Subjective outcome evaluation of a positive youth development program targeting students with greater psychosocial needs

Abstract

The Tier 2 Program of Project PATHS (Positive Adolescent Training through Holistic Social Programs) targets adolescents with greater psychosocial needs. The present study investigated participants ' subjective evaluation of the Tier 2 Program based on a sample of 34,081 participants in the 2008 -2009 school year. Results showed that participants held positive views toward the program and program instructors, and perceived the program as helpful to the development of students. Regarding correlates of subjective outcome fi ndings, programs that adopted the approach of volunteer training were perceived to be more positive than the other three types of programs in terms of participants ' subjective outcome evaluation; participants in higher grades rated the program more favorably and perceived the program as more effective than did participants from lower grades. These fi ndings provide further support for the effectiveness of the Tier 2 Program for adolescents with special psychosocial needs.

A stakeholder-collaborative evaluation of intervention for students with greater psychosocial needs

“…at the third year of the Experimental Implementation Phase by qualitatively analyzing program implementers ' conclusions regarding the program and its effectiveness based on participants ' subjective outcome evaluation reports. Consistent with previous fi ndings obtained through other evaluative methods (e.g., quantitative evaluation fi ndings) (26,31) , the present results showed that conclusions made by the program workers about the Tier 2 Program were generally favorable, which provide evidence for the effectiveness of the program in the experimental stage and support its full implementation among a large sample of Hong Kong adolescents. Potential challenges and diffi culties encountered by program workers during program implementation and recommendations were also identifi ed, which would help researchers to make further decisions about the program ' s ongoing viability and fi nd out ways to improve its overall quality (32) .…”

“…Because of the fl exibility of the design of the Tier 2 Program, various programs with different target outcomes are designed and implemented (26) . Therefore, it is diffi cult to conduct standardized objective outcome evaluation across schools.…”

An outcome evaluation of the implementation of the Outward Bound Singapore five‐day “intercept” program

“…Shek and Ng (2010) cited the example of Hong Kong, and aptly pointed out that while positive youth development programs are very much needed, they are not very well developed and efforts at program evaluation are still in its infancy. Shek and colleagues reported findings from the Tier 2 program of Project PATHS, a selected intervention involving experiential learning targeted at at-risk adolescents (e.g., Shek & Lee, 2008). While findings suggested that participants' had positive perceptions of the program and perceived the program to be beneficial for their development, the authors also cautioned that these promising results are tentative pending further research (Shek & Lee, 2008;Shek & Ng, 2010).…”

“…Shek and colleagues reported findings from the Tier 2 program of Project PATHS, a selected intervention involving experiential learning targeted at at-risk adolescents (e.g., Shek & Lee, 2008). While findings suggested that participants' had positive perceptions of the program and perceived the program to be beneficial for their development, the authors also cautioned that these promising results are tentative pending further research (Shek & Lee, 2008;Shek & Ng, 2010). Hence, given that youth disengagement is a worldwide phenomenon and given the need for far more systematic research on outdoor adventure education and experiential programs, further work in this regard is essential.…”

Subjective Outcome Evaluation and Factors Related to Perceived Effectiveness of the Project P.A.T.H.S. in Hong Kong

“…The first factor under study was program type. Based on previous classification of program content [ 12 ], four major program types were identified. These included (1) Type A—an approach that combines adventure-based counseling (ABC) and volunteer training and service (VTS), (2) Type B—adventure-based counseling (ABC) only, (3) Type C—volunteer training and service (VTS) only, and (4) Type D—other approaches without elements of ABC or VTS.…”