Quantitative Assessment of Participant Knowledge and Evaluation of Participant Satisfaction in the CARES Training Program

Abstract

Background The purpose of the Community Alliance for Research Empowering Social change (CARES) training program was to (1) train community members on evidence-based public health, (2) increase their scientific literacy, and (3) develop the infrastructure for community-based participatory research (CBPR). Objectives We assessed participant knowledge and evaluated participant satisfaction of the CARES training program to identify learning needs, obtain valuable feedback about the training, and ensure learning objectives were met through mutually beneficial CBPR approaches. Methods A baseline assessment was administered before the first training session and a follow-up assessment and evaluation was administered after the final training session. At each training session a pretest was administered before the session and a posttest and evaluation were administered at the end of the session. After training session six, a mid-training evaluation was administered. We analyze results from quantitative questions on the assessments, pre- and post-tests, and evaluations. Results CARES fellows knowledge increased at follow-up (75% of questions were answered correctly on average) compared with baseline (38% of questions were answered correctly on average) assessment; post-test scores were higher than pre-test scores in 9 out of 11 sessions. Fellows enjoyed the training and rated all sessions well on the evaluations. Conclusions The CARES fellows training program was successful in participant satisfaction and increasing community knowledge of public health, CBPR, and research method ology. Engaging and training community members in evidence-based public health research can develop an infrastructure for community–academic research partnerships.

Evaluating Community Engagement in Research: Quantitative Measure Development

“…A total of 50 community members were selected to participate in the first cohort of this 15-week-long research training program that is based on the Community Alliance for Research Empowering Social Change training (Coats et al, 2015; Goodman, Dias, & Stafford, 2010; Goodman et al, 2014; Goodman, Si, Stafford, Obasohan, & Mchunguzi, 2012). The Institutional Review Board at Washington University School of Medicine designated CRFT research as nonhuman subjects research.…”

Indigenizing CBPR: Evaluation of a Community‐Based and Participatory Research Process Implementation of theElluam Tungiinun(Towards Wellness) Program in Alaska

“…Process evaluations of CBPR within indigenous community contexts remain limited, and tend to focus more closely on the process work required to design and implement research informed or guided by indigenous community constructs and practices (Thomas et al 2009). When community member perspectives are reported they tend to focus on individual-level outcomes such as personal satisfaction, individual growth or gains through participation in the research (Goodman et al 2012). For example, one study found that youth participants in a CBPR HIV/AIDS prevention program, perceived the research experience positively stating the benefits of “being heard” and having others “finally listen” (Flicker 2008, p. 76).…”

Increasing Research Literacy

“…(Goodman, Johnson Dias, & Stafford, 2010). The CARES training was tailored to be region specific and culturally competent for the strengths and challenges in the Long Island community; results indicated that the training was successful, useful, and impactful (Goodman et al, 2010; Goodman, Si, Stafford, Obasohan, & Mchunguzi, 2012; Goodman et al, 2014). …”