Table of Contents Author Guidelines Submit a Manuscript
The Scientific World Journal
Volume 2012, Article ID 528483, 12 pages
http://dx.doi.org/10.1100/2012/528483
Research Article

Qualitative Evaluation of Project P.A.T.H.S.: An Integration of Findings Based on Program Participants

1Department of Applied Social Sciences, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong
2Public Policy Research Institute, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong
3Department of Social Work, East China Normal University, Shanghai 200062, China
4Kiang Wu Nursing College of Macau, Macau
5Division of Adolescent Medicine, Department of Pediatrics, Kentucky Children’s Hospital, University of Kentucky College of Medicine, Lexington, KY 40536, USA
6Faculty of Education, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong

Received 28 November 2011; Accepted 25 December 2011

Academic Editor: Joav Merrick

Copyright © 2012 Daniel T. L. Shek and Rachel C. F. Sun. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Linked References

  1. J. T. Y. Leung and D. T. L. Shek, “Quantitative and qualitative approaches in the study of poverty and adolescent development: separation or integration?” International Journal of Adolescent Medicine and Health, vol. 23, no. 2, pp. 115–121, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  2. P. Manicas, “The social sciences since World War II: the rise and fall of Scientism,” in The SAGE Handbook of Social Science Methodology, W. Outhwaite and S. P. Turner, Eds., pp. 7–31, Sage, London, UK, 2007. View at Google Scholar
  3. C. Pelie, “Research paradigms in social work: from stalemate to creative synthesis,” Social Service Review, vol. 62, no. 1, pp. 1–19, 1988. View at Google Scholar
  4. M. Q. Patton, Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods, Sage, Newbury Park, Calif, USA, 1990.
  5. N. K. Denzin and Y. S. Lincoln, The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research, Sage, Thousand Oaks, Calif, USA, 3rd edition, 2005.
  6. M. S. Lewis-Beck, A. Bryman, and T. F. Liao, The Sage Encyclopedia of Social Science Research Methods, Sage, Thousand Oaks, Calif, USA, 2004.
  7. E. G. Guba and Y. L. Lincoln, “Competing paradigms in qualitative research,” in Handbook of Qualitative Research, N. K. Denzin and Y. S. Lincoln, Eds., pp. 105–117, Sage, Thousand Oaks, Calif, USA, 1994. View at Google Scholar
  8. M. Q. Patton, Utilization-Focused Evaluation, Sage, Thousand Oaks, Calif, USA, 4th edition, 2008.
  9. D. T. L. Shek and R. C. F. Sun, “Development, implementation and evaluation of a holistic positive youth development program: project P.A.T.H.S. in Hong Kong,” International Journal on Disability and Human Development, vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 107–117, 2009. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  10. R. F. Catalano, M. L. Berglund, J. A. M. Ryan, H. S. Lonczak, and J. D. Hawkins, Positive Youth Development in the United States: Research Findings on Evaluations of Positive Youth Development Programs, 2002, http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/PositiveYouthDev99/.
  11. D. T. L. Shek and R. C. F. Sun, “Effectiveness of the tier 1 program of project P.A.T.H.S.: findings based on three years of program implementation,” TheScientificWorldJournal, vol. 10, pp. 1509–1519, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  12. D. T. L. Shek and C. M. S. Ma, “Longitudinal data analyses using linear mixed models in SPSS: concepts, procedures and illustrations,” TheScientificWorldJournal, vol. 11, pp. 42–76, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  13. D. T. L. Shek and L. Yu, “Prevention of adolescent problem behavior: longitudinal impact of the Project P.A.T.H.S. in Hong Kong,” TheScientificWorldJournal, vol. 11, pp. 546–567, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  14. H. K. Ma and D. T. L. Shek, “Subjective outcome evaluation of a positive youth development program in Hong Kong: profiles and correlates,” TheScientificWorldJournal, vol. 10, pp. 192–200, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  15. D. T. L. Shek and R. C. F. Sun, “Evaluation of Project P.A.T.H.S. (Secondary 1 Program) by the program participants: findings based on the Full Implementation Phase,” Adolescence, vol. 43, no. 172, pp. 807–822, 2008. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  16. D. T. L. Shek and R. C. F. Sun, “Secondary data analyses of subjective outcome evaluation findings of the project P.A.T.H.S. in Hong Kong,” TheScientificWorldJournal, vol. 10, pp. 2101–2111, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  17. D. T. L. Shek, T. Y. Lee, A. M. H. Siu, and C. M. Lam, “Qualitative evaluation of the project P.A.T.H.S. based on the perceptions of the program participants,” TheScientificWorldJournal, vol. 6, pp. 2254–2263, 2006. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  18. D. T. L. Shek and T. Y. Lee, “Qualitative evaluation of the Project P.A.T.H.S.: findings based on focus groups with student participants,” International Journal of Adolescent Medicine and Health, vol. 20, no. 4, pp. 449–462, 2008. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  19. D. T. L. Shek, C. S. M. Ng, and P. F. Tsui, “Qualitative evaluation of the Project P.A.T.H.S.: findings based on focus groups,” International Journal on Disability and Human Development, vol. 9, no. 4, pp. 307–313, 2010. View at Google Scholar
  20. D. L. Morgan, “Focus groups,” Annual Review of Sociology, vol. 22, pp. 129–152, 1996. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  21. R. A. Kreuger, Focus Groups: A Practical Guide for Applied Research, Sage, Thousand Oaks, Calif, USA, 1994.
  22. D. L. Morgan, Focus Groups as Qualitative Research, Sage, Thousand Oaks, Calif, USA, 1997.
  23. D. L. Morgan and M. T. Spanish, “Focus groups: a new tool for qualitative research,” Qualitative Sociology, vol. 7, no. 3, pp. 253–270, 1984. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  24. C. E. Basch, “Focus group interview: an underutilized research technique for improving theory and practice in health education,” Health Education Quarterly, vol. 14, no. 4, pp. 411–448, 1987. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  25. D. L. Morgan and R. A. Krueger, The Focus Group Kit, Sage, Thousand Oaks, Calif, USA, 1998.
  26. J. E. Asbury, “Overview of focus group research,” Qualitative Health Research, vol. 5, no. 4, pp. 414–420, 1995. View at Google Scholar
  27. S. Twinn, “The analysis of focus group data: a challenge to the rigour of qualitative research,” Nursing Times Research, vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 140–146, 2000. View at Google Scholar
  28. G. E. White and A. N. Thomson, “Anonymized focus groups as a research tool for health professionals,” Qualitative Health Research, vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 256–261, 1995. View at Google Scholar
  29. D. L. Morgan, Successful Focus Groups: Advancing the State of the Art, Sage, Newbury Park, Calif, USA, 1993.
  30. S. J. Ansay, D. F. Perkins, and C. J. Nelson, “Interpreting outcomes: using focus groups in evaluation research,” Family Relations, vol. 53, no. 3, pp. 310–316, 2004. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  31. L. A. Nabors, V. Ramos, and M. D. Weist, “Use of focus groups as a tool for evaluating programs for children and families,” Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, vol. 12, no. 3, pp. 243–256, 2001. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  32. C. Webb and J. Kevern, “Focus groups as a research method: a critique of some aspects of their use in nursing research,” Journal of Advanced Nursing, vol. 33, no. 6, pp. 798–805, 2001. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  33. D. T. L. Shek, V. M. Y. Tang, and X. Y. Han, “Quality of qualitative evaluation studies in the social work literature: evidence that constitutes a wakeup call,” Research on Social Work Practice, vol. 15, pp. 180–194, 2005. View at Google Scholar
  34. M. B. Miles and A. M. Huberman, Qualitative Data Analysis, Sage, Thousand Oaks, Calif, USA, 1994.
  35. L. Bowey and A. McGlaughlin, “The youth crime reduction video project: an evaluation of a pilot intervention targeting young people at risk of crime and school exclusion,” The Howard Journal of Criminal Justice, vol. 45, no. 3, pp. 268–283, 2006. View at Google Scholar
  36. D. De Anda, “A qualitative evaluation of a mentor program for at-risk youth: the participants' perspective,” Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal, vol. 18, no. 2, pp. 97–117, 2001. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  37. D. B. Nicholas, G. Picone, A. Vigneux et al., “Evaluation of an online peer support network for adolescents with chronic kidney disease,” Journal of Technology in Human Services, vol. 27, no. 1, pp. 23–33, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar