| Course | HLTH 5483 Health and Wellness Program Assessment and Evaluation |
|---|---|
| Module | Module 3 |
| Paper type | Evaluation design |
| Length | 1,290 words, about 5 pages plus title and reference pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | American College of Education |
| Program | M.Ed. in Health and Wellness Education |
| Updated | September 2026 |
Free sample paper for HLTH 5483 Module 3
Asking the Right Questions: Evaluation Questions, Indicators and Data Sources for Twice-Weekly Tai Chi Classes Serving Older Adults With Knee Osteoarthritis
Student Name
American College of Education
HLTH5483: Health and Wellness Program Assessment and Evaluation
Module 3 Assignment
Instructor Name
October 19, 2026
Introduction
Modules 1 and 2 assessed the needs of older adults with arthritis in a composite county's senior center network and built a logic model for a twice-weekly tai chi pilot at two centers. The logic model showed what the program must deliver and what changes it hopes to produce. This paper designs the evaluation: the questions it will answer, the indicators that will show whether the answers are favorable, the tools and data sources for each indicator, the design that will allow reasonable conclusions and the timing of data collection. The design is organized around the federal public health evaluation framework.
The Evaluation Framework
The federal public health agency's evaluation guidance (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [CDC], 1999) treats evaluation as a cycle of six connected tasks. Evaluators first bring in those who care about or are affected by the program and agree on a description of it. They then settle what the evaluation will focus on, collect evidence that users will find convincing, reach conclusions that the evidence can support and, finally, see that findings are shared and acted on. The same guidance sets four tests for a good evaluation. Utility asks whether it meets the information needs of the people who will use it; feasibility asks whether it is practical and affordable; propriety asks whether it is ethical and fair to participants; and accuracy asks whether it yields trustworthy information. The needs assessment and logic model covered the first two tasks. This paper takes up the third and fourth, deciding the focus and planning how to gather credible evidence.
Stakeholders and Their Questions
The evaluation serves several users, each with different questions. The department of aging wants to know whether the program is worth expanding to the other three centers. Center directors want to know whether members attend and are satisfied. Instructors want to know which parts of the class work best. Participants want to know whether the program helps their pain and mobility. Referring clinicians want to know whether their patients benefit. Funders want evidence of reach and results. A stakeholder meeting narrowed these into a manageable set of evaluation questions, divided into process and outcome questions.
Process Evaluation Questions
Process evaluation asks whether the program was delivered as planned and reached the intended people. The questions are: Did the program reach members with arthritis, including those aged 75 and older, men, Spanish-speaking members and those with low incomes? Were classes delivered as designed, with the planned length, content and modifications? What proportion of classes did participants attend, and why did some drop out? Were transportation and other supports available when needed? How satisfied were participants with the classes and instructors? Indicators include enrollment by demographic group compared with the center membership, the percentage of scheduled classes held, an instructor fidelity checklist completed by the coordinator at every fourth class, attendance records, reasons for dropping out collected by phone, ride logs and a satisfaction survey at week 12.
Outcome Evaluation Questions
Outcome evaluation asks whether participants changed in the ways the logic model predicts. The questions are: Did participants gain confidence in managing arthritis and exercising safely? Did knee pain and stiffness decrease? Did physical function and lower-body strength improve? Did weekly physical activity increase? Were changes maintained six months after the program? Each question has an indicator and a validated tool. Confidence will be measured with the arthritis self-efficacy scale, which Lorig et al. (1989) developed and tested to capture perceived ability to manage pain, function and other symptoms of arthritis. Pain, stiffness and function will be measured with a widely used osteoarthritis questionnaire of the kind used in tai chi trials (Wang et al., 2016). Lower-body strength will be measured with the 30-second chair stand test, which Jones et al. (1999) showed to be a reliable and valid measure for community-dwelling older adults. Weekly activity will be measured with the CHAMPS questionnaire, designed for older adults and responsive to change in activity programs (Stewart et al., 2001).
Design
Choosing a design means balancing rigor with feasibility. Random assignment would give the firmest answer, but it is neither practical nor needed for a pilot at two community sites, and the trial evidence for tai chi already exists. The evaluation will instead measure participants before and after the program and set their results beside a comparison group that was not randomly chosen. Participants will complete measures at enrollment, at week 12 and at six months. Members with arthritis at a third center, where the program will be offered the following year, will complete the same measures at the same times, providing a comparison that helps separate program effects from changes that would have occurred anyway, such as seasonal patterns. The design cannot rule out all alternative explanations, since the groups were not randomly assigned, but it is appropriate to the evaluation's purpose of deciding whether to expand.
Data Collection
Trained volunteers, supervised by the health educator, will administer questionnaires and the chair stand test in a private room at each center. Questionnaires will be available in English and Spanish, in large print and with reading assistance offered to all. The chair stand test will follow a standard protocol, with a chair against a wall and safety spotting. Attendance will be recorded by instructors at each class. Participants will give informed consent, may decline any measure and will be assigned code numbers so that data are stored without names. Data will be entered weekly into a secure spreadsheet by the coordinator.
Planning for Missing Data and Analysis
Community evaluations with older adults almost always lose some participants, so the plan anticipates missing data. Illness, travel, family duties and loss of interest will cause some people to miss follow-up measures, and those who drop out may differ from those who stay, for example by having more pain. To limit loss, volunteers will schedule follow-up measures during regular class times, call participants who miss them and offer a make-up session. Reasons for dropping out will be recorded. In the analysis, the evaluator will compare the baseline characteristics of those who completed follow-up with those who did not, report how many were lost in each group and avoid presenting results only for completers without noting the difference. Outcome changes will be summarized as average change from baseline in each group with confidence intervals, and the difference in change between the program and comparison groups will be the main result. Given the small sample, the evaluation will emphasize the size and direction of changes rather than statistical significance alone, and it will describe results for key subgroups, such as members aged 75 and older, only as exploratory.
Meeting the Standards
The design aims to meet the four standards. For utility, questions were chosen with stakeholders and results will be reported in forms each group can use. For feasibility, measures take about 25 minutes per participant and use volunteers and existing space. For propriety, consent, privacy, voluntary participation and the offer of the program to the comparison group respect participants' rights. For accuracy, validated tools, standardized procedures, a comparison group and attention to missing data support credible conclusions.
Conclusion
The evaluation design turns the logic model into answerable questions. Process questions examine reach, fidelity, attendance, supports and satisfaction; outcome questions examine confidence, pain, function, strength and activity, measured with validated tools at three points and compared with members at a center not yet offering the program. Following the CDC framework and its standards helps ensure that the evaluation will be useful, feasible, ethical and accurate. Module 4 will analyze the evaluation data from the first 12-week session.
References
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (1999). Framework for program evaluation in public health. MMWR Recommendations and Reports, 48(RR-11), 1-40.
Jones, C. J., Rikli, R. E., & Beam, W. C. (1999). A 30-s chair-stand test as a measure of lower body strength in community-residing older adults. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 70(2), 113-119. https://doi.org/10.1080/02701367.1999.10608028
Lorig, K., Chastain, R. L., Ung, E., Shoor, S., & Holman, H. R. (1989). Development and evaluation of a scale to measure perceived self-efficacy in people with arthritis. Arthritis & Rheumatism, 32(1), 37-44. https://doi.org/10.1002/anr.1780320107
Stewart, A. L., Mills, K. M., King, A. C., Haskell, W. L., Gillis, D., & Ritter, P. L. (2001). CHAMPS physical activity questionnaire for older adults: Outcomes for interventions. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 33(7), 1126-1141. https://doi.org/10.1097/00005768-200107000-00010
Wang, C., Schmid, C. H., Iversen, M. D., Harvey, W. F., Fielding, R. A., Driban, J. B., Price, L. L., Wong, J. B., Reid, K. F., Rones, R., & McAlindon, T. (2016). Comparative effectiveness of tai chi versus physical therapy for knee osteoarthritis: A randomized trial. Annals of Internal Medicine, 165(2), 77-86. https://doi.org/10.7326/M15-2143
HLTH 5483 Module 3 instructions, in plain terms
The third module of HLTH 5483 typically asks you to design the evaluation of your program. Prompts commonly expect evaluation questions tied to your logic model, indicators for each question, data sources and measurement tools, a design that supports your conclusions, a data collection plan and attention to ethics. Many sections ask you to use a recognized framework such as the CDC framework for program evaluation. Choose validated tools where possible and explain why they fit your population. Justify your design by weighing rigor against feasibility. Keep the program and logic model from earlier modules. Check Canvas for whether an evaluation matrix linking questions, indicators and sources is required as an appendix. Plan for missing data from the start, since older participants often miss follow-up.
How the HLTH 5483 Module 3 example is put together
The example applies the CDC framework and its standards to a tai chi pilot. It identifies stakeholders and their questions, then sets process questions on reach, fidelity, attendance, supports and satisfaction and outcome questions on confidence, pain, function, strength and activity. Each outcome is matched with a validated tool and supporting source. A section justifies a pre-post design with a comparison center, another describes data collection procedures, including consent and language access, and a final section shows how the design meets the framework's four standards. A section plans for missing data and describes a cautious analysis suited to a small community sample.
Reading the HLTH 5483 Module 3 rubric
Graders commonly reward designs in which every evaluation question has an indicator, a data source and a tool. Distinguishing process from outcome evaluation, and asking both kinds of question, shows understanding. Validated tools and a justified design strengthen credibility. Attention to ethics, privacy and language access reflects professional practice. Explaining trade-offs between rigor and feasibility demonstrates judgment. A clear link back to the logic model and forward to analysis ties the project together, and APA 7 citations for tools and frameworks complete the paper. Planning for dropouts and missing data, and describing how results will be analyzed before data arrive, shows rigor that graders notice.
Common HLTH 5483 Module 3 mistakes, and how to avoid them
Evaluation design papers can overwhelm students with choices of questions, tools and designs. If you need help writing evaluation questions, finding validated measures or choosing a feasible design, we can help. Send your logic model and the module instructions, and a writer will build a Module 3 design that matches every question to an indicator and tool, justifies the design and meets recognized evaluation standards. If your program serves a different population, we choose tools validated for that group, explain how to administer them and build an evaluation matrix you can attach. We also help you plan realistic follow-up so the design does not depend on everyone staying to the end.
Write yours, or have the desk draft it
This paper is an original model document written by our desk, not a submitted student paper and not an official American College of Education document. Read it for the moves, then write your own to the instructions in your classroom. If you want one built to your exact prompt and rubric, the first custom sample is free and arrives in 24 to 48 hours.
More HLTH 5483 and M.Ed. in Health and Wellness Education sample papers
- HLTH 5483 Module 1: Needs Assessment Report
- HLTH 5483 Module 2: Program Logic Model
- HLTH 5483 Module 4: Evaluation Data Analysis
- HLTH 5483 Module 5: Complete Evaluation Plan
- HLTH 5091 Module 2: Artifact and Outcome Alignment
- HLTH 5473 Module 4: Health Challenge Analysis
- HLTH 5403 Module 2: Social Norms Analysis
- HLTH 5493 Module 2: Evidence-Based Program Selection
HLTH 5483 Module 3 questions, answered
What does HLTH5483 Module 3 usually ask for?
The third HLTH5483 module usually asks you to design an evaluation: questions, indicators, data sources and tools, a design and a data collection plan tied to your logic model.
What are the CDC evaluation framework's standards?
Utility, feasibility, propriety and accuracy, which ask whether an evaluation is useful, realistic, ethical and credible.
What is a nonequivalent comparison group?
A group similar to participants but not randomly assigned, used to help separate program effects from changes that would have happened anyway.
Where can I find a free HLTH 5483 Module 3 sample paper?
This page presents a full Module 3 evaluation design for a tai chi pilot at two senior centers, with process and outcome questions, validated tools, a pre-post comparison design and the CDC standards.
Why use validated tools?
Validated tools have been tested for reliability and validity in similar populations, which makes results more credible and comparable.