Assignent Solutionnurs

2.5.1 Evaluation of a health promotion project
Weight: 40%
Type of Collaboration: Individual
Due: Friday, September 9th by 11:59 PM (Week 7)
Submission: Submit online through the link provided in Turnitin on vUWS.
Format: This assessment should be in report format.
Length: 1,500 words
Curriculum Mode: Report
Rationale
In addition to supporting the development of robust aims and objectives, understanding the ’logic’ and theoretical
foundations of a proposed practical intervention is important in ensuring the delivery of quality health promotion
interventions.
Evaluating a health promotion intervention is a critical part of project planning and implementation, as this is how the
effect of the intervention is measured. Evaluation can take many forms (process, impact, outcome). The rationale
for this assessment task is to ensure that students can demonstrate competence in the evaluation of health promotion
interventions.
Task
The main aim of this assignment is to focus on planning an evaluating of a health promotion initiative/intervention.
Students are required to choose a health promotion intervention that interests them. This can be an existing health
promotion intervention or students can design an intervention of their choice. The task is to develop an evaluation
plan for this health promotion project and to critique the adequacy and effectiveness of this approach. For your report,
you are to select a health need that is of interest to you. Based on an intervention that targets this health issue,
develop a logic model to evaluate this intervention. You cannot select R U OK Day as your intervention as this will
be used in class to provide examples of how to develop a logic model.
Students are required to submit the following as part of the assessment task in a report format.
– A Logic model plan for a health promotion initiative/intervention
– An evaluation plan based on the Logic Model
– A word description of the evaluation plan being implemented in this project and
– A critical analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of the evaluation plan (NOT the program/initiative itself).
Resources:
Health Promotion texts will be useful in identifying a range of Logic Models for evaluation planning. Evaluation in a
Nutshell by Nutbeam (2014) will also be particularly useful.
10
Marking Criteria:
Criteria High Distinction Distinction Credit Pass Unsatisfactory
Quality of Logic
Model
(9 marks)
Excellent
understanding of
using a logic model.
All components
mapped out
extremely clearly
and in the correct
order.
(8-9 marks)
Very good
understanding of
using a logic model.
All components of
the intervention
mapped out clearly
and in the correct
order.
(7-7.75 marks)
Good
understanding of
use of a logic
model.
Components of the
intervention
mapped out well
with very minor
errors.
(6-6.75 marks)
Adequate
understanding of
using a logic model.
Some issues with
the ordering of the
mapping out of
intervention
components.
(4.5-5.75 marks)
Poor understanding
of use of a logic
model.
(0-4.4 marks)
Development of
evaluation Plan
(9 marks)
Highly developed
evaluation plan
developed,
including
clearly and well
described
goals/objectives,
inputs, outputs and
outcomes.
(8-9 marks)
Very good
evaluation plan
developed,
including
goals/objectives,
inputs, outputs and
outcomes.
(7-7.75 marks)
Good, clear and
well developed
evaluation plan,
including
goals/objectives,
inputs, outputs and
outcomes.
(6-6.75 marks)
Adequate
evaluation plan
developed, with an
attempt to report
on goals/objectives,
inputs, outputs and
outcomes reported
on.
(4.5-5.75 marks)
No evaluation plan
developed or poorly
developed
evaluation plan
submitted.
(0-4.4 marks)
Description and
depth of evaluation
(9 marks)
Excellent
description
of evaluation and
high level of depth
of
evaluation.
Process, impact
and
outcome evaluation
described in
excellent
detail, with highly
appropriate
methods
described.
(8-9 marks)
Very good
evaluation
described and with
high level of depth.
Process, impact
and
outcome evaluation
described well, with
appropriate
methods
described.
(7-7.75 marks)
Good evaluation
well
described and with
depth. Process,
impact and
outcome
evaluation
considered,
with appropriate
methods described.
(6-6.75 marks)
Adequate depth of
evaluation evident.
Limited description
(4.5-5.75 marks)
No depth of
evaluation evident
or
poor description
and
depth of evaluation
(0-4.4 marks)
Critical analysis of
strengths and
weaknesses
(9 marks)
High-level critical
analysis of
strengths and
weaknesses of
evaluation and
excellent
recommendations
provided.
(8-9 marks)
Very good detailed
critical analysis of
strengths and
weaknesses of
evaluation and
relevant
recommendations
provided.
(7-7.75 marks)
Good, clear critical
analysis of
strengths and
weaknesses of
evaluation, and
appropriate
recommendations
included.
(6-6.75 marks)
Adequate critical
analysis of
strengths and
weaknesses of
evaluation, and
recommendations.
(4.5-5.75 marks)
No critical analysis
of strengths and
weaknesses of
evaluation or poor
critical analysis of
strengths and
weaknesses of
evaluation.
(0-4.4 marks)
11
Criteria High Distinction Distinction Credit Pass Unsatisfactory
Referencing and
formatting. Quality
of written
expression, proof
reading, spelling
and editing
(4 marks)
No referencing
errors in text of
document or in
reference list. Uses
an extensive
number of current,
high quality
appropriate and/or
relevant references.
Report format used
with appropriate
headings and
sub-headings where
required. High-level
thinking and
academic writing.
Thought provoking
discussion of logic
model and
evaluation plan.
Logical high quality
writing. No
spelling,
grammatical or
phrasing errors.
Report well edited.
(3.5-4 marks)
Very minor
referencing error in
either text of
document or
reference list. Uses
references that are
current, good
quality appropriate
and/or relevant.
Report format used
with appropriate
headings. Clear and
easy to read.
Clearly engages the
reader and
comprehensively
details the logic
model and
evaluation plan.
Logical and thought
provoking. Well
written. No spelling
errors but minor
phrasing or
grammatical errors.
(3-3.3 marks)
Several minor
referencing errors in
text of document or
reference list. Uses
references that are
mostly good
quality, current,
appropriate and/or
relevant. Report
format used with
appropriate
headings.
Comprehensively
discusses the logic
model and
evaluation plan.
Some
inconsistencies in
logic or discussion.
Engaging. Minor
spelling,
grammatical or
phrasing errors.
(2.6-2.75 marks)
Some reference
errors in both text
and reference list.
Some references of
average quality,
appropriateness
and/or relevance, or
few references used.
Report format used
but headings with
minor errors or
formatting difficult
to read. Some
inconsistencies in
logic and sequence,
but generally easy
to follow. Some
difficulty for the
reader. Generally
engaging, but
sometimes wordy.
Some spelling,
grammatical and
phrasing errors.
(2-2.5 marks)
Wrong referencing
style used in text of
document and or
no references used.
References are not
appropriate or
relevant. Report
format not used.
Difficult to read.
No structure, with
no headings used.
Difficult to read
and understand.
Fails to attract or
engage the reader.
Not logical in
progression or
sequence. Very
wordy and or
verbose. Multiple
spelling, editing,
grammatical and
phrasing errors.
(0-1.75 marks)