This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Campbell, R. Articles by Patterson, D. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Methodological Challenges of Collecting Evaluation Data From Traumatized Clients/Consumers

A Comparison of Three Methods

Michigan State University, rmc{at}msu.edu

Adrienne E. Adams

Michigan State University

Debra Patterson

Wayne State University

This project integrates elements of responsive evaluation and participatory evaluation to compare three evaluation data collection methods for use with a hard-to-find (HTF), traumatized, vulnerable population: rape victims seeking postassault medical forensic care. The first method involves on-site, in-person data collection, immediately postservices; the second, telephone follow-up assessments, 1 week postservices; and the third, private, self-administered surveys completed immediately postservices. There are significant differences in response rates across methods: 88% in-person, 17% telephone, and 41% self-administered. Across all phases, clients gave positive feedback about the services they received and about all three methods of data collection. Follow-up analyses suggested that nonresponders did not differ with respect to client characteristics, assault characteristics, or nursing care provided. These findings suggest that evaluations with HTF service clients may need to be integrated into on-site services because other methods may not yield sufficient response rates.

Key Words: hard-to-find populations • responsive evaluation • participatory evaluation • rape • sexual assault

American Journal of Evaluation, Vol. 29, No. 3, 369-381 (2008)
DOI: 10.1177/1098214008320736


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?