Testing Case Management in a Rural Context: An Impact Analysis of the Illinois Future Steps Program (original) (raw)

Services (DHHS), Administration for Children and Families (ACF), and Howard Rolston, formerly of DHHS/ACF, for support of the evaluation and helpful feedback during its various stages. Our subcontractors on this evaluation, Decision Information Resources, Inc. (DIR) and the Rural Policy Research Institute (RUPRI), played important roles. Pam Wells and Eleanor Tongee of DIR provided leadership and management support to the field interviewing component of the follow-up survey. RUPRI informed the evaluation by providing useful information on rural issues and challenges and suggesting possible programs to include in the evaluation. Consultants Greg Duncan from Northwestern University and Bruce Weber from Oregon State University provided formative feedback on the development of the survey instrument. Many staff at Mathematica Policy Research, Inc. (MPR) played important roles in the completion of the evaluation and preparation of this report. Anne Gordon provided critical advice and comments on the report's content. In addition, Anu Rangarajan and Alan Hershey offered expert guidance and insights throughout much of the evaluation. Stuart Kerachsky also provided expertise and constructive insights during early phases of the evaluation. In addition, Shannon Phillips provided valuable analysis and programming support. Brian Roff and Annalee Kelly played critical roles in managing the survey data collection processes, and Jackie Donath and Cindy Steenstra played important roles in supervising survey interviewing staff and performing other survey data collection tasks. A small corps of experienced MPR interviewers skillfully administered the survey. Likewise, an experienced group of DIR field interviewers located sample members for the survey. In addition, Jason Markesich helped develop the focus group protocol and skillfully coordinated the recruitment of focus group participants. Linda Gentzik, Eric French, and Andrew Frost offered critical systems analysis and data programming support. Finally, Patricia Ciaccio carefully edited the report, and Linda Heath provided outstanding production support.

Sign up to get access to over 50M papers

Appendix A: Focus Group Discussion Guidelines

Journal of Southeast Asian American Education and Advancement, 2015

for additional information. This is an Open Access journal. This means that it uses a funding model that does not charge readers or their institutions for access. Readers may freely read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to the full texts of articles. This journal is covered under the CC BY-NC-ND license. CORE Metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk

Recommendations for Planning and Reporting Focus Group Research

Journal of Nutrition Education, 1996

The use of focus group interviews as a qualitative research method has grown in popularity.This paper was written to provide ideas on how to determine if publication of focus group-based research should be pursued. Included are viewpoints on methodological, design, analysis, and reporting issues. In addition, a list of suggested readings is provided.

POSITION PAPER NATIONAL FOCUS GROUP

No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise without the prior permission of the publisher.

Enhancing Focus Group Validity With Computer-Assisted Technology in Social Science Research

Social Science Computer Review, 1991

The use of focus groups as a qualitative research method has received criticism, particularly concerning its lack of predictive validity. However, it has also been lauded for providing rich and in-depth information. This study sought to enhance focus group research results by combining a computer-assisted technology (Continuous Attitudinal Response Technology, CART tm) and social scientific data collection techniques (national poll) in testing subjects' responses to Proposition 103, an insurance industry regulating initiative. 1 Excerpts from television commercials, newscasts, and talk shows constituted the stimuli for focus group subjects. Results from use of the CART tm system with focus group subjects confirmed those derived from the national poll, regarding the insurance controversy. However, processes inherent in the CART tm technology allowed for more in-depth analysis and interpretation than the survey technique alone.

Deliberative Discussion Focus Groups

Qualitative health research, 2015

This article discusses a new approach for the conduct of focus groups in health research. Identifying ways to educate and inform participants about the topic of interest prior to the focus group discussion can promote more quality data from informed opinions. Data on this deliberative discussion approach are provided from research within three federally funded studies. As healthcare continues to improve from scientific and technological advancements, educating the research participants prior to data collection about these complexities is essential to gather quality data.

Wright, W. E. & Boun, S. (2011). Appendix A: Focus Group Discussion Guidelines

2011

Readers are free to copy, display, and distribute this article, as long as the work is attributed to the author (s) and the Journal of Southeast Asian American Education & Advancement, it is distributed for noncommercial purposes only, and no alteration or transformation is made in the work. More details of this Creative Commons license are available at http://creativecommons. org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/. All other uses must be approved by the author (s) or JSAAEA.

Loading...

Loading Preview

Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.