Skip all navigation and go to page content

NEO Shop Talk

The blog of the National Network of Libraries of Medicine Evaluation Office

Archive for the ‘Logic Models’ Category

A Logic Model Hack: The Project Reality Check

Friday, February 24th, 2017

Duct tape or duck tape torn strips of isolated elements of strong adhesive gray material used in packaging boxes or repairing or fixing broken things that need to be sealed air tight.

Logic models just may be the duct tape of the evaluation world.

A logic model’s usefulness extends well beyond initial project planning. (If you aren’t familiar with logic models, here’s a fun introduction.)  Today’s post starts a new NEO Shop Talk series to take our readers beyond Logic Models 101. We call this series Logic Model Hacks. Our first topic: The Project Reality Check. Watch for more hacks in future posts.

The Project Reality Check allows you to assess the feasibility of your project with stakeholders, experienced colleagues, and key informants.  I refer to these people as “Reality Checkers.”  (I’m capping their title out of respect for their importance.)  Your logic model is your one-page project vision. Present it with a brief pitch, and you can bring anyone up to speed on your plans in a New York minute (or two).  Then, with a few follow-up questions, you can guide your Reality Checkers in identifying key project blind spots. What assumptions you are making? What external factors could help or hinder your project? The figure below is the logic model template from the NEO’s booklet Planning Outcomes-Based Outreach Projects . This template includes boxes for assumptions and external factors. By the time you complete your Project Reality Check, you will have excellent information to add to those boxes.

How to Conduct a Logic Model Reality Check

I always incorporate Project Reality Checks into any logic model development process I lead. Here is my basic game plan:

  • A small project team (2-5 people) works out the project plan and fills in the columns of the logic model. One person can do this step, if necessary.
  • After filling in the main columns, this working group drafts a list of assumptions and external factors for the boxes at the bottom. However, I don’t add the working group’s information to the logic model version for the Reality Checkers. You want fresh responses from them. Showing them your assumptions and external factors in advance may prevent them from generating their own. Best to give them a clean slate.
  • Make a list of potential Reality Checkers and divvy them up among project team members.
  • Prepare a question guide for querying your Reality Checkers.
  • Set up appointments. You can talk with your Reality Checkers in one-to-one conversations that probably will take 15-20 minutes. If you can convene an advisory group for your project, you could easily adapt the Project Reality Check interview process for a group discussion.

Here are the types of folks who might be good consultants for your project plans:

  • The people who will be working on the actual project.
  • Representatives from partner organizations.
  • Key informants. Here’s a tip: If you conducted key informant interviews for community assessment related to this project, don’t hesitate to show your logic model to those interviewees. It is a way to follow-up on the first interview, showing how you are using the information they provided. This is an opportunity for second contact with community opinion leaders.
  • Colleagues who conducted similar projects.
  • Funding agency staff. This is not always feasible, but take advantage of the opportunity if it’s there. These folks have a birds-eye view of what succeeds and fails in communities served by their organizations.

It’s a good idea to have an interview plan, so that you can use your Reality Checkers’ time efficiently and adequately capture their valuable advice. I would start with a short elevator speech, to provide context for the logic model.  Here’s a template you can adapt;

We have this exciting project, where we are trying to ___ [add your goal here]. Specifically, we want _____{the people or organization benefiting from your project}  to _________[add your outcomes]. We plan to do it by ____{summarize your activities).  Here’s our logic model, that shows a few more details of our plan.”

Then, you want to follow up with questions for the Reality Checkers:

  • What assumptions are we making that you think we need to check?
  • Are there resources in the community or in our partner organization that might help us do this project?
  • Are there barriers or challenges we should be prepared to address?
  • I would also like to check some assumptions our project team is making. Present your assumptions at the end of the discussion and get the Reality Checkers’ assessment.

How to Apply What You Learn

After completing the interviews, your working team should reconvene to process what you learned. Remove some of the assumptions that you confirmed in the interviews. Add any new assumptions to be investigated. Adapt your logic model to leverage newly discovered resources (positive external factors) or change your activities to address challenges or barriers. Prepare contingency plans for project turbulence predicted by your Reality Checkers.

Chances are high that you will be changing your logic model after the Project Reality Check. The good news is that you will only have to make changes on paper. That’s much easier than responding to problems that arise because you didn’t identify your blind spots during the planning phase of your project.

Other blog posts about logic models:

How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love Logic Models (The Chili Lesson)

An Easier Way to Plan:Tearless Logic Models

Logic Models: Handy Hints

Holiday Outcome Planning with Nat King Cole

Friday, December 16th, 2016

The holidays can be very stressful. Last minute shopping, traffic, traveling, and talking politics — it’s clearly time to focus on the outcomes we want to see for the holidays, and how we are going to reach them. For help with my planning, I looked to what I think of as the greatest Christmas song of the season, The Christmas Song, most famously sung by Nat King Cole.

Here’s the song in logic model format (I suggest listening to the song at the same time as you read the logic model https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hwacxSnc4tI):

Logic model of The Christmas Song

 

As with so many things in the holiday season, this song doesn’t really reflect my reality in Gulf Coast Texas (although we do get mistletoe–I had it growing on my oak tree a couple of years ago).  Working from similar outcomes backwards, here’s a different logic model that only applies to me:

Logic Model Showing Karen's Holiday plans

No, I will not attempt to turn it into a song, and you’re even luckier that I’m not going to sing it for you.  But this little process has been really helpful for me in keeping things in perspective for the next couple of weeks.

Thanks Nat King Cole, Bob Wells, and Mel Tormé for a great song and a great planning tool.  What would yours look like?

For more on logic models, select the blog’s Logic Model category, and check out the NEO’s Booklet 2: Planning Outcomes-Based Outreach Projects

How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love Logic Models (The Chili Lesson)

Friday, October 28th, 2016

michelle

By Michelle Malizia, Director of Library Services for the Health Sciences, University of Houston

I’ll start with a full disclosure: I am a late convert to logic models. Many years ago, I worked in a department that, for a period of time, became governed by logic models. This experience made me fear… no, hate… logic models.  Several years later, through external workshops and assistance from the NN/LM Evaluation Office, I was introduced to the tremendous value of logic models.

My closest personal analogy relates to my feelings about chili. I grew up eating my mother’s chili, which basically consisted of cans of many different types of beans floating in a type of broth. I hated it. When I was 22 years old, I had no choice but to eat someone else’s chili. This chili had lots of ground beef and spices. It was delicious. Then it occurred to me, my mother’s chili was my only frame of reference for chili. I didn’t dislike chili – I disliked my mother’s chili.

And so it goes with logic models. Once I learned a different way to make and apply them, I became a dedicated user. I now design logic models whenever I plan a new service, activity or initiative.

In 2014, I was hired as the Director of Library Services for the Health Sciences at the University of Houston (UH). In 2017, UH will have its first medical library and my task is to plan the services for the new facility. Of course, I turned to logic models because they provided the framework of not only what I am planning but why I am planning each service and ultimately, how I will evaluate if I achieved the goal.

When I started with my logic models, I was tempted to begin with the activity. I had to remind myself that it is more important to document what I hope to accomplish by that activity (i.e. outcome).  Think about it: Why do librarians teach PubMed classes? Why do librarians want to be embedded in a nursing class? Why do so many libraries provide liaison services? Many of you are probably thinking: “That’s easy, Michelle. We do those things to better serve our customers.” My response is:  How do you know those activities better serve your customers?  How can you prove it to your stakeholders?  That is the reason you should start with your outcomes rather than activities.

For example, my new library will be providing assistance with NIH Public Access Policy compliance. When I developed my logic model, I called upon my inner 3-year old to ask the question best asked by toddlers:  Why.  Because I have a creative side, I use the software Visio (a Microsoft Office software) to create my logic models. It allows me to visually see connections between activities. The chart below shows  a portion of my logic model.

NIH Public Access Policy Assistance Services logic Model One. Activities are conduct workshops and assistance with compliance. Outputs are number of workshops and number of consultations. Short-term outcomes are increase awareness of NIH Public Access Policy and increased knowledge of compliance specifics. Intermediate outcome is compliance and long-term outcome is UH retains and receives NIH grants.

 

As you can see, my long-term outcome for this activity was to ensure that UH retains and receives NIH Grants. If UH researchers don’t comply with the NIH Public Access Policy mandate, their current and future funding is in jeopardy. The intermediate outcome leading to the long-term outcome is increased compliance with the policy. In order to increase compliance, I need to make researchers aware of the policy and how to comply.  That’s when I was able to determine the best methods for me to accomplish those outcomes. For my university environment, the best way to achieve these outcomes is through workshops and consultations.

Now that I knew the “what and the why,” I needed to determine the how.  How would I know if I accomplished my goals? Again, I turned to Visio to visualize how I could assess if I achieved my outcomes.

My final step was to determine my measurable indicators. For example, in the case of workshops, my indicator was “% of workshop attendees who reported being more knowledgeable about how to comply with the policy.”  My target was 85% of attendees. To evaluate this outcome, I would use a pre- and post-test.

 

Evaluation plan for NIH Public Access Policy Assistance Services. Outputs are workshops and consultations, leading to short-term outcomes of increased awareness of NIH Public Access policy and increased knowledge of compliance specifics. The outcomes will be assessed with a pre-post test and follow-up questionnaire. The intermediate outcome is increased compliance, which will be assessed with a survey and/or other follow-up

My overall work with logic models led to a pleasant surprise. Mid-way through my process, UH Libraries adopted a new strategic plan. Strategic plans are usually written in terms of goals. Some of my colleagues tried to feverishly determine where their activities fit into the library’s overall goals. Because I had already determined my outcomes, it was easy to slot my activities into the library’s overall plan.

If you have had a previous bad experience creating logic models, try it again. Ask the NEO for assistance and look at their extremely helpful guides. Like me, you may finally realize that logic models are worth the time and energy. Remember, there are many different types of chili.  Find the one that you like best.

NEO note: The evaluation field has come a long way in discovering new, less painful approaches to creating and using logic models.  If, like Michelle, you had bad experiences years ago with logic models, you might want to give them another chance.  You can learn one approach through the NEO booklet Michelle mentioned, which is  Planning Outcomes-Based Projects (Booklet 3 in our Planning and Evaluating Health Information Outreach Programs series). For alternative approaches, check out our NEO Shop Talk blog entries  Logic Model for a Birthday Party and An Easier Way to Plan: Tearless Logic Models.

 

From Logic Model to Proposal Evaluation – Part 2: The Evaluation Plan

Friday, September 2nd, 2016

Photo of black and white cat with fangsLast week we wrote some basic goals and objectives for a proposal about teaching health literacy skills to vampires in Sunnydale.  Here’s what the goals and objectives look like, taken from the Executive Summary statement in last week’s post:

Goal: The goal of our From Dusk to Dawn project is to improve the health and well-being of vampires in the Sunnydale community.

Objective 1: We will teach 4 hands-on evening classes on the use of MedlinePlus and PubMed to improve Sunnydale vampires’ ability to find consumer health information and up to date research about health conditions.

Objective 2: We will open a 12-hour “Dusk-to-Dawn” health reference hotline to help the vampires with their reference questions.

There are also three outcomes that we have identified:

  1. Short-term: Increased ability of the Internet-using Sunnydale vampires to research needed health information.
  2. Intermediate: These vampires will use their increased skills to research health information for their brood.
  3. Long-term: Overall, the Sunnydale vampires will have improved health and as a result form better relationships with the human community of Sunnydale.

To get to an evaluation plan from here you have to know that there are basically two kinds of things you’ll want to measure: process and outcomes.

Process assessment measures that you did what you said you would do and the way you said you would do it. For example, you can count the number of classes you taught, how many people attended, and whether their survey responses showed that they thought you did a good job teaching.

Also you might want to show that you were willing to make changes in the plan if review of your process assessment showed that you weren’t getting the results you wanted.  For example, if you planned all your classes in early evening, but few vampires attended, you might interview some vampires and find out that early evening is mealtime for most vampires, and move your classes to a different time to increase attendance.  Your evaluation plan could show that you are collecting that information and that you will be responsive to what you see happening.

Outcome assessment measures the extent to which your project had the impact that you hoped it would on the recipients of the project, or even greater on their overall organizations or communities. We showed the first step of outcome assessment in last week’s assignment, but I’m going to break it down a little more here.  Put in basic terms, to do an outcome assessment, you state your outcome, you add in an indicator, a target, and a time frame to come up with a measurable objective, and then you write out the source of your data, your data collection method, and your data collection timing to complete the picture.  Let’s talk about each item here:

Indicator: This is the evidence you can gather that shows whether or not you met your outcomes.  If one of your outcomes is that the vampires have increased ability to research health information, how would you know if that had happened? The indicator could be their increased confidence level in finding health information, or it could be improvement in skills test scores given before and after a training session.

Target: The target is the goal that makes this project look like a success to you.  For example, if the vampires improve their test scores by 50% over a baseline test, is that enough to say you have successfully reached that outcome?  And how many of the vampires need to reach that 50% goal?  All of them? One of them?  Targets can be hard to identify, because you don’t want them to be too hard to reach but if they’re too easy your funder may not be impressed with your ambition.  Sometimes you can work with the funder or other stakeholders on setting targets that are credible.

Time frame: This is the point in time that when the threshold for success will be achieved.  So if you want to make sure the vampires increased their ability by the end of your training, then the time frame would be by the end of your training.

Data Source: This is the location where your information is found. Often, data sources are people (such as participants or observers) but they also may be records, pictures, or meeting notes. Here are some examples of data sources.

Data Collection Methods: Evaluation methods are the tools you use to collect data, such as a survey, observation, or quiz.  Here is more examples of data collection methods.

Data Collection Timing: The data collection timing is describing exactly when you will be collecting the data.

What does your final evaluation plan look like? 

Here is a sample piece of an evaluation plan for the Dusk to Dawn proposal.

Objective 1: teach 4 hands-on evening classes on the use of MedlinePlus and PubMed to improve Sunnydale vampires’ ability to research consumer health information and up to date research about health conditions.

Process Assessment: The PI will collect the following information to ensure that classes are being taught; expected attendance figures are being reached; teachers are doing a good job teaching classes (including surviving the classes).  Data will be reviewed after each class and changes will be made to the program as needed to reach target goals:

◊ Participant roster to measure attendance figures
◊ Class evaluations to measure teacher performance
◊ Count of number of teachers at the beginning and ending of each class to measure survival of instructors
◊ Project team will meet after the second class to review success and lessons learned and to consider course corrections to ensure objectives are met

Outcome Assessment:
Measureable Objective: In a post-test given immediately after each class, a minimum of 75% of Sunnydale vampire attendees demonstrate that they learned how to find needed resources in PubMed and MedlinePlus by showing at least a 50% improvement over the pre-test.

Based on Level 2 (Learning) in the Kirkpatrick Model, a test will be created with some basic health questions to be researched. Class participants will be given these questions as a pre-test before the class, and then will be given the same questions after the class as a post-test.  This learning outcome will be considered successful if a minimum of 75% of Sunnydale vampire participants demonstrate that their scores improved by at least 50%.

Last wishes, I mean, thoughts

This is not a complete evaluation plan, but the purpose of these two posts has been to show how you can go from a logic model to the evaluation plan of a proposal.  Don’t worry if all your outcomes cannot be measured in the scope of your project.  For example, in this Dusk to Dawn project, it might have been dangerous to find out if the vampires had passed on needed health information to their brood, even harder to find out whether the vampires had become more healthy as a result of the information.  This doesn’t mean to leave these outcomes out, but you may want to acknowledge that measuring some outcomes is out of the scope of the project’s resources.

As Grandpa Munster once said “Don’t let time or space detain ya, here you go, to Transylvania.”

Photo credit: Photo of 365::79 – Vampire Cat by Sarah Reid on Flickr under Creative Commons license CC BY 2.0.  No changes were made.

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

From Logic Model to Proposal Evaluation – Part 1: Goals and Objectives

Friday, August 26th, 2016

Vocabulary. Jargon. Semantics.  Sometimes I think it’s the death of us all.  Seriously, it’s really hard to have a conversation about anything when you use the same words in the same context to mean completely different things.

Take Goals and Objectives.  I can’t tell you how many different ways this has been taught to me.  But in general all the explanations agree that a goal is a big concept, and an objective is more specific.

Things get complicated when we use words like Activities, Outcomes, and Measurable Objectives when teaching you about logic models as a way of planning a project.  Which of those words correlate with Goals and Objectives when writing a proposal for the project you just planned?

Bela Lugosi as Dracula

I’m going to walk through an example of how we can connect the dots between the logic model that we use to plan projects, and the terminology used in proposal writing.  There isn’t necessarily going to be a one to one relationship, and it might depend on the number of goals you have.

As has been stated in previous posts, we’ve never actually done any work with the fictional community of Sunnydale, a place where there was, in the past, a large number of vampires and other assorted demons.  But in order to work through this problem, let’s go back to this hypothetical post where we used the Kirkpatrick Model to determine outcomes that we would like to see with any remaining vampires who want to live healthy long lives, and get along with their human neighbors.  For this post, I’m going to pretend I’m writing a proposal to do a training project for them based on those outcomes, and then show how they lead to an evaluation plan.

Goals

The goal can be your long-term outcome or it can be somewhat separate from the outcomes. But either way, your goal needs to be logically connected to the work you’re planning to do.  For example, if you’re going to train vampires to use MedlinePlus, goals like “making the world a better place,” or “achieving world peace,” are not as connected to your project as something like “improving health and well being of vampires” or “improving the health-literacy of vampires so they can make good decisions about their health.”

Here is a logic model showing how this could be laid out, using the outcomes established in the earlier post:

Dusk to Dawn Logic Model

Keep in mind that the purpose of a proposal is to persuade someone to fund your project.  So for the sake of my proposal, I’m going to combine the long-term outcomes into one goal statement.

The goal of this project is to improve the health and well being of vampires in the Sunnydale community.

Objectives

The objectives can be taken from the logic model Activities column. But keep something in mind.  Logic models are small – one page at most.  So you can’t use a lot of words to describe activities.  Objectives on the other hand are activities with some detail filled in. So in the logic model the activity might be “Evening hands-on training on MedlinePlus and PubMed,” while the objective I put in my proposal might be “Objective 1: We will teach 4 hands-on evening classes on the use of MedlinePlus and PubMed to improve Sunnydale vampires’ ability to find consumer health information and up to date research.”

Objectives in Context

Here’s a sample of my Executive Summary of the project, showing goals, objectives, and outcomes in a narrative format:

Executive Summary: The goal of our From Dusk to Dawn project is to improve the health and well being of vampires in the Sunnydale community. In order to reach this goal, we will 1) teach 4 hands-on evening classes on the use of MedlinePlus and PubMed to improve Sunnydale vampires’ ability to find consumer health information and up to date research about health conditions; and 2) open a 12-hour “Dusk-to-Dawn” health reference hotline to help the vampires with their reference questions.  With these activities, we hope to see a) increased ability of the Internet-using Sunnydale vampires to research needed health information; b) that those vampires will use their increased skills to research health information for their brood; and c) these vampires will use this information to make good health decisions leading to improved health, and as a result form better relationships with the human community of Sunnydale.

Please note that in this executive summary, I do not use the word “objectives” to identify the phrases numbered 1 and 2, and I also do not use the word “outcomes” to identify the phrases lettered a, b, and c (because I like the way it reads better without them). However, in detailed narrative of my proposal I would use those terms to go with those exact phrases.

So then, what are Measurable Objectives?

The key to the evaluation plan is creating another kind of objective: what we call a measurable outcome objective. When you create your evaluation plan, along with showing how you plan to measure that you did what you said you would do (process assessment), you will also want to plan how to collect data showing the degree to which you have reached your outcomes (outcome assessment).  These statements are what we call measurable outcome objectives.

Using the “Book 2 Worksheet: Outcome Objectives” found on our Evaluation Resources web page, you start with your outcomes, add an indicator, target and time frame to get measurable objectives  and write it in a single sentence.  Here’s an example of what that would look like using the first outcome listed in the Executive Summary:

Dusk to Dawn Measurable Objective

We’ve gotten through some terminology and some steps for going from your logic model to measuring your outcomes.

Stay tuned for next week when we turn all of this into an Evaluation Plan!

Dare I say it? Same bat time, same bat channel…

 

 

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Evaluation Planning for Proposals: a New NEO Resource

Friday, August 12th, 2016

Angry crazy Business woman with a laptop

Have you ever found yourself in this situation?  You’re well along in your proposal writing when you get to the section that says “how will you evaluate your project?”  Do you think:

  1. “Oh #%$*! It’s that section again.”
  2. “Why do they make us do this?”
  3. “Yay! Here’s where I get to describe how I will collect evidence that my project is really working!”

We at the NEO suggest thinking about evaluation from the get-go, so you’ll be prepared when you get to that section.  And we have some great booklets that show how to do that.  But sometimes people aren’t happy when we say “here are some booklets to read to get started,” even though they are awesome booklets.

So the NEO has made a new web page to make it easier to incorporate evaluation into the project planning process and end up with an evaluation plan that develops naturally.

1. Do a Community Assessment; 2. Make a Logic Model; 3. Develop Measurable Objectives; 4. Create an Evaluation Plan

We group the process into 4 steps: 1) Do a Community Assessment; 2) Make a Logic Model; 3) Develop Measurable Objectives for Your Outcomes; and 4) Create an Evaluation Plan.   Rather than explain what everything is and how to use it (for that you can read the booklets), this page links to the worksheets and samples (and some how-to sections) from the booklets so that you can jump right into planning.  And you can skip the things you don’t need or that you’ve already done.

In addition, we have included links to posts in this blog that show examples of the areas covered so people can put them in context.

We hope this helps with your entire project planning and proposal writing experience, as well as provides support for that pesky evaluation section of the proposal.

Please let Cindy (olneyc@uw.edu) or me (kjvargas@uw.edu) know how it works for you, and feel free to make suggestions.  Cheers!

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

The Kirkpatrick Model (Part 2) — With Humans

Friday, August 5th, 2016

Disclaimer: Karen’s blog post last week on the Kirkpatrick Model used an example that was hypothetical.  We want to be clear that the NEO has never evaluated any programs directed toward improving health outcomes for vampires.

However, we can claim success in applying the Kirkpatrick Model for National Network of Libraries of Medicine (NN/LM) training programs.

The NN/LM’s mission is to promote the biomedical and consumer health resources of the National Library of Medicine.  One strategy that is popular with NN/LM’s Regional Medical Libraries, which lead and manage the network, is the “train-the-trainer” program. These programs teach librarians and others about NLM resources so that they, in turn, will teach their peers, patients, or clients. When the NEO provides evaluation consulting for train-the-trainer programs, we rely heavily on the Kirkpatrick Model.

Kirkpatrick Outcomes Levels and Logic Models

For example, the NN/LM’s initiative to reach out to community college librarians incorporated “train-the-trainer” as one of several strategies to promote use of NLM resources in community college health professions programs. While the initiative was multi-pronged, train-the-trainer programs for community college librarians was a major strategy of the project. The Kirkpatrick Model helped our task force define outcomes and develop measures for this activity.

Our logic model led us to the following program theory:

If we train community college librarians to use National Library of Medicine Resources

  • They will respond favorably to our message (Reaction)
  • And discover new, useful health information resources that (Learning)
  • They will use when working with faculty and students (Behavior)
  • Which will lead to increased use of NLM resources among community college faculty and staff (Results)

Slide1

Measuring Outcomes

We developed two simple measurement tools to assess the four outcome levels.  To measure Reaction, RML instructors administered a standard one-page session evaluation form that has been used for years by instructors who provide NN/LM training sessions. The form collects participants’ feedback, including the grade (A through F) they would assign to the class. This form was our measure of participant reaction.

The other three levels were assessed using a follow-up questionnaire sent to the training participants several months after their training. On this questionnaire, we asked them a series of yes/no questions:

Learning: At this training session, did you learn about health information resources that were NEW to you?

Behavior: Regarding the NEW resources you learned at the training, have you done any of the following?

  • Shown these resources to students?
  • Used the resources when preparing lesson plans?
  • Shown the resources to community college faculty or staff?
  • Used the resources to answer reference questions?

Results: Do you know if the resources are being used by

  • Students?
  • Faculty, administration, or staff at your organization?
  • The librarians at your institution?

We knew our Results questions were weak. They obviously were very subjective. Most of the respondents said they didn’t know about use beyond their library staff members. Unfortunately, we did not have resources for a more objective measure of our anticipated results (e.g., surveying faculty and students at participating schools). Our dilemma was not unusual. Many practitioners of the Kirkpatrick Model agree that assessing Results-level outcomes can be costly and challenging.

However, in anticipation that this Results-level measure might not work, we had a back-up plan inspired by Robert Brinkerhoff’s Success Case Method (which we posted about here). In this approach, evaluators ask training participants to describe how their training benefited the organization.  We ended the questionnaire with the following open-ended question: Please describe how the training you received on National Library of Medicine resources has made a difference for you or your organization.

This question worked well, with 57% of respondents providing examples of how the training improved their customer services. They reported using the NLM resources to provide reference services and incorporating NLM resources into their information literacy classes for health professions students.  Some also were talking to faculty about the importance of teaching health professions students about RML resources that students could use after graduation.

In the end, the Kirkpatrick Model helped us get metrics and qualitative information that helped to assess the effectiveness of our train-the-trainer activities.  Most of the training participants who responded to our follow-up questionnaire learned new resources and were promoting them to student and faculty. Their stories showed that the NN/LM training improved the services they were delivering to their users.

The NEO has drawn on the Kirkpatrick Model to design evaluation methods for similar projects, including our own evaluation training programs.  It is a great tool for helping program planners to define concrete objectives and create measures that are closely linked to desired outcomes.

 

Steering by Outcomes: Begin with the End in Mind

Friday, May 20th, 2016

If you don’t know where you’re going, you might not get there – Yogi Berra

Toy car sitting on a road map

Next week, Karen and I will be facilitating an online version of one of NEO’s oldest workshops, Planning Outcomes-Based Outreach Projects for the Health Science Information Section of the North Dakota Library Association.The main tool we teach in this workshop is the program logic model, but our key takeaway message is this: Figure out where you’re going before you start driving.

If you drive to a new place, your navigator app will insist on a destination, right?  Well, I’m like an evaluation consulting app: those who work with me on evaluation planning have to define what they hope to accomplish before we start designing anything.

In fact, I get positively antsy until we nail down the desired end results.  If I’m helping a colleague develop a needs assessment, I want to know how he or she plans to use the data.  To design a program evaluation process, I have to know how the project team defines success. When consulting with others on survey design, I help them determine how each question will provide them with actionable information.

My obsession with outcomes crept into my personal life years ago. Before I sign up for continuing education or personal development workshops, I consider how they will change my life.  When my husband and I plan vacations, we talk about what we hope to gain on our trip. Do we want to connect with friends? See a new landscape? Catch up on some excellent Chicago comedy? Outcomes-thinking may be an occupational hazard for evaluation professionals. Case in point: Have you seen Karen Vargas’s birthday party logic model?

Top 5 Reasons to Love Outcomes

So how did I become an outcomes geek? Here are the top five reasons:

  • Outcomes are motivating: Activities describe work and who among us needs more work? Outcomes, on the other hand, are visionary. They allow you to imagine and bask in a job well done. Group discussions about outcomes are almost always more uplifting and enthusiastic than discussions about project implementation. Plus, you will attract more key supporters by talking about the positive benefits you hope to attain.
  • Outcomes help you focus: Once you have determined what success looks like, you’ll think more carefully about how to accomplish it.
  • Outcomes provide a reality check: Once you know what you want to accomplish, you’ll think more critically about your project plans. If the logical connection doesn’t hold, you can course-correct before you even start.
  • Planned outcomes set the final scene for your project story: Ultimately, most of us want or have to report our efforts to stakeholders, who, by definition, have a vested interest in our program. Project stories, like fairy tales, unfold in three acts: (Act 1) This is where we started; (Act 2) This is what we did; (Act 3) This is what happened in the end.  Program teams notoriously focus on collecting evaluation data to tell Act 2, while stakeholders are more interested in Act 3.  However, if you articulate your outcomes clearly from the start, you are more likely to collect good data to produce a compelling final act.
  • Identifying expected outcomes helps you notice the unexpected ones. Once you start monitoring for planned outcomes, you’ll pick up on the unplanned ones as well. In my experience, most unplanned outcomes are sweet surprises: results that no one on the team ever imagined in the planning phase.  However, you also may catch the not-so-great outcomes early and address them before any real damage is done.

How to Steer by Outcomes 

When I work with individuals or small project teams, here are the questions we address when trying to identify program outcomes:

  • What will project success look like?
  • What will you observe that will convince you that this project was worth your effort?
  • What story do you want to tell at the end of this project?
  • Who needs to hear your story and what will they want to hear?

These questions help small project teams identify outcomes and figure out how to measure them. If you want a larger group to participate in your outcomes-planning discussion, consider adapting the Nine Whys exercise from Liberating Structures.

Once the outcomes are identified, you’re ready to check the logical connection between your program strategies and your planned results. The logic model is a great tool for this stage of planning. The NEO’s booklet Planning Outcomes-Based Programs provides detailed guidance for how to create project logic models.

Yogi Berra famously said “When you come to a fork in the road, take it.”  I would paraphrase that to say “When you come to a fork in the road, check your outcomes and proceed.”

Logic Model for a Birthday Party

Thursday, February 4th, 2016

Cindy and I feel that logic models are wonderful planning tools that can be used in many life events to stay focused on what’s meaningful. This blog post is an example of such a logic model.

My daughter’s birthday is coming up this week and we are having a party for her. My husband and I have quite a few friends with children about the same age as our daughter (who is turning 3).  This means that we go to birthday parties and we have birthday parties, and we are looking forward to another 15 years or so of birthday parties.  Even though we live in the 4th largest city in the country, it’s a bit of an project to come up with a place for the party.  I could see this problem stretching out into future years of Chuck E. Cheese’s and trampoline parks. Not that there’s anything wrong with those places, but we realized that for us it was time to stop the train before we went off the rails.  Looking at my own childhood, my birthday parties growing up were all at my own house. So we decided to see if we could have a party at our house and just have fun.

To make sure we had a great event and kept our heads on straight (and had something to blog about this week), I created a logic model for my daughter’s birthday party. We needed an evaluation question, which is “is it possible to have a party of preschoolers at our tiny, not-that-childproofed-house without going crazy?”

So here is the event we have planned.

Birthday Party Logic Model

If you’re new to logic models, they are planning tools that you use from right to left, starting with long-term outcomes (what you hope to see out in the future), intermediate outcomes, and short term outcomes. Then you think of the activities that would lead to those outcomes, and then inputs, the things you need in order to do the activities. (For more information on logic models, take a look at the OERC Blog category “Logic Models“).

What I’ve learned from this process is that every time I would come up with an idea about what we could do at the party, it would need to pass the test of whether or not it leads to the long-term outcome of being willing to throw parties in the house in the future – in other words if the party takes too much work or money (or it isn’t fun), we won’t remember it as an event we are likely to do again. For example, while we are inviting a person to our house to entertain the kids, we’re bringing our daughter’s music teacher from her preschool, so it should be fun for the kids that she knows from pre-school and everyone will know the music and can sing along.  Another activity that has high enjoyment and low effort is the dance party with bubbles. All toddlers love to dance, and we can make a playlist of all of our daughter’s favorite dance songs.  Adding bubbles to the mix is frosting.

The short term goals are our immediate party goals.  We would like the party to be fun for our daughter and for most of her friends (can we really hope for 100%?  Probably not, so we put 90%).  My husband and I may be a little stressed but we’re setting our goal fairly low at being relaxed 60% of the time (you’ll have to imagine maniacal laughter here).  Our intermediate goals are simply that we all can feel comfortable having our daughter’s friends over to our house in the near future. And the long term goal is to think this is a good idea to do again and again.

Wish us luck!

The OERC is on the Road Again

Friday, September 25th, 2015

The OERC is on the road again.  Today, Cindy and Beth Layton, Associate Director of the NN/LM Greater Midwest Region, are team-teaching Measuring What Matters to Stakeholders at the Michigan Health Sciences Library Association’s annual conference in Flint, MI.

Logo for Michigan Health Sciences Library Association

This workshop covers strategies for using evaluation to enhance and communicate a library’s value to organizational decision-makers and stakeholders who influence decision makers. The workshop combines updated information with material from the NN/LM MidContinental Region’s Measuring Your Impact and the OERC’s Valuing Your Library workshops that have been taught by a number of regional medical library staff members over the past decade.

On Saturday, Karen is presenting a brand-new workshop for the Texas Library Association’s District 8 Conference called Adding Meaning to Planning: A Step-by-Step Method for Involving Your Community in Meaningful Library Planning.

TLA District 8 Logo

The workshop is a method of involving community members in creating pain-free logic models to ensure that the long term vision is always in sight when planning.  Karen wrote a blog entry about the creating “tearless” logic models here. http://nnlm.gov/evaluation/blog/2015/04/10/tearless-logic-models/  This is Karen’s first experience creating and delivering a workshop that is purely about library evaluation.

The NN/LM travel season is about to go into full swing.  We know we aren’t the only ones out and about with presentations, trainings, and exhibits.  So safe travels. And we will see you in a week with another OERC blog post.

Last updated on Monday, June 27, 2016

Funded by the National Library of Medicine under Contract No. UG4LM012343 with the University of Washington.