You are not currently logged in.
Access JSTOR through your library or other institution:
If You Use a Screen ReaderThis content is available through Read Online (Free) program, which relies on page scans. Since scans are not currently available to screen readers, please contact JSTOR User Support for access. We'll provide a PDF copy for your screen reader.
THEORY AND METHODS: A model for collaborative evaluation of university-community partnerships
Sarah Bowen and Patricia J Martens
Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health (1979-)
Vol. 60, No. 10 (October 2006), pp. 902-907
Published by: BMJ
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40665473
Page Count: 6
Since scans are not currently available to screen readers, please contact JSTOR User Support for access. We'll provide a PDF copy for your screen reader.
Preview not available
Introduction: Manitoba's The Need to Know project was presented with a unique opportunity to develop a collaborative approach to evaluation, and to explore the effectiveness of a variety of evaluation methods for assessment of university-community collaborative health research partnerships. Objectives: The evaluation was designed to incorporate participation of community partners in planning, developing, and evaluating all aspects of the project. Objectives included: (a) assessment of extent to which the project met its initial objectives; (b) assessment of extent participants needs and expectations were met; (c) refinement of evaluation questions; (d) identification of unanticipated impacts; (e) assessment of participant confidence as research team members; (f) development of knowledge translation theory; and (g) component analysis. Methods: A "utilisation focused" approach was used. Primary stakeholders identified evaluation questions of concern, and how findings would be used. The multimethod time series design incorporated key informant interviews, a pre/post-test survey, written workshop evaluations, and participant and unobtrusive observation. All aspects of the evaluation were made transparent to participants, and formal feedback processes were instituted. Results: There was a high level of participation in evaluation activities. Identifying evaluation questions of concern to community partners helped shape project development. While all methods provided useful information, only key informant interviews, participant observation and feedback processes provided insights into all evaluation objectives. Conclusion: Collaborative evaluation can make an important contribution to development of universitycommunity partnerships. Qualitative methods (particularly key informant interviews, participant observation, and feedback processes) provided the richest source of data, and made an important contribution to team development
Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health (1979-) © 2006 BMJ