Suchergebnisse

Introduction The robustness of record linkage evaluation measures is of high importance since linkage techniques are assessed based on these. However, minimal research has been conducted to evaluate the suitability of existing evaluation measures in the context of linking groups of records. Linkage quality is generally evaluated based on traditional measures such as precision and recall. As we show, these traditional evaluation measures are not suitable for evaluating groups of linked records because they evaluate the quality of individual record pairs rather than the quality of records grouped into clusters.
Objectives We highlight the shortcomings of traditional evaluation measures and then propose a novel method to evaluate clustering quality in the context of group-based record linkage.
Methods The proposed linkage evaluation method assesses how well individual records have been allocated into predicted groups/clusters with respect to ground-truth data. We first identify the best representative predicted cluster for each ground-truth cluster and, based on the resulting mapping, each record in a ground-truth cluster is assigned to one of seven categories. These categories reflect how well the linkage technique assigned records into groups.
Results We empirically evaluate our proposed method using real-world data and show that it better reflects the quality of clusters generated by three group-based record linkage techniques. We also show that traditional measures such as precision and recall can produce ambiguous results whereas our method does not.
Conclusions The proposed evaluation method provides unambiguous results regarding the assessed group-based record linkage approaches. The method comprises of seven categories which reflect how each record was predicted, providing more detailed information about the quality of the linkage result. This will help to make better-informed decisions about which linkage technique is best suited for a given linkage application.

The feasibility of using job evaluation procedures to establish non‐biased pay structure is a central issue in the debate over comparable worth. Results of two investigations indicate that even under carefully controlled conditions job evaluation results are highly susceptible to random and systematic errors on the part of the evaluators, and are apt to vary significantly from the concept of worth underlying the evaluation plan. The choice of evaluation instruments or scoring procedure can also have a major impact on results. Thus, the feasibility of using job evaluation results as the governing criterion of the relative worth of jobs is highly questionable.

Refer to the galley

Estimates of patient satisfaction are increasingly used as an outcome measure in the evaluation of health care. However, surveys are based on untested and incorrect assumptions about what a patient is reporting. In this paper some of these general concerns are presented. This is followed by results from a study on satisfaction from 195 patlents attending a low vision service. Results indicate complex patterns of association with four different estimations of satisfaction from both visual and non-visual factors. Different combinations of visual and non-visual factors had different predictive values for the satisfaction scales. The results are in line with more general findings on satisfaction and suggest that satisfaction is a multi-faceted concept which may easily be misinterpreted in a typical satisfaction survey.

Purpose. To evaluate the implementation of intervention components of the Louisiana Health study, which was a multicomponent childhood obesity prevention program conducted in rural schools. Design. Content analysis. Setting. Process evaluation assessed implementation in classrooms, gym classes, and cafeterias. Subjects. Classroom teachers (n = 232), physical education teachers (n = 53), food service managers (n = 33), and trained observers (n = 9). Measures. Five process evaluation measures were created: Physical Education Questionnaire (PEQ), Intervention Questionnaire (IQ), Food Service Manager Questionnaire (FSMQ), Classroom Observation (CO), and School Nutrition Environment Observation (SNEO). Analysis. Interrater reliability and internal consistency were assessed on all measures. Analysis of variance and χ2 were used to compare differences across study groups on questionnaires and observations. Results. The PEQ and one subscale from the FSMQ were eliminated because their reliability coefficients fell below acceptable standards. The subscale internal consistencies for the IQ, FSMQ, CO, and SNEO (all Cronbach α > .60) were acceptable. Conclusions. After the initial 4 months of intervention, there was evidence that the Louisiana Health intervention was being implemented as it was designed. In summary, four process evaluation measures were found to be sufficiently reliable and valid for assessing the delivery of various aspects of a school-based obesity prevention program. These process measures could be modified to evaluate the delivery of other similar school-based interventions.

"Trainingsmaßnahmen sind ein Instrument der aktiven Arbeitsförderung, mit dem je nach Ausrichtung unterschiedliche Zielsetzungen verfolgt werden. In diesem Beitrag wird eine Variante der Trainingsmaßnahmen, die Maßnahme zur Überprüfung der Verfügbarkeit, evaluiert. Diese Maßnahme zielt in erster Linie darauf ab zu überprüfen, ob Arbeitslose zu einer Arbeitsaufnahme zur Verfügung stehen. Besonderes Augenmerk liegt hier deshalb auf der Fragestellung, wodurch Trainingsmaßnahmen zur Überprüfung der Verfügbarkeit zur Verbesserung von Eingliederungsaussichten beitragen. Unterschieden werden dabei Eingliederungseffekte, die allein aus der Einladung zu einer Maßnahme resultieren, in Abgrenzung zu Effekten, die für die tatsächliche Teilnahme an einer Trainingsmaßnahme geschätzt werden. Zur Untersuchung dieser Fragestellung werden Daten aus einem arbeitsmarktpolitischen Experiment genutzt, die neben Angaben über Maßnahmeteilnahmen auch Informationen zu ausgesprochenen Einladungen liefern." (Autorenreferat)

AbstractCommunity development is a process where people concerned with social and environmental justice act together as engaged and active citizens1 to change their collective circumstances. A concern to deliver change through these processes raises the questions: How do we know if our work is effective? What do we mean by and how do we assess outcomes? What 'evidence' will help us articulate and improve how we do our work? Over the past decades, there has been a growing trend globally towards evaluation to understand and improve practice. Nevertheless, there is a lack of clarity about, and application of, appropriate frameworks for community development evaluation (Motherway, 2006; CDF, 2010; Whelan et al., 2019). Drawing on current practice, this paper explores challenges, principles and methods for evaluation in community development. We argue that 'measurement' requires a clear understanding and agreement of community development purpose and processes, including recognition of community as within and beyond place. Drawing on international evaluation criteria and models, we conclude that community development work could learn from these, as long as communities are in central decision-making roles. We offer suggestions for principles to inform evaluation efforts in community development, suggesting that good community development processes and associated outcomes represent in themselves a theory of change.

Hintergrund: Inklusionsbetriebe nach §§ 215-218 SGB IX bieten schwerbehinderten Menschen eine Beschäftigung auf dem allgemeinen Arbeitsmarkt. Seit 2018 sind Inklusionsbetriebe verpflichtet, Maßnahmen der betrieblichen Gesundheitsförderung (BGF) anzubieten. Ziel der Arbeit: Das Ziel der vorliegenden Studie ist es, verhaltenspräventive BGF-Angebote in Form von Seminaren für schwerbehinderte Beschäftigte und deren Leitungskräfte in Inklusionsbetrieben zu evaluieren. Material und Methoden: Anhand eines multimethodischen Studiendesigns erfolgte im Zeitraum von Juni bis November 2021 eine Evaluation der 12 Beschäftigtenseminare (3 Seminarkonzepte, z. B. Selbstfürsorge im Arbeitsalltag) mittels Fokusgruppen (n = 44) und eine Evaluation der 3 Leitungskräfteseminare zur gesunden Führung mittels eines standardisierten Fragebogens (n = 10). Die erhobenen quantitativen Daten wurden deskriptiv ausgewertet und die qualitativen Daten mithilfe der qualitativen Inhaltsanalyse nach Mayring induktiv analysiert. Ergebnisse: Die Ergebnisse zeigten, dass die durchgeführten Maßnahmen zur BGF von Beschäftigten hinsichtlich der Zufriedenheit, der Seminarlänge, der Verständlichkeit und des erwarteten Nutzens mehrheitlich positiv bewertet wurden. Die Leitungskräfte bewerteten die Seminarinhalte, die Didaktik, die Seminarleitung und den Beitrag der Teilnehmenden mehrheitlich positiv. Diskussion: Die Studie lieferte erste empirische Erkenntnisse zur Evaluation von BGF-Maßnahmen in Inklusionsbetrieben. Vor allem die auf die Inklusionsbetriebe angepassten Seminarinhalte konnten die Zufriedenheit der Teilnehmenden mit der Gesundheitsförderungsmaßnahme positiv beeinflussen. Insgesamt bedarf es weiterer Studien zur Entwicklung und Evaluation von verhältnis- und verhaltensbezogenen BGF-Maßnahmen in Inklusionsbetrieben.