| Course | HLTH 6475 Health and Wellness Education Program Planning, Implementation and Evaluation |
|---|---|
| Week | Week 9 |
| Paper type | Evaluation plan |
| Length | About 1,010 words, 6 pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Walden University |
| Program | MS in Health Education and Promotion |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for HLTH 6475 Week 9
Evaluation Plan: Questions, Design, Indicators and Success Criteria for Mental Health First Aid Training in Mingo County, With Process and Outcome Work Kept Separate
Student Name
Walden University
HLTH 6475: Health and Wellness Education Program Planning, Implementation and Evaluation
Instructor Name
Month Day, Year
Evaluation Plan: Questions, Design, Indicators and Success Criteria for Mental Health First Aid Training in Mingo County, With Process and Outcome Work Kept Separate
Evaluation Questions
The evaluation answers five questions, two about process and three about outcomes.
Process questions:
1. Was the program delivered as planned, with 16 courses and 320 trainees in 12 months?
2. Did it reach the intended people, with at least 60% of trainees from schools, faith communities, emergency services and employer supervisors?
Outcome questions:
3. Did trainees' knowledge and confidence rise from the start to the end of each course?
4. Did the constructs the theory rationale relies on, attitudes toward people with mental health problems, perceived expectations of others and intention to help, move in the expected direction?
5. Three months later, had trainees used what they learned to help someone?
Design
The evaluation uses a one-group design with three measurement points: a pretest on the morning of each course, a posttest at its end and a follow-up contact three months later. There is no comparison group. A randomized or waitlist comparison was considered and rejected for this first year: the program's partners expect their members to be trained when they sign up, and the evidence that the training improves knowledge, confidence and intentions already comes from controlled trials, 18 of which were pooled in a systematic review (Morgan et al., 2018). The evaluation's job is not to reestablish efficacy but to check whether a local program delivers results consistent with that evidence.
The design's main weakness is that changes from pretest to posttest could reflect the experience of being tested rather than learning. Because the same review found effects of similar direction across many controlled trials, a local pre-post gain in the expected range is reasonable evidence of delivery working, though not proof.
Process Indicators
Courses delivered, counted from the course calendar and instructor debrief notes, monthly.
Trainees certified, counted from rosters, monthly.
Share of trainees in each priority group, from registration forms, monthly, with a formal review at month 6.
Fidelity: whether each course covered the full curriculum and the local resource segment, recorded on the instructors' debrief form.
Attendance completion: share of registrants who completed the course, from rosters.
Outcome Indicators
Knowledge: percentage of items correct on a 15-item test written from the course content, given before and after each course.
Confidence: share of trainees who agree or strongly agree that they could help someone experiencing a mental health problem, from the same forms.
Theory constructs: three short scales, also pre and post, on attitudes toward people with mental health problems, perceived expectations of colleagues and community that one should help, and intention to help someone in the next three months. These follow the constructs in the theory of planned behavior (Ajzen, 1991).
Helping behavior: share of trainees reached at three months who report having used the action plan with at least one person, and share who report referring someone to a service, collected by text survey or phone.
Success Criteria
The evaluation will judge the program against the objectives already set:
- Process: 16 courses, 320 trainees and at least 60% from priority groups.
- Knowledge: an average gain of at least 20 percentage points from pretest to posttest.
- Confidence: a rise of at least 25 percentage points in the share confident to help.
- Helping: at least 40% of trainees reached at three months report helping someone.
The response rate at three months will be reported beside the helping figure. If fewer than half of trainees respond, the helping figure will be described as applying to respondents only, since trainees who did help someone probably reply more readily than those who did not.
Analysis
Pretest and posttest scores will be compared within each trainee, with the mean change and its confidence interval reported for knowledge and confidence, overall and by priority group. Construct scales will be compared the same way. Three-month results will be reported as simple proportions with response rates. Results will be examined by course format, in-person and blended, to see whether either underperforms.
Using the Results During the Year
The evaluation is not only a final report. Monthly process figures go to the director, and the month 6 review compares priority-group shares, completion rates and early follow-up results with the targets. If knowledge or confidence gains in any format fall well short, the instructors will review how that format is being delivered before the next course. Learning while the program runs is the main reason to collect process data monthly rather than once at the end.
Data Handling
Forms carry a trainee number, not a name. The coordinator keeps a separate key linking numbers to contact details for follow-up, stored securely and destroyed at the end of the program year. Responses about helping record settings, such as "at work" or "family member," never the names of people helped. Paper forms are kept in a locked cabinet at the coordinator's office and entered into the survey service within a week, after which only the trainee number links a record to a person.
Reporting
A one-page summary goes to partners after month 6 and month 12. The final report to the funder presents each indicator against its criterion. The last four courses end too late in the year for their three-month contacts to fall inside it, so helping results in that report describe trainees from courses 1 through 12 only. A short addendum after the year can add the later cohorts if the funder wants them, using the same survey and the same response-rate rule so the two figures can be read together.
Limits
All outcome measures are self-reported. Trainees may overstate confidence or helping, and the evaluation cannot observe the quality of help given, a gap the systematic review also noted (Morgan et al., 2018). The evaluation also cannot detect changes in the county's frequent mental distress rate, which CDC estimated at 24.1% in 2023 (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [CDC], 2025); a training program of this size is not expected to move it within a year.
References
Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179-211. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2025). PLACES: Local data for better health, county data, 2025 release [Data set]. https://data.cdc.gov/d/swc5-untb
Morgan, A. J., Ross, A., & Reavley, N. J. (2018). Systematic review and meta-analysis of Mental Health First Aid training: Effects on knowledge, stigma, and helping behaviour. PLOS ONE, 13(5), Article e0197102. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0197102
HLTH 6475 Week 9 instructions, in plain terms
The ninth week asks for an evaluation plan written as a design. Students state the questions the evaluation answers, separating process questions about delivery from outcome questions about change. The design should be named and justified, including why stronger designs were or were not chosen. Every indicator needs a data source and a collection point, and success criteria should match the program's objectives. Plans should describe analysis, how results will be used during the program, how data will be protected and how findings will be reported. Honest treatment of limitations, such as self-report and nonresponse, is expected. Measures tied to the program's theory show coherence. Plans should also say when each result will be ready, since late cohorts may fall outside the program year. Sources include the theory, intervention evidence and need data in APA format.
How the HLTH 6475 Week 9 example is put together
The plan lists five questions, two on process and three on outcomes. The design section explains three measurement points and why a comparison group was rejected, noting that controlled trials already established efficacy. Process indicators cover courses, trainees, priority groups, fidelity and completion. Outcome indicators cover a 15-item knowledge test, a confidence item, three short scales for attitudes, perceived expectations and intention drawn from the theory, and helping and referral at three months. Success criteria restate the objectives, with a response-rate rule for the helping figure. Sections on analysis, using results during the year, data handling, reporting and limits follow, including the coverage of only the first 12 courses for helping.
Where the marks sit in the HLTH 6475 Week 9 rubric
Evaluation plans are graded on design quality and alignment. Faculty reward plans that separate process and outcome questions, justify the design and attach each indicator to a source and collection point. Success criteria that match the objectives show coherence. Measures linked to the program's theory earn credit because they test the program's logic, not only its content. Handling of nonresponse and self-report bias demonstrates rigor. Plans for using results during the program show practical value. Data protection and reporting arrangements are expected. Honest limitations add credibility, especially when they name results that will arrive after the year ends. Clear organization aids grading, and APA citations complete the requirements.
HLTH 6475 Week 9 help from the desk
Evaluation plans often lose credit by promising to "evaluate effectiveness" without naming questions, indicators or sources. Another common problem is measuring only knowledge when the program's objectives concern behavior. Some plans also ignore nonresponse, reporting follow-up results as if everyone answered. To write a stronger plan, write your questions first, split into process and outcome. Name your design and explain the choice. For each question, list indicators, sources and timing. Restate success criteria from your objectives. Describe analysis and how you will report response rates. List limits honestly. If you need an evaluation plan for your own program, our writers can draft one.
Get a HLTH 6475 Week 9 example written to your instructions
The evaluation plan on file for HLTH 6475 Week 9 carries its matrix intact, instruments cited and limits stated openly. Findings a site has already gathered, and the participant-level records underneath them, never leave the hands that hold them. Send the prompt and the rubric your section posted; the first custom sample is free and comes back in 24-48h.
More HLTH 6475 papers and MS in Health Education and Promotion samples
- HLTH 6475 Week 1: Program Parts Discussion Post
- HLTH 6475 Week 2: Program Objective Set
- HLTH 6475 Week 3: Training Program Logic Model
- HLTH 6475 Week 4: Planned Behavior Theory Rationale
- HLTH 6475 Week 5: Program Activity Plan
- HLTH 6475 Week 6: Staffing Claim Peer Reply
- HLTH 6475 Week 7: Program Resource Plan
- HLTH 6475 Week 8: Program Implementation Timeline
- HLTH 6475 Week 10: Output and Outcome Indicator Table
- HLTH 6475 Week 11: Complete Program Plan
- HLTH 6412 Week 9: Screening Day Video Script
- HLTH 6405 Week 9: Confidentiality Dissent Analysis
- HLTH 6362 Week 9: Data Assumption Reflection
- HLTH 6280 Week 9: Tobacco 21 Institutional Case Study
HLTH 6475 Week 9 questions, answered
Where can I find a free HLTH 6475 Week 9 sample paper?
The complete Week 9 evaluation plan, with two process questions, three outcome questions and three references, is free to open below.
What design does the HLTH 6475 Week 9 plan use?
One group measured three times: a pretest on the morning of each course, a posttest at its end and a follow-up three months later.
Why is there no comparison group?
Partners expect members to be trained when they sign up, and controlled trials already established the training's effects, so the plan checks local delivery against that evidence.
How are the theory's constructs measured?
With three short scales on attitudes toward people with mental health problems, perceived expectations to help and intention to help, given before and after each course.
How will nonresponse at three months be handled?
The response rate is reported beside the helping figure, which is described as applying only to respondents if fewer than half reply.