Positive youth development programs for adolescents with greater psychosocial needs: Evaluation based on program implementers

Daniel T.L. SHEK, Sau Man Catalina NG, Moon Y.M. LAW

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

3 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

As program implementers’ views are seldom included in program evaluation and there are few related studies in different Chinese communities, this study examined the perceptions of the program implementers who implemented the Tier 2 Program of the P.A.T.H.S. Program in Hong Kong. The Tier 2 Program was designed to promote the development of adolescents with greater psychosocial needs. In the community-based P.A.T.H.S. Project, 400 program implementers completed a subjective outcome evaluation form (Form D) for program implementers. Consistent with the previous findings, program implementers generally held positive views towards the program, implementers, and program effectiveness and their views towards these three domains did not differ across grades. In line with the hypotheses, perceived program quality and perceived implementer quality predicted program effectiveness. The present findings provided an alternative perspective showing that the Tier 2 Program was well received by the program implementers and they regarded the program to be beneficial to the program participants. Copyright © 2017 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)33-39
JournalInternational Journal of Adolescent Medicine and Health
Volume29
Issue number1
Early online dateJun 2016
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Feb 2017

Fingerprint

Adolescent Development
Program Evaluation
Hong Kong
Berlin

Citation

Shek, D. T. L., Ng, C. S. M., & Law, M. Y. M. (2017). Positive youth development programs for adolescents with greater psychosocial needs: Evaluation based on program implementers. International Journal of Adolescent Medicine and Health, 29(1), 33-39. doi: 10.1515/ijamh-2017-3005

Keywords

  • Positive youth development
  • Project P.A.T.H.S.
  • Program implementers
  • Subjective outcome evaluation