The evaluations of historical sources

High School Statutory Authority: Students shall be awarded one credit for successful completion of this course.

The evaluations of historical sources

Purposes of Evaluations Plausibility, Probability, Adequacy In general, there are three reasons why evaluations are conducted: As discussed in the Constraints on Evaluations module, resources for evaluations are limited and determining the reason for the evaluation can save both time and money The evaluations of historical sources program budgets.

Adequacy An adequacy assessment is conducted if stakeholders and evaluators are only interested in whether or not the goals, set by program developers, were met. The benefit of performing an adequacy assessment is that it does not require a control group, which can significantly cut the budget of an evaluation, as well as time and effort levels.

However, without randomization or a control group, many indicators cannot be appropriately linked directly to the program activities.

Although limited in what can be inferred from them, adequacy assessments do show progress toward pre-determined targets, which may be sufficient to argue for increased or continued funding.

Adequacy assessment of a community nutrition program in Senegal 2 The goal of evaluators when planning the process of evaluation of a Community Nutrition Project CNP in Senegal was to determine the failures and successes of program activities in order to strengthen the implementation process.

Therefore, it was decided that this evaluation only required an adequacy evaluation; to look at whether or not expected process and outcome indicators were met. Monitoring tools had been developed so evaluators could determine for each child, attendance at monthly weigh-ins, attendance of the mother, and whether or not the food supplement was distributed.

Although not all process targets were met, the evaluators found that nearly all indicators did improve in the expected direction.

The results of this adequacy assessment were used to improve the delivery of services and recruitment strategies during the next phases of the project.

Plausibility A plausibility assessment similarly determines if a program has attained expected goals, yet identifies changes as potential effects of program activities rather than external or confounding sources.

This is possible with the use of an experimental control group. Without measuring identical indicators in control villages, there is no way to link a decrease in child mortality to program activities because other external and confounding factors may have contributed.

In plausibility assessments, the control groups are not required to be truly randomized; control groups can be chosen from historical epidemiological databases or internally i. Therefore, the results of a plausibility assessment only truly determine that there was a difference between the control and the intervention groups that most likely, but not wholly, can be attributed to program activities.

The program had set goals to improve certain economic household variables, like the ability to pay back debt and meet basic household needs.

These indicators were measured, as in adequacy assessments, to identify whether the pre-determined targets were met. However, the evaluation of IMAGE is better able to attribute the improvements in variables, such as ability to pay back debt, to the program activities because of the study design, which included a control group.

Evaluators found that certain economic variables improved in villages where women were participating in the microfinance program, as compared to the control villages. Probability Like both plausibility and adequacy assessments, probability evaluations look to determine the success of a programs activities and outcomes.

However, unlike the two previously discussed assessments, probability assessments use the most robust study design, randomized control trials RCTs to determine the true effect of the program activities on the indicators of interest. An RCT involves complete randomization when selecting the intervention and control groups in order to reduce the influence of bias on the data.

For example, for plausibility assessments, if the evaluators choose to use an internally-created control group see above: With a probability assessment, evaluators take this into consideration when choosing their control groups ensuring physical and social distance between the groups, for example.

Probability assessment of a breastfeeding promotion initiative in Belarus 10 Although it is held that breastfeeding is beneficial for newborns and young children, especially in the prevention of infections, most of the research and programmatic evaluation that has been conducted produces plausibility, not probability, statements of these benefits.

With a certain amount of bias and confounding variables in plausibility evaluations, there was a call for more substantial, unbiased evidence for the association between breastfeeding and risk of infection in infants.

With the understanding that it is unethical to prevent a woman from breastfeeding her child, the program was developed to promote exclusive and prolonged breastfeeding among women who had shown interest in breastfeeding.

In this sense, the evaluators were able to randomize women into an intervention group those women in chosen clinics who received the promotion initiative and a control group those women in clinics chosen to continue efforts as usual, with no intervention without ethical concerns surrounding the control group.

Although clinics were randomized, the groups of women within them were generally similar in terms of age, number of children, smoking habits etc. This allows researchers to ensure that differences between the groups are due to the project and not to underlying sociodemographic characteristics.

A process monitoring system was put in place to ensure that the program was properly implemented. Data, including demographic information, breastfeeding schedules, and medical history, were collected at all well-child visits over the first 12 months.The historicity of Jesus concerns the degree to which sources show Jesus of Nazareth existed as a historical concerns the issue of "what really happened", based upon the context of the time and place, and also the issue of how modern observers can come to know "what really happened".

A second issue is closely tied to historical research practices and methodologies for analyzing the. Research & Evaluating Historical Sources - Chapter Summary.

19 TAC Chapter , Subchapter C

This chapter is designed to strengthen your historical research and source evaluation skills. Take a look at these simple and engaging. Source criticism (or information evaluation) is the process of evaluating an information source, i.e. a document, a person, a speech, a fingerprint, a photo, an observation, or anything used in order to obtain relation to a given purpose, a given information source may be more or less valid, reliable or relevant.

Broadly, "source criticism" is the interdisciplinary study of how. Historical Resources Evaluation Report December State Route North Study ii listing in the National Register as a result of this study (including 2 historic districts and 1.

Access Video on Demand - Videos on careers, social sciences, business, STEM, health, travel and recreation and more..

ISO IEC Information Security Definitions

ArtistWorks for Libraries - Learn how to play an instrument, sing or make art from accomplished Grammy-winning and award-winning initiativeblog.comle for all ages. Creativebug - Unlimited access to over 1, online art and craft classes.

The evaluations of historical sources

The oral history collection inventory is in order by call number and provides name of interviewee and interviewer, biographical information, date of inteview, project (if applicable), restrictions, and materials available for each interview (i.e.

transcript, time index, newspaper clippings, etc).

Purposes of Evaluations (Plausibility, Probability, Adequacy)