Relationships among consumer-generated quality factors, satisfaction, and outcome measures
were examined for family support services provided by Michigan's public mental health system.
Parents focused on structural and procedural aspects of program accessibility and attended less
to program administration issues. Parents who gave the services the highest quality ratings also
were the most satisfied with services, saw the services as more effective, had fewer family
problems, and rated their time and child-related resources as more adequate. Implications for
evaluation practice are discussed.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Affholter, D.1994. Outcome monitoring In Handbook of practical program evaluation, edited by J. Wholey, H. Hatry, and K. Newcomer, 96-118. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
2.
Bergman, A., and G. Singer.1996. The thinking behind new public policy In Redefining family support: Innovations in public-private partnerships, edited by G. Singer, L. Powers, and A. Olson, 435-63. Baltimore, MD: Brookes.
3.
Bickman, L.1987. The function of program theoryNew Directions for Program Evaluation33:5-18.
4.
Bickman, L., and K. Peterson.1990. Using program theory to describe and measure program qualityNew Directions for Program Evaluation47:61-72.
5.
Chelimsky, E.1990. Evaluating public programsIn Handbook of public administration, edited by J. L. Perry, 259-74. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
6.
Chen, H.1990. Theory-driven evaluationsNewbury Park, CA: Sage.
7.
Donabedian, A.1980. Exploration in quality assessment and monitoring: Vol. I. The definition of quality and approaches to its assessmentAnn Arbor, MI: Health Administration Press .
8.
—. 1988. The quality of care: How can it be assessed?Journal of the American Medical Association260:1744-8.
9.
Dunst, C., and H. Leet.1987. Measuring the adequacy of resources in households with young childrenChild: Care, Health, Development13:111-25.
10.
—. 1988. Family resource scale In Enabling and empowering families, edited by C. Dunst, C. Trivette, and A. Deal, 139-41. Cambridge, MA: Brookline.
11.
Finney, J.W., and R.H. Moos.1989. Theory and method in treatment evaluationEvaluation and Program Planning12:307-16.
12.
Friedrich, W., M. Greenberg, and K. Crnic.1983. A short-form of the Questionnaire on Resources and StressAmerican Journal of Mental Deficiency88:41-8.
13.
Gaucher, E., and R. Coffey.1990. Total quality in health care: From theory to practiceSan Francisco: Jossey-Bass .
14.
Glidden, L.1993. What we do not know about families with children who have developmental disabilities: Questionnaire on Resources and Stress as a case studyAmerican Journal on Mental Retardation97:481-95.
15.
Gold, N.1983. Stakeholder and program evaluation characteristics and reflectionsNew Directions for Program Evaluation17:63-72.
16.
Heflinger, C.1992. Client-level outcomes of mental health services for children and adolescentsNew Directions for Program Evaluation54:31-45
17.
Herman, S., M. Marcenko, and K. Hazel.1996. Parents' perspectives on quality in family support programsJournal of Mental Health Administration23:156-69.
18.
Herman, S., and L. Thompson.1995. Families' perceptions of their resources for caring for children with developmental disabilitiesMental Retardation33:73-83.
19.
Kagan, S.1994. Defining and achieving quality in family support In Putting families first: America's family support movement and the challenge of change, edited by S. Kagan and B. Weissbourd, 375-400. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
20.
Knoll, J., S. Covent, R. Osuch, S. O'Connor, J. Agosta, and B. Blaney.1992. Supporting families: State family support efforts In Emerging issues in family support , edited by V. Bradley, J. Knoll, and J. Agosta, 57-97. Washington, DC : American Association on Mental Retardation.
21.
Larsen, D., C. Attkisson, W. Hargreaves, and T. Nguyen.1979. Assessment of client/patient satisfaction: Development of a general scaleEvaluation and Program Planning2:197-207.
22.
Mark, M., and E. Pines.1995. Implications of continuous quality improvement for program evaluation and evaluatorsEvaluation Practice16:131-9.
23.
Scheirer, M.A.1987. Program theory and implementation theory: Implications for evaluationNew Directions for Program Evaluation33:59-76.
24.
—. 1994. Designing and using process evaluation In Handbook of practical program evaluation, edited by J. Wholey, H. Hatry, and K. Newcomer, 40-68. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
25.
Shadish, W., Cook, T., and Leviton, L.1991a. Carol H. Weiss: Linking evaluation to policy research In Foundations of program evaluation , 179-224. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
26.
—. 1991b. Carol H. Weiss: Summary and implications for evaluation theory and practice In Foundations of program evaluation , 441-85. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
27.
—. 1991c. Lee J. Cronbach: Functional evaluation design for a world of political accommodation In Foundations of program evaluation , 323-76. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
28.
Spss.1994. SPSS for Windows release 6.0aChicago: SPSS, Inc .
29.
Weiss, C.1983. The stakeholder approach to evaluation: Origins and promiseNew Directions for Program Evaluation17:3-14.
