Process evaluation is used to monitor and document program implementation and can aid in understanding the relationship between specific program elements and program outcomes. The scope and implementation of process evaluation has grown in complexity as its importance and utility have become more widely recognized. Several practical frameworks and models are available to practitioners to guide the development of a comprehensive evaluation plan, including process evaluation for collaborative community initiatives. However, frameworks for developing a comprehensive process-evaluation plan for targeted programs are less common. Building from previous frameworks, the authors present a comprehensive and systematic approach for developing a process-evaluation plan to assess the implementation of a targeted health promotion intervention. Suggested elements for process-evaluation plans include fidelity, dose (delivered and received), reach, recruitment, and context. The purpose of this article is to describe and illustrate the steps involved in developing a processevaluation plan for any healthpromotion program.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
2.
Baranowski, T., & Stables, G. (2000). Process evaluations of the 5-a-day projects. Health Education & Behavior, 27, 157-166.
3.
Bartholomew, L. K., Parcel, G. S., Kok, G., & Gottlieb, N. H. (2001). Intervention mapping: Designing theory and evidence-based health promotion programs. New York: McGraw-Hill.
4.
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.
5.
Butterfoss, F., & Kegler, M. (2002). Toward a comprehensive understanding of community coalitions: Moving from practice to theory. In R. DiClemente, L. Crosby, & M. C. Keger (Eds.), Emerging theories in health promotion practice and research (pp. 157-193). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
6.
Butterfoss, F. D., & Francisco, V. T. (2004). Evaluation community partnerships and coalitions with practitioners in mind. Health Promotion Practice, 5(2), 108-114.
7.
Chinman, M., Imm, P., Wandersman, A., Kaftarian, S., Neal, J., Pendleton, K. T., et al. (2001). Using the getting to outcomes (GTO) model in a statewide prevention initiative. Health Promotion Practice, 2(4), 302-309.
8.
Dehar, M. A., Casswell, S., & Duignan, P. (1993). Formative and process evaluation of health promotion and disease prevention programs. Evaluation Review, 17(2), 204-220.
9.
Devaney, B., & Rossi, P. (1997). Thinking through evaluation design options. Children and Youth Services Review, 19(7), 587-606.
10.
Dusenbury, L., Brannigan, R., Falco, M., & Hansen, W. B. (2003). A review of research on fidelity of implementation: Implications for drug abuse prevention in school settings. Health Education Research, 18(2), 237-256.
11.
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.
12.
Helitzer, D., & Yoon, S. (2002). Process evaluation of the adolescent social action program in New Mexico. In A. Steckler & L. Linnan (Eds.), Process evaluation for public health interventions and research (pp. 83-113). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
13.
Helitzer, D., Yoon, S., Wallerstein, N., & Garcia-Velarde, L. D. (2000). The role of process evaluation in the training of facilitators for an adolescent health education program. Journal of School Health, 70(4), 141-147.
14.
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.
15.
McGraw, S. A., Sellers, D. E., Stone, E. J., Bebchuk, J., Edmundson, E. W., Johnson, C. C., et al. (1996). Using process evaluation to explain outcomes: An illustration from the child and adolescent trial for cardiovascular health (CATCH). Evaluation Review, 20(3), 291-312.
16.
McGraw, S. A., Sellers, D. E., Stone, E. J., Resnicow, K., Kuester, S., Fridinger, F., et al. (2000). Measuring implementation of school programs and policies to promote healthy eating and physical activity among youth. Preventive Medicine, 31, S86-S97.
17.
McGraw, S. A., Stone, E. J., Osganian, S. K., Elder, J. P., Perry, C. L., Johnson, C. C., et al. (1994). Design of process evaluation within the child and adolescent trial for cardiovascular health (CATCH). Health Education Quarterly, Suppl. 2, S5-S26.
18.
Millstein, B., Wetterhall S., & CDC Evaluation Working Group. (2000). A framework featuring steps and standards for program evaluation. Health Promotion Practice, 1(3), 221-228.
19.
Resnicow, K., Davis, M., Smith, M., Lazarus-Yaroch, A., Baranowski, T., Baranowski, J., et al. (1998). How best to measure implementation of school health curricula: A comparison of three measures. Health Education Research, 13(2), 239-250.
20.
Scheirer, M. A., Shediac, M. C., & Cassady, C. E. (1995). Measuring the implementation of health promotion programs: The case of the breast and cervical-cancer program in Maryland. Health Education Research, 10(1), 11-25.
21.
Steckler, A., & Linnan, L. (2002a). In A. Steckler & L. Linnan (Eds.), Process evaluation for public health interventions and research (pp. 1-24). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
22.
Steckler, A., & Linnan, L. (Eds.). (2002b). Process evaluation for public health interventionsand research. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
23.
Viadro, C., Earp, J. A. L., & Altpeter, M. (1997). Designing a process evaluation for a comprehensive breast cancer screening intervention: Challenges and opportunities. Evaluation and Program Planning, 20(3), 237-249.
24.
Zapka, J., Goins, K. V., Pbert, L., & Ockene, J. K. (2004). Translating efficacy research to effectiveness studies in practice: Lessons from research to promote smoking cessation in community health care centers. Health Promotion Practice, 5(3), 245-255.
