This study describes the design of the process evaluation of a collaborative effort among community partners to address health issues in central Oklahoma. The design is an application of a sound process evaluation planning framework that integrates the components of context, reach, dose delivered, dose received, fidelity, implementation, recruitment, barriers, and maintenance. The planning framework also provides guidance regarding the steps of designing and implementing the process evaluation. This planning process was conducted by utilizing a participatory research approach. At the end of the planning phase, the evaluation team accomplished the following: (a) development of an evaluation plan, (b) development of evaluation instruments (i.e., surveys, interview guides, observation forms), and (c) development of evaluation questions and process objectives. The information derived from this study can be valuable to practitioners and researchers involved in the planning of community partnerships or coalitions and interested in process evaluation that takes place in community settings.
Basch, C., Sliepcevich, E., Gold, R., Dunkan, D., & Kolbe, L. ( 1985). Avoiding type III errors in health education program evaluation: A case study. Health Education Quarterly, 12(3), 315-331.
2.
Berkowitz, B., & Nicola, R.M. ( 2003). Public health infrastructure system change: Outcomes for the Turning Point initiative. Journal of Public Health Management, 9(3), 224-227.
3.
Bouffard, J.A., Taxman, F.S., & Silverman, R. ( 2003). Improving process evaluations of correctional programs by using a comprehensive evaluation methodology. Evaluation and Program Planning, 26(2), 149-161.
4.
Butterfoss, F.D., Francisco, V.T., & Capwell, E.M. ( 2001). Evaluation in practice. Stakeholder participation in evaluation. Health Promotion Practice, 2(2), 114-119.
5.
Butterfoss, F.D., Goodman, R.M., & Wandersman, A. (1993). Community coalition for prevention and health promotion. Health Education Research , 8, 315-330.
6.
Chalmers, M.L., Housemann, R.A., Wiggs, I., Newcomb-Hagood, L., Malone, B., & Brownson, R.C. (2003). Process evaluation of a monitoring log system for community coalition activities: Five-year results and lessons learned. American Journal of Health Promotion , 17(3), 190-196.
7.
Champeau, D.A., & Shaw, S.M. ( 2002). Power, empowerment and critical consciousness in community collaboration: Lessons from an advisory panel for an HIV awareness media campaign for women. Women & Health, 36(3), 31-50.
8.
Chinman, M., Imm, P., Wandersman, A., Kaftarian, S., Neal, J., Pendleton, K., et al. (2001). Using the getting to outcomes (GTO) model in a statewide prevention initiative. Health Promotion Practice , 2(4), 302-309.
9.
Chrislip, D.D., & Larson, C.E. ( 1994). Collaborative leadership: How citizens and civic leaders can make a difference. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
10.
Earp, J.A., & Ennett, S.T. ( 1991). Conceptual models for health education research and practice . Health Education Research, 6(2), 163-171.
11.
Fawcett, S.B., Sterling, T.D., Paine-Andrews, A., Harris, K.J., Francisco, V.T., Richter, K.P., et al. (1995). Evaluating community efforts to prevent cardiovascular diseases. Atlanta, GA: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion.
12.
Fetterman, D. M., Kaftarian, S., & Wandersman, A. (Eds.). (1996). Empowerment evaluation: Knowledge and tools for self-assessment and accountability. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
13.
Frechtling, J., Sharp, L., & Westat, I. (Eds.). (1997). User-friendly handbook for mixed method evaluation . Directorate for Education and Human Resources, National Science Foundation.
14.
Goodman, R.M., & Wandersman, A. (1994). FORECAST: A formative approach to evaluating community coalitions and community-based initiatives. Journal of Community Psychology, 24(2), 6-25.
15.
Goodman, R.M., Wandersman, A., Chinman, M., Imm, P., & Morrissey, E. ( 1996). An ecological assessment of community-based interventions for prevention and health promotion: Approaches to measuring community coalitions . American Journal of Community Psychology, 24(1), 33-61.
16.
Gray, B. ( 1985). Conditions facilitating interorganizational collaboration . Human Relations, 38, 911-936.
17.
Green, L.W., Daniel, M., & Novick, L. ( 2001). Partnerships and coalitions for community-based research . Public Health Reports, 116(Suppl. 1), 20-31.
18.
Green, L.W., & Kreuter, M.W. ( 1999). Health promotion planning: An educational and ecological approach (3rd ed.). Mountain View, CA: Mayfield.
19.
Harachi, T.W., Abbott, R.D., Catalano, R.F., Haggerty, K.P., & Fleming, C.B. ( 1999). Opening the black box: Using process evaluation measures to assess implementation and theory building. American Journal of Community Psychology, 27(5), 711-731.
20.
Kaplan, M. ( 1986). Cooperation and coalition development among neighborhood organizations: A case study. Journal of Voluntary Action Research , 15, 23-34.
21.
Kassler, W.J., & Goldsberry, Y.P. (2005). The New Hampshire Public Health Network: Creating local public health infrastructure through community-driven partnerships. Journal of Public Health Management, 11(2), 150-157.
22.
Kreuter, M.W., Lezin, N.A., & Young, L.A. ( 2000). Evaluating community-based collaborative mechanisms: Implications for practitioners. Health Promotion Practice , 1(1), 49-63.
23.
Kumpfer, K.L., Turner, C., Hopkins, R., & Librett, J. ( 1993). Leadership and team effectiveness in community coalitions for the prevention of alcohol and other drug abuse. Health Education Research, 8(3), 359-374.
24.
Lasker, R.D., & Weiss, E.S. ( 2003). Broadening participation in community problem solving: A multidisciplinary model to support collaborative practice and research. Journal of Urban Health, 80(1), 14-60.
25.
Linney, J.A., & Wandersman, A. (1991). Prevention Plus III: Assessing alcohol and other drug prevention programs at the school and community level: A four-step guide to useful program assessment. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
26.
Millstein, B., Wetterhall, S., & CDC Evaluating Working Group. ( 2000). Design of process evaluation within the Child and Adolescent Trial for Cardiovascular Health (CATCH). Health Education Quarterly, Suppl. 2, S5-S26.
27.
Minkler, M., & Wallerstein, N. (Eds.). (2003). Community-based participatory research for health. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
28.
Nicola, R.M. ( 2005). Turning Point’s national excellence collaboratives: Assessing a new model for policy and system capacity development. Journal of Public Health Management & Practice, 11(2), 101-108.
29.
Oklahoma State Board of Health. (2005). Investing in prevention: 2005 state of the state’s health report. Oklahoma City: Author.
30.
Oklahoma State Board of Health. (2006). Strong and healthy: 2006 state of the state’s health report. Oklahoma City: Author.
31.
Saunders, R.P., Evans, M.H., & Joshi, P. ( 2005). Developing a process-evaluation plan for assessing health promotion program implementation: A how-to guide. Health Promotion Practice, 6(2), 134-147.
32.
Springett, J. ( 2003). Issues in participatory evaluation. In M. Minkler & N. Wallerstein (Eds.), Community-based participatory research for health (pp. 263-288). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
33.
Steckler, A., & Linnan, L. (Eds.). (2002). Process evaluation for public health intervention and research. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
34.
United Health Foundation. (2003). A call to action for people and their communities. America’s health: State health rankings (No. 64). Minnetonka, MN: Author.
35.
Windsor, R., Baranowski, T., Clark, N., & Cutter, G. ( 1994). Evaluation of health promotion, health education, and disease prevention programs (2nd ed.). Mountain View, CA: Mayfield.
36.
Windsor, R., Clark, N., Boyd, N.R., & Goodman, R.M. ( 2004). Process evaluation. In Evaluation of health promotion, health education, and disease prevention programs (3rd ed., pp. 132-174). New York: McGraw-Hill.
37.
Zuckerman, H.S., Kaluzny, A.D., & Ricketts, T.C. , III. (1995). Alliances in health care: What we know, what we think we know, and what we should know. Health Care Management Review, 20(1), 54-64.
