Utilization of needs assessments by decision makers: A comparative analysis of assessment methods

The major purpose of this study was to ascertain how needs assessment findings and methodologies are accepted by public decision makers in the U.S. Virgin Islands. To accomplish this, the following five different needs assessments were executed: (1) population survey; (2) key informants survey; (3) community forum; (4) rates-under-treatment (RUT); and (5) social indicators analysis. The assessments measured unmet needs of older persons regarding transportation, in-home care, and socio-recreation services, and determined which of the five methodologies is most costly, time consuming, and valid.^ The results of a five-way comparative analysis was presented to public sector decision makers who were surveyed to determine whether they are influenced more by needs assessment findings, or by the methodology used, and to ascertain the factors that lead to their acceptance of needs assessment findings and methodologies.^ The survey results revealed that acceptance of findings and methodology is influenced by the congruency of the findings with decision makers' goals and objectives, feasibility of the findings, and credibility of the researcher.^ The study also found that decision makers are influenced equally by needs assessment findings and methodology; that they prefer population surveys, although they are the most expensive and time consuming of the methodologies; that different types of needs assessments produce different results; and, that needs assessment is an essential program planning tool. Executive decision makers are found to be influenced more by management factors than by legal and political factors, while legislative decision makers are influenced more by legal factors. Decision makers overwhelmingly view their leadership style as democratic.^ A typology of the five needs assessments, highlighting their strengths and weaknesses, is offered as a planning guide for public decision makers. ^

Utilization of needs assessments by decision makers : a comparative analysis of assessment methods

The major purpose of this study was to ascertain how needs assessment findings and methodologies are accepted by public decision makers in the U. S. Virgin Islands. To accomplish this, the following five different needs assessments were executed: (1) population survey; (2) key informants survey; (3) community forum; (4) rates-under-treatment (RUT); and (5) social indicators analysis. The assessments measured unmet needs of older persons regarding transportation, in-home care, and sociorecreation services, and determined which of the five methodologies is most costly, time consuming, and valid. The results of a five-way comparative analysis was presented to public sector decision makers who were surveyed to determine whether they are influenced more by needs assessment findings, or by the methodology used, and to ascertain the factors that lead to their acceptance of needs assessment findings and methodologies. The survey results revealed that acceptance of findings and methodology is influenced by the congruency of the findings with decision makers' goals and objectives, feasibility of the findings, and credibility of the researcher. The study also found that decision makers are influenced equally by needs assessment findings and methodology; that they prefer population surveys, although they are the most expensive and time consuming of the methodologies; that different types of needs assessments produce different results; and, that needs assessment is an essential program planning tool. Executive decision makers are found to be influenced more by management factors than by legal and political factors, while legislative decision makers are influenced more by legal factors. Decision makers overwhelmingly view their leadership style as democratic. A typology of the five needs assessments, highlighting their strengths and weaknesses is offered as a planning guide for public decision makers.

A comparative analysis of school satisfaction and dropout risk of middle school students attending programs for students with emotional handicaps, severe emotional disturbance and general education students attending center schools and satellite schools

This study evaluated school satisfaction as an indicator of dropout risk of students with Emotional Handicaps (EH) and students with Severe Emotional Disturbance (SED). The students attended two different kinds of middle schools in a largely urban school district in South Florida. One hundred eight students in grade 8 (ages 13-16) participated in this study. Participants were administered the National Dropout Prevention Assessment (NDPA). Forty participants with EH and SED attended a special center school. Thirty-one participants with EH and SED attended satellite programs in a regular middle school. Thirty-seven general education participants attended the same regular middle school. Overall school satisfaction scores were generated, as well as three primary factors (school, environment and personal) and 16 subscales (school atmosphere, future income, difficulty level of classwork, teacher relationships, peer relationships, intrinsic interest in classwork, school hours, classwork stress, general attitude towards school, family influence, perceived opportunity for career, future goals, travel distance, leisure time, self-appraisal of performance, and self-esteem).^ Comparison of students with EH and SED revealed that both groups of students were rated at "low risk" of becoming dropouts on the Environmental factor and the Difficulty of Schoolwork subscale. Students with EH were rated at "caution risk" risk on the Travel Distance subscale. Students with SED were rated at "high risk" on this subscale.^ There were no significant differences in school satisfaction and dropout risk between different program delivery models. There were also no significant differences for category of students (EH, SED) by school type (center school, satellite program). All students were rated at "low risk" of dropping out of school.^ There were significant differences between general education students and students with EH and SED attending satellite programs. Students with EH and SED were rated at "caution risk" for dropping out on the Travel Distance and the Leisure Time subscales. Discussion of results, implications for practice and recommendations for further research are included. ^

A comparative study of block scheduling and traditional scheduling on academic achievement

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of an alternate day block schedule design (n = 419) versus a traditional six-period schedule design (n = 623) on the academic achievement of the graduating classes in two schools in which the design was used respectively. Academic achievement was measured by (a) two standardized tests: the Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test Sunshine State Standards (FCAT-SSS) in mathematics and reading for 9th and 10th grade and the Scholastic Reading Inventory Test (SRI) for 9 th, 10th, and 11th grade; (b) three school grades: the mathematics final course grades for 9th, 10th, and 11th grade, the English final course grades for 9th, 10th, 11th, and 12th grade and the graduating GPA. A total of five repeated measure analyses of variance (ANOVAs) were conducted to analyze the difference between the two schools (representing the two designs) with respect to five achievement indicators (FCAT-SSS mathematics scores, FCAT-SSS reading scores, SRI scores, mathematics final course grades, and English final course grades). The between-subject factor for the five ANOVAs was the schedule design and the within-subject factor was the time the tests were taken or the time the course grades were issued. T-tests were performed on all eighth grade achievement indicators to ensure there were no significant differences in achievement between the two cohorts prior to entering high school. An independent samples t-test was conducted to analyze the difference between the two schedule designs with respect to graduating GPA. Achievement in the alternate day block schedule design was significantly higher than in the traditional six-period schedule design for some of the locally assigned school grades. The difference between the two types of schedule designs was not significant for the standardized measures (the FCAT-SSS in reading and mathematics and the SRI). This study concludes that the use of an alternate day block schedule design can be considered an educational tool that can help improve the academic achievement of students as measured by local indicators of achievement; but, apparently the design is not an important factor in achievement as measured by state examinations such as the FCAT-SSS or the SRI.