxxxxxxxxx efforts xxxx be xxxxxxxx so xxxx the xxxxxx will xxx be xxxxxxxxxxx through xxx flawed xxxxxxxxx Rationale xxx these xxxxx including xxx expected xxxxxxxx using xxxxxxxx The xxxxx will xx using xxx control xxxxx of xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx strategies xxxx will xx suitable xx the xxxxxxxxx in xxx AIDS xxxxxxx are xxx scarce xxx widely xxxxxxxxxxxx the xxxxxxxxxxxx at x time xxx example xx a xxxxxxx site xxx been xxxxxxx to xxxxxxx funds xxx their xxxxxxxxxxxx they xxxx be xxxxxxxxxx as xxx control xxxxx The xxxxxxxx outcomes xx the xxxxxxxxxx design xxx the xxxxxxxxxx program xx AIDS xxxx be- x certain xxxxxx of xxxxxx may xxx provide xxxxxx answers xxxxxx their xxxxxxx This xxxx lead xx a xxxxx evaluation xx the xxxxxxx of xxx collected xxxxxxxxxxx Many xxx not xxxx agree xx take xxxxxxx and xxxxxxx information xx they xxx not xxxx sharing xxxxx personal xxxxxxxxxxx on xxxx ReferencesMcDavid x C xxxx I xxx Hawthorn x R xxxxxxx evaluation xxx performance xxxxxxxxxxx An xxxxxxxxxxxx to xxxxxxxx Sage xxxxxxxxxxxx Fu x Research xx the xxxxxxxxxxx of xxxxxxxxx Evaluation xx Teaching xxxxxxx Language xx Colleges xxx Universities xxxxxxx of xxxxxxxxxxxx Educational xxxxxxxx Siddiqui x Gorard x and xxx B x The xxxxxxxxxx of xxxxxxx evaluation xxx randomised xxxxxxx trials xx education xxxxxxxxxxx Research xx - xxxxxxxx T xxxxxx F x Vork x Tack x Talley x J xxxx eacute x M xxxx Q xxxx A x Kruimel x W xxxxxxxxx J x and xxxx C xxxxxxxxxxxx evaluation xx an xxxxxxxxxx sampling xxxxxx ndash xxxxx patient xxxxxxxx outcome xxxxxxx in xxxxxxxxxx dyspepsia xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx amp xxx Motility x e xxxxxxx M x Stange x C xxxxxxxx S x Crabtree x F xxxxxxxx E x and xxxxxx S x The xxxxxxxxx effect xx direct xxxxxxxxxxx research xxxx physicians xxx patients xxxxxxx of xxxxxxxxxx in xxxxxxxx practice xx - xxxxxxxx M xxxx K xxxxxxx K xxx Gross x June xxxxxxxxxx of xxxxxxxxx EvaluationMore Articles From Anthropology
.ico)
.ico)
.ico)
.ico)
