Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?
We have qualified writers to help you.
We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.
You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)
NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.
NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.
Plans for conducting evaluations outline the essential elements and steps to be taken. They enable researchers to calculate the cost, the length of time, and the level of rigor of the evaluation. An appraisal design provides the required information to enable other appraisers to replicate or recreate the original assessment, just as a carpenter may take a set of plans to another place and build a house similar to the one recently completed (Royse et al., 2009). The below discussion will compare the Non-Equivalent Control Group plan and the One Group Only Design to justify the choice for the project in favor of the former.
One of the most popular assessment strategies is the Non-Equivalent Control Group plan. In this strategy, the comparison group comprises people with characteristics identical to those of the group receiving the intervention; these people had similar pre- and post-test observations but were not given any therapy (Conjointly, n.d). This design can use the control group to rule out other possible reasons, which stands for its applicability. For instance, any improvement in the hospice help group’s understanding during the post-test may have resulted from their contact with older pupils or their personal experience getting support. The issue with this design is that, even though the tester may have determined that, in terms of care, those in the control group and those who received the intervention were equivalent during pre-testing, patients receiving care may have simultaneously been exposed to other influences or had access to resources that were not on the comparison scale. This implies an issue in terms of the program’s feasibility.
However, the latter problem may be compensated for by the following aspects. Dependent variables are viewed as indications of research outcomes while evaluating a program. The design’s independent variables are viewed as human interventions (Conjointly, n.d.). The selection of outcome indicators is equally, if not more, important than in single-system research projects, needs analyses, and other evaluation studies. Customers from various categories may utilize the ideal outcome measure and are trustworthy, valid, affordable, simple to administer, and intelligible. The data can be reviewed again whenever the group wants to decide on a potential outcome criterion. Such flexibility makes the approach’s outcomes more feasible.
Then, the One Group Only Design works effectively in circumstances where a client’s pre-program condition may be determined without a formal examination. Cost, staff assistance, research expertise, and the time needed to evaluate might be meager (Pressbooks, n.d.). Since there is not much at stake, the evaluator could get the outcomes of earlier workshops. The average success rate for the previous year or the preceding three years may also be determined. This assessment data is simple to keep and evaluate, which justifies its feasibility in terms of the project.
However, this approach has a flaw in that it is flexible, which gives one little information on how differently successful the intervention is. Because research participants were not randomly chosen to undergo therapy, this assessment method is equally flawed. Prejudice may exist without selecting clients at random from all prospective applicants for the service. (Pressbooks, n.d.). Given the hospice set of the project, this issue questions the applicability of the method. This may be caused, in part, by independent clients – for instance, people who had therapy or volunteered for it could be different from those who did not.
Thus, general criteria have been devised to provide an unbiased comparison and thorough study of approaches. It was found that the Non-Equivalent Control Group plan seems applicable in the framework of the future study. Its flexibility is an apparent advantage against the One Group Only Design that has issues in this vein. Moreover, the latter method may demonstrate a greater extent of bias and prejudice, which is unacceptable under hospice conditions. Program accuracy, administrative effectiveness, and the program’s interrelationship with other programs are the three criteria for program implementation (Royse et al., 2009). The last set of criteria is inherent to the Non-Equivalent Control Group plan, which justifies the decision to choose this approach.
References
Conjointly. (n.d.). Non-equivalent groups design. Web.
Pressbooks. (n.d.). One-group designs. Web.
Royse, D., Thyer, B.A., Padgett, D.K. (2016). Program evaluation: An introduction (6th Ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thompson.
Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?
We have qualified writers to help you.
We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.
You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)
NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.
NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.