HLTH 5483 Module 5 Complete Evaluation Plan Example

Moving Well Together: A Complete Two-Year Evaluation Plan for Expanding a Senior Center Tai Chi Program for Knee Osteoarthritis

Student Name

American College of Education

HLTH5483: Health and Wellness Program Assessment and Evaluation

Module 5 Assignment

Instructor Name

November 2, 2026

Purpose and Background

Moving Well Together is a twice-weekly tai chi program for adults aged 55 and older with knee osteoarthritis, offered through a composite county's senior center network. A needs assessment found that most members with arthritis were far less active than recommended and wanted gentle, affordable classes; a logic model set out how adapted tai chi should build confidence, reduce pain and improve function; an evaluation design specified questions, tools and a comparison group; and analysis of the first 12-week session found improvements in confidence, pain and strength greater than at a comparison center, along with gaps in reaching the oldest members and men. The department of aging now plans to continue the program at the two pilot centers and extend it to all five over two years. This paper presents the complete plan for evaluating that expansion, with two purposes: to improve the program as it grows and to judge whether it should become a permanent service.

Frameworks

The plan follows the six steps of the CDC's framework for program evaluation and holds itself to that framework's four quality standards (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [CDC], 1999). Because the program is moving from a pilot to wider use, the plan also uses RE-AIM, the framework Glasgow et al. (1999) put forward to judge a health promotion effort by how far its benefits spread, not only by whether it works in ideal conditions. RE-AIM is suited to expansion because a program that works well for a few motivated participants at two sites may not reach others, be taken up by new sites or last after initial enthusiasm fades.

Stakeholders and Uses

Stakeholders include participants, center directors and staff, instructors, the department of aging, referring clinicians, the county's parks and recreation department, funders and the county commission. The evaluation's main uses are to guide quarterly improvements by the program team, to inform the department's decision at the end of year two about permanent funding and to provide evidence for grant applications. A stakeholder advisory group of eight, including three participants, will meet each quarter to review findings and advise on changes.

What the Evaluation Will Ask

Reach: What share of eligible members with arthritis enroll at each center, and how do participants compare with eligible members by age, sex, language and income? Effectiveness: Do participants improve in arthritis self-efficacy, pain and stiffness, lower-body strength and weekly activity at 12 weeks, and are improvements maintained at six months, compared with members at centers not yet offering the program? Adoption: Do all three new centers adopt the program on schedule, and what helps or hinders them? Implementation: Are classes delivered with fidelity, what is attendance, why do participants drop out and what does the program cost per participant? Maintenance: Do participants continue tai chi or other activity after the 12 weeks, and do centers sustain the program with their own resources by the end of year two?

Design

The expansion creates a natural stepped design. The two pilot centers continue in both years; the three new centers begin in a staggered order, one each in the first, second and fourth quarters of year one. Members at centers that have not yet started serve as the comparison group for each new session. This design allows every center to receive the program while still providing comparison data, and it lets the evaluation test whether results hold up at each new site. Start dates were set by readiness rather than by chance, so conclusions will be stated cautiously, yet having a waiting group at every step gives far more to go on than measuring participants alone.

Indicators, Tools and Data Sources

Reach will be measured using enrollment records compared with the membership database and the needs assessment survey. Effectiveness will rest on four instruments: Lorig's confidence scale for people with arthritis (Lorig et al., 1989), a standard osteoarthritis pain and stiffness questionnaire, the 30-second chair stand and the CHAMPS activity questionnaire, which Stewart et al. (2001) developed for older adults and showed to be sensitive to change in activity programs, at baseline, 12 weeks and six months. Adoption will be tracked through start dates and interviews with directors at the new centers. Implementation will be measured with the fidelity checklist, attendance logs, dropout calls and cost records. Maintenance will be measured with a six-month question on continued practice and, at the end of year two, with each center's budget and schedule.

Data Collection and Management

Trained volunteers will collect questionnaire and chair stand data in private rooms at each center, using English and Spanish forms, large print and reading assistance. Instructors will record attendance at every class, and the coordinator will complete fidelity checklists at every fourth class. The coordinator will call participants who miss two consecutive classes and those who miss follow-up measures. Data will be stored under code numbers in a password-protected file on the county's secure network, separate from the list linking codes to names. The health educator will check data quality monthly, looking for missing or implausible values.

Analysis Plan

Process data will be summarized each quarter as counts and percentages by center and demographic group. Outcome data will be analyzed as change from baseline to 12 weeks and six months in each group, with the difference in change between program and comparison groups as the main result, reported with confidence intervals. Findings for smaller groups, the oldest participants among them, will be described without formal testing. Dropouts will be compared with completers at baseline, and results will be described with attention to missing data. Qualitative data from interviews and participant comments will be analyzed for common themes, such as barriers to attendance and what participants value. Cost per participant and per completer will be calculated from program records.

Ethics

Participation in the evaluation is voluntary and separate from participation in the program; members can join classes without completing measures. Participants will give written informed consent in their preferred language, and those with memory difficulties will be supported by a family member where appropriate. The chair stand test will follow safety procedures. Data will be kept confidential and reported only in aggregate. Members at comparison centers will receive the program when their center starts, so no one is denied it permanently.

Timeline and Budget

In year one, the first quarter covers training, launch at the first new center and baseline measures; each quarter thereafter includes a new session start or follow-up measures and a stakeholder meeting. Six-month follow-ups continue into year two. At the end of year two, the health educator will prepare a final report. The evaluation budget, about 10% of program costs, covers volunteer training, printing, a stipend for a part-time data assistant, small thank-you gifts for completing follow-up and translation. Most evaluation labor comes from the health educator and coordinator as part of their existing roles.

Reporting and Use

Findings will be shared quarterly with the program team and advisory group through a two-page dashboard, twice a year with center staff and participants through bilingual summaries and once a year with the department, funders and county commission through a full report. Referring clinicians will receive an annual letter. The final report at the end of year two will make a recommendation on permanent funding, supported by the RE-AIM results. Each report will include specific recommendations, and the advisory group will track which recommendations were acted on, so that the evaluation leads to use rather than sitting on a shelf.

Limitations and Conclusion

The plan's main limitations are the lack of random assignment, reliance on self-report for activity, likely dropout among older participants and small numbers at each center. It addresses these through a staggered comparison design, objective strength measures, follow-up calls and cautious reporting. Moving Well Together's evaluation brings together all the work of this course: it rests on a needs assessment, follows a logic model, uses validated tools and a defensible design, builds on the analysis of the first session and adds RE-AIM to judge a program that is growing. If it succeeds, the department will know not only whether tai chi helps members with arthritis but whether it can reach them, be adopted by every center and last.

References

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (1999). Framework for program evaluation in public health. MMWR Recommendations and Reports, 48(RR-11), 1-40.

Glasgow, R. E., Vogt, T. M., & Boles, S. M. (1999). Evaluating the public health impact of health promotion interventions: The RE-AIM framework. American Journal of Public Health, 89(9), 1322-1327. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.89.9.1322

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