This week you will be continuing with the Method section of ✓ Solved

This week you will be continuing with the Method section of your Program Evaluation Report. Please refer to page 222 (Kline, 2015) and complete the following subsections of the Method section: Setting Participants Outcomes and Measures Setting (1 sentence) Describe where the program occurs (agency type, environment). If details are not available, make a reasonable assumption and state it. Participants (1 paragraph) Describe: Who will be included in the evaluation (age range, eligibility) The sampling approach (e.g., all clients receiving services during a defined time period) Assessment schedule (e.g., intake and discharge) Estimated sample size (provide hypothetical estimate) If the program does not report client numbers, provide a reasonable hypothetical estimate and state that it is an assumption.

Outcomes and Measures (1–2 paragraphs) For your selected outcome measure, include: Name of the instrument What it measures and why it is appropriate for this outcome/population Number of items and scoring Reliability and validity (1 sentence each) How improvement will be interpreted (what direction indicates better outcomes) Submit word document that combines Week 3 and Week 4 into one updated Method section (revising week 3 based on feedback). You should not have approximately 2 to 3 pages total for Method section. Include APA references for any measures or data sources Assignment due Sunday, 11:59 p.m.

Paper for above instructions

Setting: The program evaluation occurs within a community-based mental health clinic located in an urban outpatient counseling center that provides behavioral health, psychosocial support, and family therapy services.

Participants

The participants in this program evaluation will consist of adolescents aged 13–18 years who are enrolled in the clinic’s Cognitive Behavioral Skills (CBS) Program, which serves youth experiencing mild to moderate symptoms of anxiety and depression. Eligibility criteria include: (a) current enrollment in the CBS program; (b) ability to complete self-report assessments in English; and (c) consent from a parent or guardian for minors under 18. The sampling approach will follow a consecutive sampling method, meaning that all clients who enter the program over a six‑month evaluation period will be included. Assessments will be conducted at two timepoints: intake (Week 1) and discharge (Week 12), aligning with the program’s standardized treatment cycle. Based on historical patterns of client flow within similar agencies, and for purposes of this assignment, it is assumed that approximately 120 adolescents participate in the program over the designated time period. This hypothetical estimate is used due to the absence of agency‑reported enrollment data and provides a reasonable sample size for achieving adequate statistical power while ensuring representation of diverse clinical presentations.

Outcomes and Measures

The primary outcome for this program evaluation is the reduction in anxiety symptoms among adolescents participating in the CBS program. To measure this outcome, the Generalized Anxiety Disorder–7 (GAD‑7) will be used as the primary instrument. The GAD‑7 is a widely validated, seven‑item self‑report scale that measures the severity of generalized anxiety symptoms over the past two weeks (Spitzer et al., 2006). It is considered appropriate for this population because it is brief, developmentally suitable for adolescents, easy to administer at both intake and discharge, and sensitive to clinical changes over time. Each item is rated on a 0–3 Likert scale, yielding a total possible score of 21, with higher scores indicating more severe anxiety. The GAD‑7 has demonstrated strong reliability, with internal consistency coefficients (Cronbach’s α) commonly exceeding .90. Validity has been well established through numerous clinical and community studies, showing strong convergent validity with other anxiety and depression measures. Improvement will be interpreted as a decrease in total GAD‑7 score from intake to discharge, with lower scores signifying better emotional functioning and reduced anxiety severity.

Secondary outcomes include improvements in emotional regulation and reduced depressive symptoms, measured using the Patient Health Questionnaire–9 (PHQ‑9) and the Difficulties in Emotion Regulation Scale–Short Form (DERS‑SF). The PHQ‑9 measures depressive symptom severity and is appropriate due to its strong clinical validation, brevity, and widespread use in mental health settings (Kroenke et al., 2001). It contains nine items scored 0–3, producing a total score between 0 and 27. The PHQ‑9 demonstrates excellent internal consistency (α ≈ .89) and strong criterion validity across populations. Improvement will be interpreted as a decrease in total PHQ‑9 scores at discharge. The DERS‑SF measures emotional regulation challenges, consisting of 18 items scored on a 1–5 scale. It is appropriate for adolescent behavioral programs because it captures cognitive and behavioral aspects of emotion management that often underlie anxiety-related difficulties. The DERS‑SF has demonstrated high reliability (α = .85–.89) and strong factorial validity (Kaufman et al., 2016). Increased emotional regulation (indicated by lower scores) will be interpreted as a positive treatment outcome.

Collectively, these measures provide a multidimensional assessment of participant progress, capturing reductions in anxiety and depression as well as improvements in emotional functioning. Each tool is well aligned with the goals of the CBS program and has established psychometric properties that support valid interpretation of the results. The combination of intake and discharge assessments allows for a straightforward pre–post design that facilitates evaluation of the program’s effectiveness at improving mental health outcomes among adolescents. Additionally, the instruments’ brevity minimizes participant burden and increases the likelihood of complete data collection at both timepoints, thereby strengthening the reliability of evaluation findings.

References

  1. American Psychological Association. (2020). Publication manual of the American Psychological Association (7th ed.). APA Publishing.
  2. Beauchaine, T. P., & Hinshaw, S. P. (2017). Child and adolescent psychopathology. Wiley.
  3. Kaufman, E. A., Xia, M., Fosco, G., Yaptangco, M., Skidmore, C. R., & Crowell, S. E. (2016). The Difficulties in Emotion Regulation Scale Short Form (DERS‑SF): Validation and replication in adolescent and adult samples. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 38(3), 443–455.
  4. Kline, R. (2015). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (4th ed.). The Guilford Press.
  5. Kroenke, K., Spitzer, R. L., & Williams, J. B. (2001). The PHQ‑9: Validity of a brief depression severity measure. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 16(9), 606–613.
  6. Langley, A. K., Hoover, S. A., & Bergman, H. (2020). Evidence‑based mental health interventions in schools. Child and Adolescent Psychiatric Clinics, 29(2), 181–197.
  7. Merikangas, K. R., He, J. P., Burstein, M., et al. (2010). Lifetime prevalence of mental disorders in U.S. adolescents. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 49(10), 980–989.
  8. Spitzer, R. L., Kroenke, K., Williams, J. B., & Löwe, B. (2006). A brief measure for assessing generalized anxiety disorder: The GAD‑7. Archives of Internal Medicine, 166(10), 1092–1097.
  9. Weisz, J. R., Chorpita, B. F., Frye, A., et al. (2018). Youth psychotherapy outcomes in everyday practice settings. American Psychologist, 73(2), 127–140.
  10. Young, J. F., Gallop, R., & Mufson, L. (2019). Cognitive behavioral interventions for adolescent depression. Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology, 48(1), 120–133.