![[NNFR]](../../images/nfrlineg.gif)
As part of the National Network for Family Resiliency, a parenting education special interest group (SIG) was organized to examine evaluation models for Extension Educators across the nation. In May, 1996, a small group of the SIG met to discuss evaluation options and models. What resulted is the Parenting Evaluation Decision Framework. The framework includes the following steps:
Program planning generally begins with a vision. It is assumed that Extension Agents and Specialists have a larger strategic plan with a written vision of where they are going in the next three to five years, a Plan of Work, a written mission statement of what their Cooperative Extension system is about, and larger state-wide needs assessments through their state specialists and other land-grant university faculty.
Additionally, their community may have already established community benchmarks such as decreasing juvenile violence, school dropout rates, or decreasing domestic and child abuse rates. These larger social indicators are what stakeholders and decision makers often use to guide funding decisions and to seek information about program success. It is not necessary to repeat this involved process of assessing global needs, but it is important to keep the values, vision, and mission in the forefront of one's thinking to assure one is staying focused and in synchrony with one's county and state strategic plans.
Good program planning leads to good evaluation and vice versa. Agents and Specialists must examine their own values and perspectives. They must consider where these perspectives came from so that they can consciously use these to make program planning decisions.
To begin the journey, take time to reflect on your personal history, values, and traits. This provides an added dimension that gives you a lens with which to view each step. Your past experiences flavor how you plan, teach, and interact with others. Some questions to guide the reflection may include:
Am I more comfortable in groups of parents who think like I do and have similar families to mine? Am I challenging myself to teach to parents with the greatest need? Do I offer programs broadly then claim that the ones that "need" it won't come? DO I make an effort to really explore what parents need or do I determine that because I am the professional? Do I plan programs to deliver without asking parents what their greatest needs are? Do I accept speaking engagements before parents without asking questions about the audience to refine planning? How can I make the greatest impact? Do people really change after a 2-hour workshop? How can I be sure I am teaching the right things to parents?
After you have taken time to truly think through your personal contributions, strengths and limitations, consider:
- What is it that you want to accomplish in your community, county, or state?
- What are your unique strengths and limitations? What is your perspective?
- Through what lens do you see the world?
Knowing your own values and beliefs can help you know with whom you work best and in which areas you may need to invite a colleague with other strengths that complement your work. If you want to work with limited resource families, for example, and this is not currently a strength you hold, you may want to recruit a number of volunteers indigenous to the community to make direct contacts. Think about how you can complement the strengths of your co-workers with the strengths you bring and the strengths that others bring to the program planning and evaluation process.
To sustain broad support, it is important to consider the stakeholders in your program. Stakeholders consist of a variety of people who have a concern and interest in the work you do and the outcomes you and your team produce. They include first and foremost your clientele--the potential participants in your educational programs. Other stakeholders are Extension personnel on all levels, state Extension administrators, other county and state agency representatives, city officials, county commissioners and boards, school representatives, other family life professionals, state and national legislators, and advocates for your program area. Consider your most important stakeholders. Informally or formally ask them some broad questions such as: What results would you like to see over the next year for parenting education? What results would you like to see in two years?
Some stakeholders will not have a clue as to the needs of parents and how educators approach these needs. Use this opportunity to educate them about the field of possibilities. For example, tell stakeholders about the ways we approach child abuse and neglect, how we work towards an increased understanding of what is appropriate to expect from children at various ages of development, or how to discipline appropriately at different ages, or how we work on helping parents manage anger and stress. These are prevention programs and can lead to decreases in domestic and child abuse at the macro level.
At the end of the Extension Parenting Evaluation Decision Framework Model, you will eventually report back to your stakeholders about program successes. The end of the model is the beginning of adjusting and redesigning programs which are even more beneficial to local clientele.
The foundation of good evaluation is good program planning. The complete planning process is the most critical and sometimes the least considered by Extension Agents whose strength may be working directly with audiences. Extension personnel begin to become frustrated about evaluation AFTER programs have begun. To eliminate frustration, it is better to consider evaluation as a first step in planning, not just a final measure.
To reduce the frustration, one might think about WHAT WILL YOU EVALUATE? What will you evaluate immediately? What will you evaluate via follow-up assessments? Immediate and follow-up evaluations are designed for different purposes. Immediate objectives assist in the assessment of less intense learning outcomes such as skill development and knowledge enhancement. Immediate evaluation refers to an immediate post-test at the end of the last session before participants leave the program. Follow-up objectives usually require more time, are more intense, and assess higher level changes. Long-term follow-up may occur two months to two years later via mail-out surveys or telephone interviews to measure the long-term effects of the skill, knowledge or behavioral change.
There are key factors to planning when thinking through what to evaluate.
- Keep the "main thing" (objectives and goals) the "main thing."
- It may not be worthwhile or effective to evaluate programs shorter than two hours. Consider making it a personal rule NOT to evaluate one-shot brief programs.
- Evaluate larger efforts, such as a program series or a year to five years worth of total multi-dimensional community efforts to teach, change behavior, and lead to social change outcomes.
- Will follow-up teaching, interventions, and evaluation be necessary to achieve the desired outcomes? How have you planned for this?
There are many different kinds of evaluation. The major kinds of evaluation are quantitative and qualitative as well as process and outcome. Quantitative includes any kind of assessment that involves measurement. For example, we may ask program participants to rate their behavior on a five-point scale. Such measurement is quantitative. On the other hand, qualitative involves word descriptions. Program participants may tell you in an interview after the program that they enjoyed the program but wished that they had more opportunities to ask questions. This is valuable qualitative information.
Process evaluation assesses how well the program or process is working. For example, we may be interested in assessing how many people come to our programs, how much the participants enjoy the sessions or how well the educator handles questions. Those are all process issues in contrast to outcome issues. Some examples of outcome issues include participants' reports of changed behavior and economic benefits to the community.
In addition, evaluation can be done immediately at the end of the program and can include later follow-up. This table lists some examples of major kinds of evaluation:
| Information | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Quantitative | Qualitative | ||
| Information | Process | satisfaction scales, monitoring, tracking, counting (e.g. coalitions formed, # of workshops, % that liked it, number of sessions held as a result of your workshop, # newsletters sent) | observation, anecdotal, post focus assessment |
| Outcome | behavioral measures, pre/post test (written or phone), follow-up measures of change, economic benefits, tax dollar support levels, volunteer dollar value and time support | transformative interview data, success stories, post focus groups | |
To assist you in your decision of quantitative and quantitative, use some of these questions as a guide:
- Is your expected outcome a value (number, time,)?
- Do your objectives specify behaviors that must change?
- Are the delivery methods related to the objectives?
- Is there a timeframe outlined in the objective
Some quantitative methods include counting participation, measuring knowledge, attitude, behavior, satisfaction levels pre/post/follow-up about process, post then pre about process, community changes, economic benefits.
There are creative and effective ways to plan for quantitative outcome evaluation. For example, participants may be asked on a post-test to evaluate their current performance and the amount of change in their behavior since the program began. The change question is one way of directly assessing change.
Qualitative/Processes:
Qualitative processes may include professional observation and feedback, judgements and comments by participants, or stories that describe events and historical events leading up to changes. Qualitative process evaluation also is interested in evaluating the process but uses different kinds of information. For example, program organizers might invite other community professionals to visit one or more sessions and evaluate how the process is working. They might address questions like: Are all participants given a chance to participate? Do participants seem to be comfortable and interested? Does the teacher use appropriate examples that teach the concepts well and are sensitive to the life circumstances of the participants? It is very common to overlook this valuable area of evaluation but qualitative process evaluation, can give us very useful information to improve programs that is not obtained from pre and post outcome measures.
Qualitative/Outcomes may be collected and reported in the form of success stories, focus group discussion, or in-person or telephone interviews. Transformative interview data asks participants how they were changed by the intervention. The evaluator interviews participants focusing on how much participants changed or transformed behaviors since the teaching occurred. The evaluator reports this in qualitative (open-ended statements) based on posed questions such as: Has attending the class made parenting easier? What is your best experience from the class? Do you talk to your friends or relatives about changes you have made since attending the class?
Deciding what to measure in your evaluation effort is very important. It would not make sense to try to measure all of the above after a 20-minute PTA presentation. Nor would it make sense to merely ask one question about satisfaction after a program that included six 2-hour sessions. The kind and amount of evaluation you do needs to be commensurate with your program and related to your information needs. Most of us probably do not gather as much information in our evaluations as would be useful.
Consider some evaluation you might conduct in each of the four areas (Qualitative, quantitative, outcome, and process) of Table 1 if you offered a multi-session parenting program that you had previously offered and wanted to improve.
It might also be useful for you to gather follow-up information a few weeks, months, or years after the conclusion of your program. You can see how all these different kinds of evaluation information can help you improve your program and persuade stakeholders of the merit of your program. It is not necessary to gather evaluation information in each of the four areas shown in the chart. But it does make sense to consider what information in each area might be useful for your evaluation objectives.
While the focus of this evaluation model is PARENTING EDUCATION, the process is generally the same particularly with other human development foci. A graphical representation of the Program Planning Process is located on the NNFR homepage at:
The steps include:
Your review of established vision, your personal perspectives, and the perspectives of others will enable you to identify the issue or problem you want to address with a program. This identification can be shaped in terms to meet the interests of your stakeholders. Now it is time to identify your clientele and to assess their specific needs and assets to tailor your program to be most effective for your target audience. Identify the specific needs and assets of your target audience before you select a program strategy or curriculum to implement.
WHO should be assessed or asked about needs? Ask key informants, e.g. local decision makers, local stakeholders, members of the target audience you are already working with, and local agency personnel who work directly with those you believe will be the intended audience. Key people are not necessarily elected officials, but are people in the community who are respected, listened to, and knowledgeable. Involve African-American, Hispanic and other families from diverse backgrounds in program development.
HOW will an assessment be completed? Examples include focus groups, interviews, written or telephone interviews, and self-report surveys. It is often useful to recruit a task force of key people in the community concerned about the issue. Be sure your target audience is well represented on the task force. Ask your task force to help you develop criteria for selection of program strategies and curricula. Encourage the task force to adopt a consensus approach to deal with issues. A decision reached by consensus is a decision each participant can live with without sabotaging the decision.
Review the available social indicators related to the issue you have selected: the percentages, increases and decreases in factors such as abuse, birth, pregnancy rate, etc. If you have an ongoing involvement with your target audience, you can ask yourself: Are clientele that you think should come to programs continuing to participate? Are they dropping out? Why? Are you finding out from clientele who are dropping out why they dropped out of the program? Is lack of transportation or child care reducing participation in your program? Are there other barriers? How well have you connected with your target audience regarding different ethnic groups, different ideological views, etc.? Do you tend to find comfort in hiding behind your materials, an overhead projector, or a curriculum instead of connecting one-on-one or small groups with your participants? How might you better connect with your targeted audience?
Once you have a clear picture of the needs and assets of your target audience, you are ready to create a one-to-two page statement to enhance awareness of the problem or issue. Determine if there is consensus from your clientele that this is a need? Is there "buy-in" from other community leaders or agencies? Have you facilitated a growing public awareness to build a foundation of support for the program focus you will initiate? Put together your statement to use to create public awareness, seek program and financial support and to present to potential stakeholders from the beginning of the program process (not at the end!)
Long-term goals are statements of purpose that generally take one to five years to complete and explicitly spell out WHO will DO WHAT for WHAT PURPOSE? They frequently begin with verbs like "provide, change, promote, offer, increase, decrease, train, or enable." An example of a long-term goal would be: Reported child abuse cases in Anywhere County, will decrease 15% by 1999 as a result of the Parent Training and Abuse Awareness Program conducted by the Cooperative Extension Service.
Goals can be written on several levels. The micro level goals include individual behaviors, family behaviors and interactions. Macro level goals include school/peers and neighborhood/community. The program planners will need to evaluate how comprehensive, lengthy, and intensive a program they are developing. Are they planning on the macro level (school/peers, neighborhood/community), the micro level (individual, family), or both levels? What results are they hoping to accomplish?
Change is easier to stimulate at the micro level, but less likely to last; harder to stimulate at the macro level but more likely to last. Generally, the more comprehensive and intensive a program, the greater the likelihood of lasting changes. Ideally a comprehensive and intensive program will seek change at both the micro and macro levels.
For example, a Youth Violence Prevention Program might have the following goals:
Individual: Youth will learn to recognize and control their anger and to use conflict resolution strategies to reduce youth violence.
Family: Parents will learn to recognize and control their anger and use conflict resolution strategies to reduce conflict with their youth.
School/Peers: Evergreen School will develop a peer mediation program to reduce conflict among students.
Neighborhood/Community: West central neighborhood will develop norms in support of anger control and conflict resolution.
As you write measurable objectives, you may want to keep in mind current expectations at the national level. Short term objectives target knowledge, attitudes, skills, aspirations, tax dollar support, behaviors, and other program participant characteristics which will change as a result of the program/treatment. They generally take about one year or less to accomplish. An example of a short-term objective would be: By (DATE) (WHO) will (DO WHAT IMPLEMENTING/ACTION VERB) for (WHAT OUTCOME)? An example of a short-term objective is:
By January 1, 19xx, fifty parents in Anywhere County will learn to manage their anger, decrease their anger levels and increase their anger control levels as a result of their participation in the STRESSFREE program from pretest to post-test in a six weekly two course.
You might first write objectives to assess knowledge, attitude, skill changes, and tax dollar support level. Although these are not behavior objectives with measurable indicators, objectives may be written to address:
- knowledge about parenting and anger management.
- participants in improving their attitudes about parenting and anger management (be sure to include behavior changes).
- participants in making positive behavioral changes like listening to their children better.
- increased problem-solving skills.
- developing reasonable expectations of one's own children/youth.
- increased involvement in school participation, i.e., within the school year each parent will make at least one school visit with each of their children.
- improved parent-child relationships.
- providing parenting educators programs in which 80% of respondents favor continued tax dollar support for the program.
- increased family coping, quality of life, and self-esteem levels (Fetsch & Gebeke, 1994).
- decreased stress, depression, and family strain levels (Fetsch, 1995).
- decreased anger and violence levels (Spielberger, 1991; Straus, 1979).
- increased scholastic competence, athletic competence, global self esteem levels (cf. Susan Harter's 1985 "What I Am Like").
- maintaining tax dollar support by program participants (Fetsch, 1995; 1996).
When designing a parenting education program, referring to the National Extension Parenting Education Model (NEPEM) can provide guidance in the parenting content areas. There are six dimensions discussed in detail in this model. By considering the six categories of parenting and relating the content to the overall program goals and objective, you are much further along in a strong program. The domains of self, understand, guide, nurture, motivate, and advocate are important when deciding about the content of the program.
A multi-faceted parent education program most likely will include all of these aspects. Balancing content in these areas provides a holistic approach to parenting education programs. For example, there are some fallacies in only teaching in the category of Guide, and leaving out the Understanding of the child or the taking care of Self dimensions.
Rarely will you find one curriculum that will meet all the needs of your targeted audience. To a large extent, the content and methods of generic parenting programs have been developed based on a parent educator's perceptions of the needs of the parents rather than the self-identified needs or assessed preferences of the parents (Harman & Brim, 1980). Since parents represent diverse family forms, cultures, and characteristics, parent education programs should be as diverse as the anticipated population for whom they are designed (Harman & Brim, 1980). The effects of different types of parent education programs must be evaluated while giving attention to what works for whom and why (Zigler & Weiss, 1985; Barnett & Escobar, 1987; Halpern, 1990; Meyers, 1993).
Consider multi-dimensional offerings for an effective program. You also might consider that each parent is an individual learner; each comfortable with a different learning method. Do some parents prefer learning in a group and do others prefer self-study? So some prefer trained parenting educators as instructors and do others prefer to learn from family members or other parents or even from written materials?
How are you choosing what to use to teach or impart information? After you have a greater understanding of your target audience or potential participants, identify your criteria for selection of materials and information that will be used., e.g. quality parenting program, solid research base, empirical evidence of program effectiveness, and high quality materials that are easy to use.
You might consider:
When considering multi-dimensional delivery, consider the various aspects that will influence your learners. Again Extension personnel may need to look through their socially developed and personal lens. Be sure you are assessing and re-assessing the perspective and needs of your audience as well as considering WHERE and HOW your perspective developed.
Have you considered potential parent individual attributes such as their educational levels, literacy levels, language levels, time constraints and schedules, cultural values and mores? Should you learn more about comfort levels with members in a learning group or comfort with a particular group leader?
Consider learners' learning styles and the teacher's delivery style. If their style does not fit the learner, what program adaptations can be made? Who else can teach parents? Are there other places in the community that information can be made available than in group settings? For example, laundromats, medical facilities (physicians and dentists' offices), or story hour at the library.
Another consideration is the learning style of the parent. Assessing learning style, then discussing the results with parents allows the parent to have a greater understanding of their own style of learning. It also allows you to build on the most effective learning mode. If possible, assess their individual learning styles (some tools: Kolb Learning Styles Inventory, PETALS.)
In addition to learning style, parents who "buy-in" to their learning program feel more control, are more motivated, and interested which leads to more lasting behavioral change. Another instrument under construction (Goddard, 1996) is called the Parent Self-Evaluation Instrument (PSEI) and is based on The National Extension Parent Education Model's (NEPEM) six categories of parenting and 29 critical parenting practices (Smith, Cudabeck, Goddard, & Myers-Wall, 1994). These formed the foundation to construct 410 measurement items to assess individuals' strengths and needs. This instrument, under development, will be an assessment that can guide educators in planning for learning.
There are multiple ways measuring learning. You could consider:
- Using interviews, focus groups, transformative learning (First & Way, 1995), post-test only, post-test then pretest, pretest-post-tests, pretest-post-test-follow-up evaluations, experimental-control groups, quasi-experimental, or comparison groups.
- Using measures of knowledge, attitude, skill, aspirations, tax dollar support, and especially behavioral change levels (Bennett, 1975; 1980; Fetsch, 1995; 1996, Fetsch & Gebeke, 1994; Smith et al., 1994). Fetsch).
- Using measures of higher level changes with acceptable validity and reliability levels (Fetsch, 1995 in review; Harter, 1985; Smith et al., 1994; Spielberger, 1991; Straus, 1979). There are abstracts of many evaluation measures specific to parenting on the National Network for Family Resiliency Home Page: Evaluation, at:
- Using a measure over and over to compare your progress in teaching and parents' changes in learning against your objectives. The suggested instrument in Appendix A suggests items that can be used. Some states are considering using an aggregate of items statewide to use in reporting impact.
There are multiple ways to assess how much learning occurred.
There are qualitative ways and quantitative ways or a combination of both. If the outcomes are expected to be highly specific and behavioral (changes in self-esteem, anger, family stress or number of times a child is reminded, number of times a parent raises his/her voice), one can use more quantitative evaluation and there are instruments designed to measure many of these traits. Will you evaluate just after the last session? Would you like to conduct follow-up evaluation? Would you like to do both? Immediate evaluation refers to an assessment that is performed at the end of the last session before participants leave. Follow-up evaluation refers to an evaluation that is completed some time later (2 months, 6 months, 1 year) after the last intervention.
At the beginning of this process, you identified your stakeholders. Revisit this section. Now is the time to prepare a BRIEF report that can be presented to stakeholders. The tighter the linkages among your goals, measurable objectives, interventions, immediate and follow-up outcomes, the stronger your report will be. Different reports and ways of reporting will be necessary for various stakeholders. A basic outline might include:
- One or two basic demographics about the problem
- Your basic objectives/intention of your program
- What you did
- What results/outcomes you found. What happened as a result of the program?
The report should include information regarding results which address the stakeholders' needs. The results should be of interest to your stakehholders. The report could be a one-page document front and back or a tri-fold. It should generally be no longer than one page. Place it on the quality paper and in as concise, organized, clear presentation as you can provide. In some instances, you may want to place your report in a presentation format (Harvard Graphics, Powerpoint, etc.) to make a more powerful presentation and to seek additional funding.
The most important use of your evaluation results is to use the results to redesign your program so that it will be more effective. Ask:
- What did you learn?
- What worked?
- What did not work?
- What can you learn from the drop-outs? Can you call them and ask about why they were unable to complete the session?
- What changes can be made to the teaching? What did you learn from the audiences?
- What additional services should/could be added (transportation, child care, etc?) (cf. Goddard, Smith, Mize, White & White, 1994).
After you have proceeded through this decision tree, you will loop back to the section called A Foundation for Evaluation: Program Planning. There is a progression and a pattern to conducting educational programs.
Evaluation is a critical component of the non-formal learning system. By assessing what works and what does not work, adjustments can be made as needed. The adjustment may be the choice of delivery method used, in content provided, learner motivational plan, or in other aspects of the program. Evaluation of changing conditions, reactions and progress of the learners is important to the overall success of the educational program. Regardless of the formality of the evaluation approach, this critical component should be a continuous process (Richardson, 1995).
Barnett, W. S., & Escobar, C. M. (1987). The economics of early childhood educational intervention. Review of Educational Research, 57(4), 387-414.
Bennett, C. F. (1975, March/April). Up the hierarchy. Journal of Extension, 12, 13-22.
Bennett, C. F. (1975, March/April). Up the hierarchy. Journal of Extension, 12, 13-22.
Bennett, C. F. (1980). Teaching materials on "Seven levels of evidence": A guide for extension workers (ESC-575, Supplement 1). Washington, DC: United States Department of Agriculture.
Fetsch, R. J. (1995). Cooperative Extension program evaluation surveys: Pretest & post-test (CEPES). (Unpublished surveys available from author, Department of Human Development & Family Studies, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80523 to those with written permission from Hamilton McCubbin.)
Fetsch, R.J. (1996, April). Tax dollars support levels strong for family living programs. Journal of Extension, 34(2), ideas 1.
Fetsch R.J. & Gebeke, D. (1994, June ). A family life program accountability tool. Journal of Extension, 32(1), feature 6.
Fetsch, R. J. (in review). Cooperative Extension norms with a family life program accountability tool. manuscript submitted for publication.
First, J. A., & Way, W. L. (1995). Parent education outcomes: Insights into transformative learning. Family Relations, 44, 104- 109.
Goddard, W. (1996 under construction). Parent Self-Evaluation Instrument.
Goddard, H. W., Smith, B. L., Mize, J., White, M. B., & White, C. P. (1994). The Alabama children's trust fund evaluation manual. Auburn University.
Halpern, R. (1990). Poverty and early childhood parenting: Toward a framework for intervention. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 60(1), 6-18.
Harman, D., & Brim, O. G., Jr. (1980). Learning to be parents: Principles, programs, and methods. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Harter, S. (1985). Manual for the self-perception profile for children. Denver, CO:University of Denver.
Hoppe, M. & Savage, J.A. (1995). Parents Exploring Teaching and Learning Styles (PETALS). JAS Group:Cary, North Carolina.
Jacobs, F. & Weiss. (1988). Evaluating Family Programs.
Johnson, P. (1995). Putting the pieces together, reporting tools and plight of young children impact form (available from the author, Department of Human Development and Family Studies, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80523).
Kolb, D. A. (1976). Learning Styles Inventory. McBer & Company: Boston
Meyers, S. A. (1993). Adapting parent education programs to meet the needs of fathers: An ecological perspective. Family Relations, 42, 447-452.
Richardson, J. (1995). Extension Education Learning System. Raleigh, NC:North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service (SD-7).
Smith, C. A., Cudaback, D., Goddard, H. W., & Myers-Walls, J.A (1994). National Extension parent education model of critical parenting practices. Manhattan: Kansas Cooperative Extension Service.
Spielberger, C. D. (1991). State-trait anger expression inventory: Revised research edition professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
Straus, M. A. (1979). Measuring intrafamily conflict and violence: The Conflict Tactics (CT) Scales. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 41, 75-85.
Zigler, E., & Weiss, H. (1985). Family support systems: An ecological approach to child development. In R. Rapoport (Ed.), Children, youth & families: The action research relations (pp. 166-205). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
If a need arises to design an evaluation instrument pertaining to the NEPEM categories, some suggested items have been provided for use by educators to compile an evaluation instrument. This can be used in a pre-test post-test, can be used as a self-evaluation, or can be used as a guide for focus groups when questions are re-phrased into open-ended questions.
If these are used as a pre-test or post-test, keeping the questionnaire brief may be important depending on your target audience. Using only 3 items per parenting category may be one strategy. Items can be used with a Lickert scale rating next to them for parents to rate their level of agreement. Using agree sometime, and disagree, or using yes, no, or not sure ratings are suggestions. These items have not been tested for reliability and validity. They have, however, been validated by a panel of family and child development experts who agree these are indicators of practice within the NEPEM parenting categories.
Results should be openly shared with parents. Do not use them punitively; use results constructively to aid in planning more effective learning.
Items to use with parents learning on SELF:
Items to use with parents learning on GUIDE:
Items to use with parents learning on MOTIVATE:
Items to use with parents learning on ADVOCATE:
Karen DeBord, Child Development Specialist Wendy Stivers, Evaluation Coordinator - NNFR Robert Fetsch, Department of Human Development and Family Studies H. Wallace Goddard, Extension Family and Child Development
Specialist Margaret (Peggy) Ray, Extension Family Life Specialist Thanks to reviewers who provided feedback and comments:
Names and Addresses of Parenting Evaluation Members
Box 7605, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 237695-7605
Email: kdebord@amaroQ.ces.ncsu.edu, 919-515-9147
919-515-2786 (FAX)
University of Kentucky, Room 212, Scovell Hall, Lexington, KY 40546
Email: wstivers@ca.uky.edu, (606) 257-5961
Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80523
Email: fetsch@lamar.colostate.edu,
(970) 491-5648
203 Spidle Hall, Auburn University, AL 36849-5604
Email: hgoddard@acenet.auburn.edu,
(334)844-3224
Washington State University, 104 White Hall, Pullman, WA 99164-2014
Email: rayp@mail.wsu.edu, 509-335-3811, 509-335-2808 (FAX)
Sherry C. Betts, University of Arizona
Jackie Kirby, The Ohio State University
Dorothy James, Texas A & M University
Patricia Nelson, University of Delaware
Return to NNFR homepage; Return to NNFR Parenting Evaluation page