As discussed in class, I don't recommend sampling in this case. Better to use the whole population entering given dates you should provide, say a 6-month period. Would that exceed the recommended 100 participants? 300 would be a great deal of data to enter next week. I also recommend staying away from having to test inter-rater reliabllity. I would have one in-house employee conduct all the evaluations. It does not appear that the GAD scale would measure the same thing as the MAKS. How would the former measure stigma? Finally, while you might recommend a long-term research plan, that is not what we have the luxury for, so plan accordingly.
2
Week 4 discussion
Student’s Name
Institution Affiliation
Date
Participants to Be Evaluated
Participants to be measured will include those who have, in one way or another, been actively engaged with the MHA programs, whether through direct participation in stigma reduction or increased access to mental health services. Subjects will be selected using stratified random sampling to ensure a balance in demographic representation according to age, socioeconomic status, geographic location, and past experiences with mental health services. This helps ensure that the assessment captures the diverse experiences of targeted groups of the program. However, stratification can be resource-intensive, requiring very careful planning to identify and recruit participants from all relevant subgroups.
Staff Administering the Evaluations
The assessment will be carried out through MHA's trained staff or the contracted assessors. These shall carry out various surveys and interviews and gather information using observational approaches. Evaluators should be trained to ensure consistency and minimize evaluator biases when collecting data. Experienced personnel may increase validity and grant more weight to the assessment, although, in this case, requiring more training may elevate the cost and lengthen project timelines.
Sample Size and Assessment Schedule
The sample will be targeted to ensure a minimum of 300 participants per program for statistical significance. This number creates a reliable comparison across subgroups and program sites. The participants will be assessed at three key points: at baseline (before intervention), immediately following the implementation of the program, and six months post-intervention. This longitudinal approach provides insights into both the immediate and sustained impacts of MHA programs. While this design realizes valuable data longitudinally, the impact of participant dropout, especially in long-term follow-up measurements, may jeopardize the reliability of such findings.
Validity and Reliability of Instruments
The tools to be used in the assessment include but are not limited to the Mental Health Knowledge Schedule (MAKS) and the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9) which have been pretested. MAKS captures(stigma-related knowledge and attitude) while the PHQ-9 focuses on mental health outcomes corresponding to the severity of depression. The validity of the two tools used here has lots of support. For example, the works of Singleton et al. (1998) show that self-report questionnaires such as MAKS have been determined to possess construct validity since they ranked high on the criterion measure of validity In a similar vein, works carried out by Kroenke et al. (2001) reveal that the PHQ-9, a self-administered inventory that is popularly used in mental health research has strong scores in Construct validity. Besides, these tools have a powerful reliability; for example, PHQ-9 is said to be 0.89; which reveals that this tool has recorded high levels of Cronbach’s alpha. That is why their application at MHA may require certain modifications to meet the organization’s goals and objectives more accurately.
Cost and Accessibility of Instruments
Cost is a very sensitive parameter when it comes to decisions regarding which tools would be most suitable for evaluation. PHQ-9 is also in the public domain and therefore relatively cheaper for this evaluation. On the other hand, adaptations by MAKS may need permission or charge for this sort. If cost becomes an issue then other freely available tools such as the Generalized Anxiety Disorder (GAD-7) scale can be looked at as options. However, using public-domain instruments usually involves a low cost, but it is unclear whether they can be customized according to MHA’s specific program requirements, and whether they are suitable for this kind of task at all (Torjesen, 2022).
Conclusion
Meanwhile, utilizing a balanced implemented, stratified random sampling valid, and reliable equipment and a long-term research timetable will allow MHA to avail themselves of the measurement of programs for effective outcomes. This will provide important information on matters bearing stigmatization and improvement of the health system in a sampled and cost-effective manner. This will further improve MHA’s capacity to adapt programs in practice and be better placed to meet the needs of society’s needy groups( Fink, 2015).
References
Fink, A. (2015). Evaluation fundamentals: Insights into program effectiveness, quality, and value
(3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Torjesen, I. (2022). Access to community mental health services continues to deteriorate, survey
finds. BMJ: British Medical Journal (Online), 379, o2585.
https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.o2585
