Respond to at least two colleagues who chose a different process evaluation th

 Respond to at least two colleagues who chose a different process evaluation than you did. Respectfully agree or disagree with their analysis of the timing of the process evaluation and their proposal for adjustments. APA CITATION AND REFERANCES
1-IJEOMA- 
Identify the process evaluation article that you chose and explain why you selected this example.
I chose the article “Process Evaluation of a Parenting Program for Low-Income Families in South Africa” by Lachman et al. (2018)​. I selected this study because it offers a comprehensive and practical example of a process evaluation for an intervention to prevent child maltreatment by promoting positive parenting practices. The study is relevant due to its focus on a low-income context where families face numerous social challenges such as violence, poverty, and limited access to resources. The article also employs a mixed-methods approach, combining quantitative and qualitative data, enriching the evaluation by providing diverse insights into program implementation and feasibility. Further, the study’s focus on local cultural contexts makes it a valuable example of how evidence-based interventions can be adapted for different populations.
Describe the purpose of the evaluation, the informants, the questions asked, and the results of the evaluation.
This process evaluation aimed to assess the feasibility of delivering a parenting program to low-income families in South Africa, focusing on participant involvement, implementation fidelity, and program acceptability (Lachman et al., 2018). The evaluation aimed to determine whether the program was being delivered as intended, how participants received it, and whether adjustments were needed for future program iterations.
The informants for this evaluation were the parents participating in the program, primarily low-income, isiXhosa-speaking caregivers, and the community facilitators responsible for delivering the program (Lachman et al., 2018). The questions during the evaluation addressed vital aspects such as participant involvement, cultural relevance of the program content, barriers to engagement, and the facilitators’ ability to deliver the program effectively.
The evaluation results indicated high levels of participant involvement and engagement, with parents attending an average of 8.58 out of 12 sessions (Lachman et al., 2018). Program fidelity was strong, with facilitators implementing 92.9% of the manualized activities and high participant satisfaction scores (Lachman et al., 2018). However, the evaluation also revealed challenges, such as parents’ initial resistance to new parenting techniques and difficulties sustaining consistent attendance due to external factors like illness and political unrest​.
Identify the stage of program implementation in which the evaluation was conducted.
The evaluation was conducted during the implementation phase of the program. Specifically, it occurred while the intervention was actively delivered to participants, allowing the researchers to assess how well the program was functioning in real-time​.
Consider why the researchers chose to evaluate at that stage of program implementation. What kind of information would they have received if they had conducted the evaluation earlier or later?
The researchers likely chose to evaluate the program during the implementation stage to identify any immediate challenges or successes while the program was still in progress (Lachman et al., 2018). Evaluating at this stage provided an opportunity to monitor how well the facilitators adhered to the program model, how the participants were engaging, and what adjustments could be made to improve outcomes. This timing was critical because it allowed for ongoing modifications that could enhance the program’s effectiveness before scaling it further.
Had the researchers conducted the evaluation earlier, such as during the planning or early development stages, they would have missed the opportunity to observe real-time program delivery. They would have needed to capture the practical challenges of implementation. Conversely, after the program’s conclusion, conducting the evaluation later would have provided insights into long-term outcomes. However, it would have missed the chance to make real-time improvements that could enhance participant engagement and fidelity to the program model.
If you were to replicate the study, would you adjust it in any way for more optimal results?
If I were to replicate the study, I would include additional follow-up evaluations to assess the long-term sustainability of the program’s outcomes. While the initial process evaluation was thorough, a follow-up evaluation six months or one year after the program’s conclusion would provide valuable insights into whether parents continued using non-violent discipline techniques and other skills they learned. This would help determine the long-term effectiveness of the intervention and whether additional support or booster sessions are necessary to maintain the program’s positive effects. Additionally, I would consider integrating more rigorous strategies for mitigating external factors, such as illness or political unrest, that affected attendance, perhaps through virtual sessions or community support structures.​
References
Lachman, J. M., Kelly, J., Cluver, L., Ward, C. L., Hutchings, J., & Gardner, F. (2018). Process evaluation of a parenting program for low-income families in South Africa. Research on Social Work Practice, 28(2), 188–202. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049731516645665Links to an external site.
2-MARIA S- 
   I chose the article by Lachman et al. (2018) titled “Process Evaluation of a Parenting Program for Low-Income Families in South Africa” due to its comprehensive approach to assessing the implementation of a critical intervention aimed at improving parenting practices in a vulnerable population. The article provides valuable insights into the nuances of process evaluation, particularly in how it informs program fidelity and effectiveness. Similarly, the study by Vil & Angel (2018) on a cross-age peer mentoring program offers another perspective on process evaluations, especially within programs targeting vulnerable populations.
Purpose of the Evaluation
     The purpose of the evaluation was to assess the fidelity of a parenting program, understand the context of its implementation, and gather feedback from participants to improve the program’s delivery.
Informants
     The informants included program facilitators, parents participating in the program, and community stakeholders. This diverse group provided multiple perspectives on the program’s implementation.
Questions Asked
The evaluation addressed several key questions:
How was the program delivered, and did it adhere to the planned curriculum?
What were the participants’ experiences and perceptions of the program?
What contextual factors influenced the implementation of the program?
Results of the Evaluation
     The results indicated that while the program was generally implemented as intended, variations in delivery were noted based on facilitator styles and participant engagement. Participants reported positive changes in parenting practices and increased confidence. However, challenges such as logistical issues and varying levels of participant commitment were identified (Lachman et al., 2018).
Stage of Program Implementation
The evaluation was conducted during the implementation stage of the program. This stage is crucial as it allows for real-time feedback, enabling adjustments to be made to enhance effectiveness while the program is still running.
Rationale for Evaluation Stage
     Researchers likely chose to evaluate at this stage to capture the immediate effects of the program and to identify any issues as they arose. Conducting the evaluation earlier could have provided insights into planning and design, while a later evaluation might have focused more on outcomes rather than implementation fidelity (Vil & Angel, 2018).
Replication Considerations
    If I were to replicate the study, I would consider incorporating more quantitative measures alongside qualitative feedback to assess the program’s impact more systematically. Additionally, I would ensure a more structured follow-up process to track long-term changes in parenting practices among participants.
References
Lachman, J. M., Kelly, J., Cluver, L., Ward, C. L., Hutchings, J., & Gardner, F. (2018).
      Process evaluation of a parenting program for low-income families in South Africa. Research on Social Work Practice, 28(2), 188–202. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049731516645665Links to an external site.
Vil, C. S., & Angel, A. (2018). A study of a cross-age peer mentoring program on educationally disconnected young adults. Social Work, 63(4), 327–336. https://doi.org/10.1093/sw/swy033