Evaluation Strategy Sample Clauses

Evaluation Strategy. A quasi-experimental study design was used to evaluate the program’s potential effects. World Vision allocated one section and its villages in the Bum Chiefdom World Vision Area Development Program (ADP) as the intervention group while a second section in its Bum Chiefdom ADP was allocated as the comparison group. Villages in the intervention section received the grandmother-inclusive approach in addition to the standard of care provided by the Ministry of Health and World Vision (MOH/WV) which included World Vision’s nutrition education model of timed and targeted counseling. Villages in the control section, received only the MOH/WV program of timed and targeting counseling. Project evaluation utilized quantitative data collected through repeat cross-sectional surveys at baseline (January-March 2013) and endline (May 2016) in control and intervention sections. The endline survey was created in partnership with Emory University and World Vision International. The survey queried respondents on knowledge, attitudes, and practices surrounding maternal and child nutrition. 2) duration of exclusive breastfeeding using 24-hour and since birth recall methods, and 3) duration of any breastfeeding. Current pregnancy and/or obstetric history data including ANC uptake, delivery location, complications during delivery and birthweight were collected to assess the outcomes above. Additional outcomes assessed focused on sources of information and kinds of advice given to women of reproductive age (WRA) by GMs and other community members on nutrition and infant feeding and uptake and participation in program activities.
Sample 1
AutoNDA by SimpleDocs
Evaluation Strategy. The goal of the evaluation is to assess the impact of the AMS fellowship on resident and staff knowledge, skills, and attitudes; on patient and family satisfaction; and on organizational culture. Residents will be evaluated using a quasi-experimental before-and-after study design. As illustrated in Figure 1, these findings will be used to inform subsequent educational and quality-improvement initiatives. Quantity of EOL teaching will be tracked, and changes in resident knowledge and attitudes related to EOL care will be measured using a self-assessment tool based on the Educating Future Physicians in Palliative and End-of-Life Care (EFPPEC) competencies (available at xxx.xxxxxx.xx), a knowledge test, and the Block and Xxxxxx Attitudes about EOL Care Scale. Role model Opinion Leader Resident knowledge, attitudes, skills, self-assessment Staff attitudes The AMS evaluation will be unique in its ability to link measures of residents’ EOL knowledge and attitudes to patient and family feedback on care through the use of the CANHELP questionnaire, a validated Canadian tool to measure satisfaction with EOL care. This will be an important strategy to provide feedback for individual sites. Using change strategies known to make a difference in clinical outcomes,14 the multifaceted interventions of the AMS Fellowship in EOL Care has a high probability of improving care for dying patients in clinical teaching units. The evaluation of the fellowship provides assessment of its impact (summative) while assisting in the refinement of the exemplary models of EOL care (formative). It is anticipated that the lessons learned from the fellowship will be applicable to other hospital settings across Canada. Xx. Xxxxx is a family physician with certification in Care of the Elderly and works in Division of Geriatric Medicine and with palliative care at Queen’s University.
Sample 1
Evaluation Strategy. As the aims in 2.2 are all risks to the College in fulfilling its obligations around Access and Participation in HE, an Access and Participation Risk Register has been devised that will assess progress “live” on targets and other key actions on improving data capture. The risk register will draw on an emerging internal Access and Participation dataset which will embed monitoring within the College. A risk register is also appropriate as the College is a newcomer to the evaluation of Access Agreements/Access and Participation Plans, so it is difficult to perform a self-assessment of evaluation prior to this plan. This Risk Register is the primary means by which the impact of individual strategic measures will be assessed and will be regularly updated by the Director of HE, in line with adjustments to interventions during the life of this plan. It will be reviewed in HE Performance Reviews and at College HE Board (approximately seven times per year) as described in 3.4 where adjustments will be discussed and agreed. This will facilitate a continuous improvement of strategic measures as the risk register will be a live document. Review of the risk register (broadly encompassing 3.4.1 to 3.4.4) will then lead to potential adjustments and alterations in the strategic measures.
Sample 1
Evaluation Strategy. This subsection must include the evaluation strategy for the intervention. The application must identify the evaluation methods to be used in the proposed project and any anticipated evaluation- related challenges. The review panelists will score proposals by the appropriateness of the proposed evaluation strategy and methods for proposed intervention project model. Evaluation strategies that allow for stronger attribution of causation, such as randomized studies, may score higher in this area than those without strategies that will enable researchers to attribute project impacts to the proposed intervention. However, all evaluation methods (including, but not limited to, qualitative, quantitative, participatory, mixed-methods, experimental, and quasi-experimental) are welcome and proposals will be judged by their overall completeness and quality. This subsection must also include a description of the data that will be collected for the proposed evaluation and any SSA data the applicant wishes to request from SSA for evaluation purposes. If an applicant’s recruitment, implementation, or evaluation strategies require SSA data, the application must clearly identify such needs in order for SSA to determine whether it will be possible to provide the data during the period of performance. Please note that SSA cannot share certain data (e.g., personally identifiable information) without prior consent from potential project participants, or applicable 5 xxxxx://xxxxx.xxx.xxx/ 6 xxxxx://xxx.xx.xxx/ncee/wwc/ 7 xxxxx://xxxxxxxxxxxxxx.xxx.xxx.xxx/ routine use authority (see 5 U.S.C. § 552a(b)), and cannot share certain data (e.g., third-party data) without additional permissions or at all. See Section VI.B.2. for additional information. This subsection should also include a description of how the evaluator will maintain independence from the group or groups tasked with implementation of the project involved in the project, as well as the evaluator’s experience in conducting evaluations of program effectiveness, including, where available, well-implemented evaluations of the intervention or similar interventions. Applicants will not be penalized if the lead organization has limited experience in conducting rigorous evaluations, as long as the proposal includes a partner that has such experience. Useful resources that might be helpful for organizations that have limited experience in conducting rigorous evaluations toward locating experienced evaluators include: • The ...
Sample 1

Related to Evaluation Strategy

  • Evaluation 1. The purposes of evaluation provisions include providing employees with feedback, and employers and employees with the opportunity and responsibility to address concerns. Where a grievance proceeds to arbitration, the arbitrator must consider these purposes, and may relieve on just and reasonable terms against breaches of time limits or other procedural requirements.

  • Evaluation Cycle Goal Setting and Development of the Educator Plan A) Every Educator has an Educator Plan that includes, but is not limited to, one goal related to the improvement of practice; one goal for the improvement of student learning. The Plan also outlines actions the Educator must take to attain the goals established in the Plan and benchmarks to assess progress. Goals may be developed by individual Educators, by the Evaluator, or by teams, departments, or groups of Educators who have the similar roles and/or responsibilities. See Sections 15-19 for more on Educator Plans. B) To determine the goals to be included in the Educator Plan, the Evaluator reviews the goals the Educator has proposed in the Self-Assessment, using evidence of Educator performance and impact on student learning, growth and achievement based on the Educator’s self-assessment and other sources that Evaluator shares with the Educator. The process for determining the Educator’s impact on student learning, growth and achievement will be determined after ESE issues guidance on this matter. See #22, below. C) Educator Plan Development Meetings shall be conducted as follows: i) Educators in the same school may meet with the Evaluator in teams and/or individually at the end of the previous evaluation cycle or by October 15th of the next academic year to develop their Educator Plan. Educators shall not be expected to meet during the summer hiatus. ii) For those Educators new to the school, the meeting with the Evaluator to establish the Educator Plan must occur by October 15th or within six weeks of the start of their assignment in that school iii) The Evaluator shall meet individually with Educators with PTS and ratings of needs improvement or unsatisfactory to develop professional practice goal(s) that must address specific standards and indicators identified for improvement. In addition, the goals may address shared grade level or subject matter goals. D) The Evaluator completes the Educator Plan by November 1st. The Educator shall sign the Educator Plan within 5 school days of its receipt and may include a written response. The Educator’s signature indicates that the Educator received the plan in a timely fashion. The signature does not indicate agreement or disagreement with its contents. The Evaluator retains final authority over the content of the Educator’s Plan.

  • Evaluation Criteria 5.2.1. The responses will be evaluated based on the following: (edit evaluation criteria below as appropriate for your project)

  • Evaluation Process ‌ A. The immediate supervisor will meet with an employee at the start of their review period to discuss performance expectations. The employee will receive copies of their performance expectations as well as notification of any modifications made during the review period. Employee work performance will be evaluated during probationary, trial service and transition review periods and at least annually thereafter. Notification will be given to a probationary or trial service employee whose work performance is determined to be unsatisfactory. B. The supervisor will discuss the evaluation with the employee. The employee will have the opportunity to provide feedback on the evaluation. The discussion may include such topics as: 1. Reviewing the employee’s performance; 2. Identifying ways the employee may improve their performance; 3. Updating the employee’s position description, if necessary; 4. Identifying performance goals and expectations for the next appraisal period; and 5. Identifying employee training and development needs. C. The performance evaluation process will include, but not be limited to, a written performance evaluation on forms used by the Employer, the employee’s signature acknowledging receipt of the forms, and any comments by the employee. A copy of the performance evaluation will be provided to the employee at the time of the review. A copy of the final performance evaluation, including any employee or reviewer comments, will be provided to the employee. The original performance evaluation forms, including the employee’s comments, will be maintained in the employee’s personnel file. D. If an employee disagrees with their performance evaluation, the employee has the right to attach a rebuttal. E. The performance evaluation process is subject to the grievance procedure in Article 30. The specific content of a performance evaluation is not subject to the grievance procedure. F. Performance evaluations will not be used to initiate personnel actions such as transfer, promotion, or discipline.

  • Evaluation Committee 16.2.1 The Association and the Board agree to establish a standing joint Evaluation Development Committee for the purpose of regularly reviewing the effectiveness of the policy, procedure and process, including the evaluation instrument, for the evaluation of teachers in the District and to provide recommendations to the Superintendent and Board by April 30.

  • Investment Analysis and Implementation In carrying out its obligations under Section 1 hereof, the Advisor shall: (a) supervise all aspects of the operations of the Funds; (b) obtain and evaluate pertinent information about significant developments and economic, statistical and financial data, domestic, foreign or otherwise, whether affecting the economy generally or the Funds, and whether concerning the individual issuers whose securities are included in the assets of the Funds or the activities in which such issuers engage, or with respect to securities which the Advisor considers desirable for inclusion in the Funds' assets; (c) determine which issuers and securities shall be represented in the Funds' investment portfolios and regularly report thereon to the Board of Trustees; (d) formulate and implement continuing programs for the purchases and sales of the securities of such issuers and regularly report thereon to the Board of Trustees; and (e) take, on behalf of the Trust and the Funds, all actions which appear to the Trust and the Funds necessary to carry into effect such purchase and sale programs and supervisory functions as aforesaid, including but not limited to the placing of orders for the purchase and sale of securities for the Funds.

  • Evaluation, Testing, and Monitoring 1. The System Agency may review, test, evaluate and monitor Grantee’s Products and services, as well as associated documentation and technical support for compliance with the Accessibility Standards. Review, testing, evaluation and monitoring may be conducted before and after the award of a contract. Testing and monitoring may include user acceptance testing. Neither the review, testing (including acceptance testing), evaluation or monitoring of any Product or service, nor the absence of review, testing, evaluation or monitoring, will result in a waiver of the State’s right to contest the Grantee’s assertion of compliance with the Accessibility Standards. 2. Grantee agrees to cooperate fully and provide the System Agency and its representatives timely access to Products, records, and other items and information needed to conduct such review, evaluation, testing, and monitoring.

  • Evaluators The success of a program of evaluation depends upon a high level of skill and training of all participants in the process. The District shall provide annual training on the Colorado State Educator Evaluation System and ongoing training on inter-rater reliability using approved materials from the Colorado Department of Education. As required by Colorado law, all performance evaluations must be conducted by an individual who has completed a training in evaluation skills that has been approved by the Department of Education.

  • Independent Development Receiving Party may currently or in the future be developing information internally, or receiving information internally, or receiving information from other parties that may be similar to the Disclosing Party's Confidential Information. Accordingly, nothing in this Agreement will be construed as a representation or inference that Receiving Party will not develop or have developed products or services, that, without violation of this Agreement, might compete with the products or systems contemplated by the Disclosing Party's Confidential Information.

  • Investment Analysis and Commentary The Subadviser will provide quarterly performance analysis and market commentary (the “Investment Report”) during the term of this Agreement. The Investment Reports are due within 10 days after the end of each quarter. In addition, interim Investment Reports shall be issued at such times as may be mutually agreed upon by the Adviser and Subadviser; provided however, that any such interim Investment Report will be due within 10 days of the end of the month in which such agreement is reached between the Adviser and Subadviser. The subject of each Investment Report shall be mutually agreed upon. The Adviser is freely able to publicly distribute the Investment Report.

Draft better contracts in just 5 minutes Get the weekly Law Insider newsletter packed with expert videos, webinars, ebooks, and more!