Search Results for: "Evaluation"

The following is an excerpt taken from a report produced for SHRTN by the SHRTN evaluation team of Paul Stolee and James Conklin in September 2007 under the name: Assessment of Impact of SHRTN Activities

The evaluation literature contains some clues concerning the most appropriate and effective way to evaluate a knowledge network, but as of yet no definitive evaluation model has emerged. Two recent works, however, have proposed evaluation models and approaches that may be suited to a knowledge network, and from which some clues may be derived. Popp et al. (2005) devise an evaluation framework that combines a network’s levels of operation (the network vision, structure, process, and service delivery) and levels of impact (on individuals, organizations, the network itself, and the broader community in which the network operates). They suggest that “Networks that seek, adhere to, and measure a well-articulated vision and forge trustful and committed relationships among network participants are more likely to operate at numerous levels and impact on multiple and diverse stakeholders (Hill, 2002)” (Popp et al., p. 131).

This report presents the results of the developmental evaluation program that was carried out during the period from February 2009 to March 2010, encompassing parts of the fourth and fifth years of operation of the SHRTN Collaborative. This evaluation is based on data gathered from members of the SHRTN Knowledge Exchange and the Alzheimer's Knowledge Exchange (AKE), and does not include data drawn from the Ontario Research Coalition (ORC). In the report, statements made about the SHRTN Collaborative should be taken to apply to the SHRTN Knowledge Exchange and AKE. The evaluation programs is based on an evaluation framework and approach that has been thoroughly described in the reports issued in previous years (Conklin & Stolee, 2008). This report does not reproduce this earlier conceptual material. The report focuses on the detailed findings of the evaluation profram, and recommendations for SHRTN Collaborative leaders to consider as they move forward.