Proctor model outcomes (Finney et al., 2013) as applied to program evaluation
| Subdomain outcome | Definition | Program evaluation question |
|---|---|---|
| Adoption | The intention, initial decision or action to try or use the innovation | How many institutions participated? How many participants completed course? What proportion of participants continue to work with Amend following course completion? |
| Acceptability | Perceptions that the innovation is agreeable, palatable or satisfactory | Is the intervention agreeable to participants? |
| Appropriateness | Perceived fit, relevance or compatibility of the innovation with the practice setting | Is intervention relevant for participants? |
| Feasibility | Extent to which a service can be successfully used or carried out within a given setting | What elements helped facilitate implementation? What elements contributed to barriers to implementation? |
| Penetration | Integration of a practice within a service setting and its subsystems (spread) | What percentage of states or institutions partnering with Amend participated in the program? What proportion of participants successfully implemented their legacy project or another project within their institution? What leadership activities do ambassadors participate in or lead after the course? |
| Effectiveness | Extent to which course meets stated objectives | Knowledge Does the course affect participant knowledge about the history of mass incarceration in the U.S.? Does the program increase participant knowledge about U.S. and international prison reform initiatives? Attitudes Does the program affect participants’ perspective on racism in U.S. prisons? Does the program affect participants’ perspectives on the health impacts of incarceration for staff and residents? Leadership development Does the program increase participant confidence in being a leader in making changes in their prisons? Does the program lead to increased public-health-informed initiatives led by correctional staff? |
| Function | Extent to which course improves quality of life of participants | Does the program improve participant wellbeing and/or burnout level? |
| Satisfaction | Extent of participant satisfaction | Are participants satisfied with the program and how can it be improved? |
| Subdomain outcome | Definition | Program evaluation question |
|---|---|---|
| Adoption | The intention, initial decision or action to try or use the innovation | How many institutions participated? |
| Acceptability | Perceptions that the innovation is agreeable, palatable or satisfactory | Is the intervention agreeable to participants? |
| Appropriateness | Perceived fit, relevance or compatibility of the innovation with the practice setting | Is intervention relevant for participants? |
| Feasibility | Extent to which a service can be successfully used or carried out within a given setting | What elements helped facilitate implementation? |
| Penetration | Integration of a practice within a service setting and its subsystems (spread) | What percentage of states or institutions partnering with Amend participated in the program? |
| Effectiveness | Extent to which course meets stated objectives | |
| Function | Extent to which course improves quality of life of participants | Does the program improve participant wellbeing and/or burnout level? |
| Satisfaction | Extent of participant satisfaction | Are participants satisfied with the program and how can it be improved? |