Loading…
Evaluating Workforce Development: Perspectives, Processes, and Lessons Learned
Evaluating workforce development for public health is a high priority for federal funders, public health agencies, trainees, trainers, and academic researchers. But each of these stakeholders has a different set of interests. Thus, the evolving science of training evaluation in the public health sec...
Saved in:
Published in: | Journal of public health management and practice 2003-11, Vol.9 (6), p.489-495 |
---|---|
Main Authors: | , , , , |
Format: | Article |
Language: | English |
Subjects: | |
Citations: | Items that this one cites |
Online Access: | Get full text |
Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
cited_by | |
---|---|
cites | cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c222t-501369f08245740ad89393424a4308dfeb1dffe96741476acac90bc34349c7e23 |
container_end_page | 495 |
container_issue | 6 |
container_start_page | 489 |
container_title | Journal of public health management and practice |
container_volume | 9 |
creator | Potter, Margaret A. Ley, Christine E. Fertman, Carl I. Eggleston, Molly M. Duman, Senol |
description | Evaluating workforce development for public health is a high priority for federal funders, public health agencies, trainees, trainers, and academic researchers. But each of these stakeholders has a different set of interests. Thus, the evolving science of training evaluation in the public health sector is being pulled simultaneously in a number of different directions, each emphasizing different methods, indicators, data-collection instruments, and reporting priorities. We pilot-tested the evaluation of a 30-hour, competency-based training course in a large urban health department. The evaluation processes included strategic, baseline assessment of organizational capacity by the agency; demographic data on trainees as required by the funder; a pre- and posttraining inventory of beliefs and attitudes followed by a posttraining trainee satisfaction survey as required by the trainers and the agency; and a 9-month posttraining follow-up survey and discussion of learning usefulness and organizational impact as desired by the academic researchers and the trainers. Routinely requiring all of these processes in training programs would be overly burdensome, time-consuming, and expensive. This pilot experience offers some important practical lessons for training evaluations in the future. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1097/00124784-200311000-00008 |
format | article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>jstor_proqu</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_71346917</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><jstor_id>44970590</jstor_id><sourcerecordid>44970590</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c222t-501369f08245740ad89393424a4308dfeb1dffe96741476acac90bc34349c7e23</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNpdkE9rGzEQxUVJaf71IzQsOeSUbUfS7ErKLThJGzCtDwk5Clk7W-yuV660a-i3j1w7CWRgmAfze8PwGCs4fOVg1DcALlBpLAWA5BwAytygP7AjXlVQViDEQdagdIl1ZQ7ZcUrL7JIV8k_skGMNNdfqiP283bhudMOi_108hfinDdFTcUMb6sJ6Rf1wVcwopjX5YbGhdFnMYvCU0la6vimmWYc-5eliT80p-9i6LtHn_Txhj3e3D5Mf5fTX9_vJ9bT0Qogh_8dlbVrQAiuF4BptpJEo0KEE3bQ0503bkqkVclS1884bmHuJEo1XJOQJu9jdXcfwd6Q02NUieeo611MYk1VcYm24yuD5O3AZxtjn36yQubSqZIb0DvIxpBSpteu4WLn4z3Kw28DtS-D2NXD7P_BsPdvfH-crat6M-4Qz8GUHLNMQ4use0SioDMhnYwqDVg</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>233338753</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Evaluating Workforce Development: Perspectives, Processes, and Lessons Learned</title><source>JSTOR Archival Journals and Primary Sources Collection</source><creator>Potter, Margaret A. ; Ley, Christine E. ; Fertman, Carl I. ; Eggleston, Molly M. ; Duman, Senol</creator><creatorcontrib>Potter, Margaret A. ; Ley, Christine E. ; Fertman, Carl I. ; Eggleston, Molly M. ; Duman, Senol</creatorcontrib><description>Evaluating workforce development for public health is a high priority for federal funders, public health agencies, trainees, trainers, and academic researchers. But each of these stakeholders has a different set of interests. Thus, the evolving science of training evaluation in the public health sector is being pulled simultaneously in a number of different directions, each emphasizing different methods, indicators, data-collection instruments, and reporting priorities. We pilot-tested the evaluation of a 30-hour, competency-based training course in a large urban health department. The evaluation processes included strategic, baseline assessment of organizational capacity by the agency; demographic data on trainees as required by the funder; a pre- and posttraining inventory of beliefs and attitudes followed by a posttraining trainee satisfaction survey as required by the trainers and the agency; and a 9-month posttraining follow-up survey and discussion of learning usefulness and organizational impact as desired by the academic researchers and the trainers. Routinely requiring all of these processes in training programs would be overly burdensome, time-consuming, and expensive. This pilot experience offers some important practical lessons for training evaluations in the future.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1078-4659</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1550-5022</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1097/00124784-200311000-00008</identifier><identifier>PMID: 14606187</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Inc</publisher><subject>Adult ; Competency-Based Education - standards ; Health technology assessment ; Humans ; Models, Educational ; Ohio ; Pennsylvania ; Program Development ; Public Health - education ; Public Health Administration - manpower ; Schools, Public Health ; Staff Development - methods</subject><ispartof>Journal of public health management and practice, 2003-11, Vol.9 (6), p.489-495</ispartof><rights>Copyright © 2003 Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Inc.</rights><rights>Copyright Aspen Publishers, Inc. Nov/Dec 2003</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c222t-501369f08245740ad89393424a4308dfeb1dffe96741476acac90bc34349c7e23</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/44970590$$EPDF$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/44970590$$EHTML$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,27924,27925,58238,58471</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14606187$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Potter, Margaret A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ley, Christine E.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Fertman, Carl I.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Eggleston, Molly M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Duman, Senol</creatorcontrib><title>Evaluating Workforce Development: Perspectives, Processes, and Lessons Learned</title><title>Journal of public health management and practice</title><addtitle>J Public Health Manag Pract</addtitle><description>Evaluating workforce development for public health is a high priority for federal funders, public health agencies, trainees, trainers, and academic researchers. But each of these stakeholders has a different set of interests. Thus, the evolving science of training evaluation in the public health sector is being pulled simultaneously in a number of different directions, each emphasizing different methods, indicators, data-collection instruments, and reporting priorities. We pilot-tested the evaluation of a 30-hour, competency-based training course in a large urban health department. The evaluation processes included strategic, baseline assessment of organizational capacity by the agency; demographic data on trainees as required by the funder; a pre- and posttraining inventory of beliefs and attitudes followed by a posttraining trainee satisfaction survey as required by the trainers and the agency; and a 9-month posttraining follow-up survey and discussion of learning usefulness and organizational impact as desired by the academic researchers and the trainers. Routinely requiring all of these processes in training programs would be overly burdensome, time-consuming, and expensive. This pilot experience offers some important practical lessons for training evaluations in the future.</description><subject>Adult</subject><subject>Competency-Based Education - standards</subject><subject>Health technology assessment</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Models, Educational</subject><subject>Ohio</subject><subject>Pennsylvania</subject><subject>Program Development</subject><subject>Public Health - education</subject><subject>Public Health Administration - manpower</subject><subject>Schools, Public Health</subject><subject>Staff Development - methods</subject><issn>1078-4659</issn><issn>1550-5022</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2003</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNpdkE9rGzEQxUVJaf71IzQsOeSUbUfS7ErKLThJGzCtDwk5Clk7W-yuV660a-i3j1w7CWRgmAfze8PwGCs4fOVg1DcALlBpLAWA5BwAytygP7AjXlVQViDEQdagdIl1ZQ7ZcUrL7JIV8k_skGMNNdfqiP283bhudMOi_108hfinDdFTcUMb6sJ6Rf1wVcwopjX5YbGhdFnMYvCU0la6vimmWYc-5eliT80p-9i6LtHn_Txhj3e3D5Mf5fTX9_vJ9bT0Qogh_8dlbVrQAiuF4BptpJEo0KEE3bQ0503bkqkVclS1884bmHuJEo1XJOQJu9jdXcfwd6Q02NUieeo611MYk1VcYm24yuD5O3AZxtjn36yQubSqZIb0DvIxpBSpteu4WLn4z3Kw28DtS-D2NXD7P_BsPdvfH-crat6M-4Qz8GUHLNMQ4use0SioDMhnYwqDVg</recordid><startdate>200311</startdate><enddate>200311</enddate><creator>Potter, Margaret A.</creator><creator>Ley, Christine E.</creator><creator>Fertman, Carl I.</creator><creator>Eggleston, Molly M.</creator><creator>Duman, Senol</creator><general>Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Inc</general><general>Lippincott Williams & Wilkins Ovid Technologies</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>200311</creationdate><title>Evaluating Workforce Development: Perspectives, Processes, and Lessons Learned</title><author>Potter, Margaret A. ; Ley, Christine E. ; Fertman, Carl I. ; Eggleston, Molly M. ; Duman, Senol</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c222t-501369f08245740ad89393424a4308dfeb1dffe96741476acac90bc34349c7e23</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2003</creationdate><topic>Adult</topic><topic>Competency-Based Education - standards</topic><topic>Health technology assessment</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Models, Educational</topic><topic>Ohio</topic><topic>Pennsylvania</topic><topic>Program Development</topic><topic>Public Health - education</topic><topic>Public Health Administration - manpower</topic><topic>Schools, Public Health</topic><topic>Staff Development - methods</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Potter, Margaret A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ley, Christine E.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Fertman, Carl I.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Eggleston, Molly M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Duman, Senol</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Journal of public health management and practice</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Potter, Margaret A.</au><au>Ley, Christine E.</au><au>Fertman, Carl I.</au><au>Eggleston, Molly M.</au><au>Duman, Senol</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Evaluating Workforce Development: Perspectives, Processes, and Lessons Learned</atitle><jtitle>Journal of public health management and practice</jtitle><addtitle>J Public Health Manag Pract</addtitle><date>2003-11</date><risdate>2003</risdate><volume>9</volume><issue>6</issue><spage>489</spage><epage>495</epage><pages>489-495</pages><issn>1078-4659</issn><eissn>1550-5022</eissn><abstract>Evaluating workforce development for public health is a high priority for federal funders, public health agencies, trainees, trainers, and academic researchers. But each of these stakeholders has a different set of interests. Thus, the evolving science of training evaluation in the public health sector is being pulled simultaneously in a number of different directions, each emphasizing different methods, indicators, data-collection instruments, and reporting priorities. We pilot-tested the evaluation of a 30-hour, competency-based training course in a large urban health department. The evaluation processes included strategic, baseline assessment of organizational capacity by the agency; demographic data on trainees as required by the funder; a pre- and posttraining inventory of beliefs and attitudes followed by a posttraining trainee satisfaction survey as required by the trainers and the agency; and a 9-month posttraining follow-up survey and discussion of learning usefulness and organizational impact as desired by the academic researchers and the trainers. Routinely requiring all of these processes in training programs would be overly burdensome, time-consuming, and expensive. This pilot experience offers some important practical lessons for training evaluations in the future.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Inc</pub><pmid>14606187</pmid><doi>10.1097/00124784-200311000-00008</doi><tpages>7</tpages></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 1078-4659 |
ispartof | Journal of public health management and practice, 2003-11, Vol.9 (6), p.489-495 |
issn | 1078-4659 1550-5022 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_71346917 |
source | JSTOR Archival Journals and Primary Sources Collection |
subjects | Adult Competency-Based Education - standards Health technology assessment Humans Models, Educational Ohio Pennsylvania Program Development Public Health - education Public Health Administration - manpower Schools, Public Health Staff Development - methods |
title | Evaluating Workforce Development: Perspectives, Processes, and Lessons Learned |
url | http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-29T19%3A14%3A25IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-jstor_proqu&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Evaluating%20Workforce%20Development:%20Perspectives,%20Processes,%20and%20Lessons%20Learned&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20public%20health%20management%20and%20practice&rft.au=Potter,%20Margaret%20A.&rft.date=2003-11&rft.volume=9&rft.issue=6&rft.spage=489&rft.epage=495&rft.pages=489-495&rft.issn=1078-4659&rft.eissn=1550-5022&rft_id=info:doi/10.1097/00124784-200311000-00008&rft_dat=%3Cjstor_proqu%3E44970590%3C/jstor_proqu%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c222t-501369f08245740ad89393424a4308dfeb1dffe96741476acac90bc34349c7e23%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=233338753&rft_id=info:pmid/14606187&rft_jstor_id=44970590&rfr_iscdi=true |