An integration of the qualitative evaluation findings collected from program implementers conducting the Project P.A.T.H.S. (Positive Adolescent Training through Holistic Social Programmes) in different years (
In the process of program evaluation, understanding the client’s perspective is usually the primary focus. One example is the use of the client satisfaction approach in capturing the views of the program participants. Comparatively speaking, the viewpoint of the program implementers about the program is not adequately explored in the evaluation literature [
The proposal to evaluate the view of the program implementers is also highlighted in the existing evaluation frameworks. Although different evaluation emphases exist in the evaluation literature in the international context, there are common evaluation frameworks and standards that are maintained by researchers in the mainstream scientific community. For example, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [
Although the experimental/quantitative approach is the dominant approach in the field and it is commonly regarded as the gold standard, it is not the only option, and there are alternate approaches. For example, according to Patton [
How can the views of program implementers be assessed? There are different ways to capture the views of the program implementers. For example, rating scales or single-item open-ended questions are used to understand the viewpoints of the program implementers in subjective outcome evaluation. Although qualitative subjective outcome evaluation is good, its method to assess implementers’ views by some open-ended questions in paper form lead to a lack of contact between the implementers and researchers. Therefore, it would be desirable to use other means, such as in-depth interviews and/or focus groups to collect qualitative data.
Reviews of the literature show that there is a remarkable surge of interest in using focus groups in program evaluation in western countries. For example, Nabors and colleagues [
The focus group method has been used successfully to assess client satisfaction and quality assurance in a variety of fields. It has also become a popular method in program evaluation in many research contexts, such as health settings [
Focus groups can be particularly helpful for the discovery of service problems and suggestions for fixing those problems [
In the Project P.A.T.H.S. (Positive Adolescent Training through Holistic Social Programmes), the Tier 1 Program is a universal positive youth development program provided for secondary 1 to 3 students in Hong Kong. There were 52 schools that joined the experimental implementation phase (2005–2008) and more than 200 schools that joined the full implementation phase (2006–2009). Several studies have already documented the positive program effects based on the students’ objective and subjective outcomes collected from survey questionnaires [
From 2005 to 2009, the total number of schools that participated in the Project P.A.T.H.S. was 244, with 669 schools across all grades. Among them, 46.27% of the respondent schools adopted the full program (i.e., 20-hour program involving 40 units), whereas 53.73% of the respondent schools adopted the core program (i.e., 10-hour program involving 20 units).
Instructor focus groups were conducted for the secondary 1 level in the 2005/2006 and 2006/2007 school years, for the secondary 2 level in the 2007/08 school year, and for the secondary 3 level in the 2007/08 and 2008/09 school years. A total of 36 schools were randomly selected in the study of focus group evaluation (14 schools for secondary 1, 9 for secondary 2, and 13 for secondary 3). Among them, 28 schools joined the full program and eight schools joined the core program. Thirty six focus groups consisting of 138 teachers and 39 social workers in total were conducted. The average number of classes per school was 4.83 (range: 3–6), and the average number of respondents per school was 5.11 (range: 1–14). The characteristics of the schools joining this process evaluation study can be seen in Table
Description of data characteristics from 2005–2009.
2005/06 (EIP-S1) | 2006/07 (FIP-S1) | 2007/08 (FIP-S2) | 2007/08 (EIP-S3) | 2008/09 (FIP-S3) | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Total schools that joined P.A.T.H.S. | 52 | 207 | 196 | 48 | 167 |
(i) 10-hour program | 23 | 95 | 113 | 29 | 104 |
(ii) 20-hour program | 29 | 112 | 83 | 19 | 63 |
Total schools that joined this study | 5 | 9 | 9 | 3 | 10 |
(i) 10-hour program | 1 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 3 |
(ii) 20-hour program | 4 | 7 | 7 | 3 | 7 |
| 3 | 5 | 8 | 3 | 7 |
| 2 | 4 | 1 | 0 | 3 |
Average no. of classes per school | 5 (5) | 4.9 (3–6) | 4.9 (3 | 4.75 (4 | 4.6 (4 |
No. of instructor focus groups | 5 | 9 | 9 | 3 | 10 |
Total instructor respondents | 38 | 61 | 23 | 13 | 42 |
(i) Teachers | 27 | 54 | 15 | 8 | 34 |
(ii) Social workers | 11 | 7 | 8 | 5 | 8 |
Average no. of respondents per group | 7.6 (3 | 6.8 (2 | 2.6 (1 | 4.3 (2 | 4.2 (2 |
As data collection and analyses in qualitative research are very labor intensive, it is the usual practice that small samples are used. In the present context, the number of focus groups and instructor participants can be regarded as respectable. In addition, the strategy of randomly selecting informants and schools that joined the Tier 1 Program can help to enhance the generalizability of the findings. An interview guide (Table
Interview guide for the instructor focus group.
(A) | |
(i) How much do you know about “Positive Youth Development Programs” (e.g., “life skills education”)? What is your overall impression of these programs? | |
(ii) Have you taught programs that are similar to the Project P.A.T.H.S. before? | |
(iii) If yes, how effective do you feel they are? | |
(iv) From your perspective, what are the differences between the Project P.A.T.H.S. and other similar programs? | |
(v) Do you agree with the vision of the Project P.A.T.H.S.? Why? | |
(B) | |
(i) What kind of effects do you feel that the implementation of the Project P.A.T.H.S. have on the school’s normal operation? | |
(ii) If the school incorporates the Project P.A.T.H.S. curriculum into the normal curriculum (e.g., life education, integrated humanities, etc.), from your perspective, what are the advantages and disadvantages of this arrangement? | |
(iii) If the school does not incorporate the Project P.A.T.H.S. curriculum into the normal curriculum (e.g., homeroom, extracurricular activities, etc.), do you feel that this arrangement is successful? | |
(iv) To accommodate the implementation of the Project P.A.T.H.S., did the school make special arrangements? | |
(v) Do you feel that the principal and administrative staff support the implementation of the Project P.A.T.H.S. at your school? Why or why not? | |
(vi) Do you feel that the training you received is adequate for you to carry out the program requirements? | |
(C) | |
(1) | |
(i) What is your overall impression of the program? What are your feelings? | |
(ii) All in all, did you enjoy leading the program? | |
(iii) Regarding the program, what has given you a lasting impression? | |
(iv) While implementing the program, did you have any unforgettable experiences? | |
(2) | |
(i) Regarding the program, what are the things you like? And what are the things you dislike? | |
(ii) What are your views on the different units and content of the program? | |
(iii) Which units do you like the most? Why? | |
(iv) From your recollection, are there any activities that aroused students’ interest to participate in the program? | |
(3) | |
(i) While implementing the program, did you encounter any difficulties? | |
(ii) Do you feel that the program implementation was successful? | |
(iii) To what degree/extent did you follow the program curriculum manuals? Why? | |
(iv) What are your thoughts on the students’ responses to the program? | |
(D) | |
(1) | |
(i) Do you feel that the program is beneficial to the development of adolescents? | |
(ii) Have you noticed any changes in students after their participation in the program? If yes, what are the changes? (free elicitation) | |
(iii) If you noticed changes in students, what do you think are the factors that have caused such changes? | |
(iv) If you have not noticed changes in students, what do you think are the factors that have caused students not to change? | |
(2) | |
(i) Do you think that the program can promote students’ self-confidence/ability to face the future? | |
(ii) Do you think that the program can enhance students’ abilities in different areas? | |
(iii) Do you think that the program can enhance students’ spirituality aspect? | |
(iv) Do you think that the program can promote the students’ bonding with family, teachers, and friends? | |
(v) Do you think that the program can establish students’ compassion and care for others? | |
(vi) Do you think that the program can promote students’ participation and care for society? | |
(vii) Do you think that the program can promote students’ sense of responsibility to society, family, teachers, and peers? | |
(3) | |
(i) Do you feel you have gained something by leading this program? And have you lost something? | |
(ii) If you have the opportunity in the future, do you wish to lead similar programs again? | |
(4) | |
(i) If you are invited to use three descriptive words to describe the program, what are the three words that you would use? | |
(ii) If you are invited to use one incident, object/thing, or feeling (e.g., indigestion, enjoyment, child at heart, etc.) to describe the program, how would you describe the program? |
A total of 36 focus groups designed to elicit implementers’ perceptions of the Project P.A.T.H.S. were conducted. All focus group interviews were jointly conducted by two trained colleagues. During the interviews, the respondents were encouraged to verbalize their views and perceptions of the program. In the interviews, the interviewers adopted the role of facilitators and were conscious of being open to accommodate both positive and negative experiences expressed by the informants. As the interviewers either had training in social group work and/or substantial group work experience, they were conscious of the importance of encouraging the informants to express views of a different nature, including both positive and negative views. The interviews were audio recorded, with the respondents’ consent. The audio recordings were then fully transcribed and checked for accuracy.
The data were analyzed by two trained research assistants. After initial coding, the positivity nature of the codes was determined, with four possibilities (positive code, negative code, neutral code, and undecided code). The coding and categorization were further cross-checked by another trained research assistant. To enhance the reliability of the coding on the positivity nature of the raw codes, both intra and interrater reliability were carried out. For intrarater reliability, two research assistants who had been involved in the coding individually coded 20 randomly selected responses for each question. For interrater reliability, another two research assistants who had not been involved in the data collection and analyses coded 20 randomly selected responses for each question without knowing the original codes given at the end of the scoring process with reference to the finalized codes.
In qualitative research, it is important to consider ideological biases and preoccupations of the researchers. As program developers, the author might have the preoccupation that the implemented program was good and it was beneficial to the students. Additionally, the researchers might have the tendency to focus on positive evidence rather than negative evidence. Thus, several safeguards against the subtle influence of such ideological biases and preoccupations were included in the present study. To begin with, the researchers were conscious of the existence of ideological preoccupations (e.g., positive youth development programs are beneficial to adolescents) and conducted data collection and analyses in a disciplined manner. Second, both inter and intrarater reliability checks on the coding were carried out. Third, multiple researchers and research assistants were involved in the data collection and analysis processes. Fourth, the author was conscious of the importance and development of audit trails. The audio files, transcriptions, and steps involved in the development of the coding system were properly documented and systematically organized.
In this paper, qualitative findings on the following three areas are presented: (1) descriptors that were used by the informants to describe the program, (2) metaphors (i.e., incidents, objects, or feelings) that were used by the informants to depict the program, and (3) implementers’ perceptions of the benefits of the program to students.
For the descriptors used by the informants to describe the program, there were 270 raw descriptors that could be further categorized into 133 categories (Table
Categorization of the descriptors used by the program implementers to describe the program.
Descriptors | 2005/06 (EIP-S1) | 2006/07 (FIP-S1) | 2007/08 (FIP-S2) | 2007/08 (EIP-S3) | 2008/09 (FIP-S3) | Total (% of total responses) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Positive responses | ||||||
Happy/glad/enjoy | 1 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 4 | 10 |
Togetherness | 1 | 1 | ||||
Project with great investment | 1 | 1 | ||||
Adequate resources for students | 1 | 1 | ||||
Rich in content/comprehensive | 1 | 1 | 1 | 3 | ||
Challenging | 1 | 1 | ||||
Good | 1 | 1 | ||||
Clear rationale | 1 | 1 | ||||
Abundant | 2 | 2 | ||||
Self-reflection | 1 | 1 | ||||
Back to the origin of education | 1 | 1 | ||||
Role modeling | 1 | 1 | ||||
Great influence on students | 1 | 1 | ||||
New experience | 1 | 1 | ||||
Diversified/diverse | 1 | 6 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 11 |
Wide scope, focused, and diversified | 1 | 1 | ||||
The students liked the program activities | 1 | 1 | ||||
Lively | 1 | 1 | ||||
Positive/Very positive | 4 | 3 | 3 | 10 | ||
Interactive | 4 | 1 | 5 | |||
Fun and relaxed | 9 | 9 | ||||
Relaxing/very relaxing | 1 | 2 | 3 | 6 | ||
Systematic | 3 | 1 | 1 | 5 | ||
Enlightening | 1 | 1 | ||||
Meaningful | 4 | 1 | 2 | 7 | ||
Novel | 4 | 4 | ||||
Innovative | 3 | 3 | ||||
Practical/very practical | 2 | 1 | 3 | |||
Clear | 1 | 1 | ||||
Focused | 1 | 1 | ||||
In-depth | 1 | 1 | ||||
All rounded | 6 | 6 | ||||
Zealous | 4 | 4 | ||||
Prospective | 2 | 2 | ||||
Cognitive enhancement | 1 | 1 | ||||
Fruitful/very fruitful | 4 | 4 | 8 | |||
Sometimes touching | 1 | 1 | ||||
Match the topic very much | 1 | 1 | ||||
Interesting | 4 | 1 | 1 | 6 | ||
Effective | 1 | 2 | 3 | |||
Step by step | 1 | 1 | ||||
Rare | 1 | 1 | ||||
Excited | 1 | 1 | ||||
Good feelings/satisfied | 2 | 1 | 3 | |||
Worthy to implement | 1 | 1 | ||||
Closely connected with life | 1 | 1 | ||||
Have gains | 1 | 1 | 2 | |||
Have positive expectation | 1 | 1 | ||||
Hardworking | 1 | 1 | ||||
Up-to-date information | 1 | 1 | ||||
Sharing | 1 | 1 | ||||
Good elements | 1 | 1 | ||||
Flexible | 1 | 1 | ||||
Respectful | 1 | 1 | ||||
Unlimited | 1 | 1 | ||||
Very useful | 1 | 1 | ||||
Preventive | 1 | 1 | ||||
Inspiring | 4 | 4 | ||||
Necessary | 1 | 1 | ||||
Important/very important | 2 | 2 | ||||
Reflective | 1 | 1 | ||||
Welcomed | 1 | 1 | ||||
Developmental | 1 | 1 | ||||
Impressive | 1 | 1 | ||||
Very good idea | 1 | 1 | ||||
Beneficial | 1 | 1 | ||||
Constructive | 1 | 1 | ||||
Quite good | 1 | 1 | ||||
Worthwhile | 1 | 1 | ||||
Well suited | 1 | 1 | ||||
Start | 1 | 1 | ||||
Ideal | 1 | 1 | ||||
Very magnificent | 1 | 1 | ||||
Pleasure comes through toil | 1 | 1 | ||||
Negative responses | ||||||
A bit rushed | 1 | 1 | ||||
Rushed/very rushed | 1 | 2 | 3 | |||
Superficial | 1 | 1 | ||||
Could not fully apply the things learned | 1 | 1 | ||||
Heavy workload for teachers | 1 | 1 | ||||
Chaotic | 5 | 5 | ||||
To be improved | 1 | 1 | ||||
Difficult | 6 | 2 | 8 | |||
Useless | 2 | 2 | ||||
Confused | 1 | 1 | ||||
Worried | 1 | 1 | 2 | |||
Superficial | 8 | 1 | 9 | |||
Helpless | 2 | 2 | ||||
Inadequate | 1 | 1 | ||||
Overlapping | 2 | 2 | ||||
Lack of connection | 1 | 1 | ||||
Overgeneralized | 1 | 1 | ||||
Not practical | 3 | 3 | ||||
Senseless | 1 | 1 | ||||
Too rich content within insufficient time | 1 | 1 | ||||
Too aggressive | 3 | 3 | ||||
Demanding and inept | 1 | 1 | ||||
Could not meet students’ needs | 4 | 4 | ||||
Headache | 1 | 1 | ||||
Lack of reflection | 1 | 1 | ||||
Too wide (scope) | 1 | 1 | ||||
Lack of time | 3 | 3 | ||||
Unrealistic | 1 | 1 | ||||
Painful | 2 | 1 | 3 | |||
Not interested in | 1 | 1 | ||||
Impoverished | 1 | 1 | ||||
Trying to win in chaos | 1 | 1 | ||||
In war | 1 | 1 | ||||
Harsh/very harsh | 4 | 4 | ||||
Not well suited | 1 | 1 | ||||
Inadequate support | 1 | 1 | ||||
Like water off a duck’s back | 1 | 1 | ||||
Neutral responses | ||||||
Stressful | 1 | 1 | ||||
Positive, but superficial | 1 | 1 | ||||
The program was comprehensive but needs to be enriched | 1 | 1 | ||||
Like a competition | 1 | 1 | ||||
Having a heart, but no strength | 1 | 1 | ||||
Bittersweet | 1 | 1 | ||||
Partially uncertain | 1 | 1 | ||||
Depends on individual | 1 | 1 | ||||
Task oriented | 1 | 1 | ||||
So-so | 3 | 3 | ||||
Rational | 1 | 1 | ||||
Emotional | 1 | 1 | ||||
Long awaited | 1 | 1 | ||||
Enormous | 1 | 1 | ||||
Very academic | 1 | 1 | ||||
Intensive | 1 | 1 | 2 | |||
Undecided | ||||||
Effectiveness depends on teachers’ readiness | 1 | 1 | ||||
Beyond our power to do it | 1 | 1 | ||||
Struggling with program adherence | 1 | 1 | ||||
Program effectiveness was in doubt | 1 | 1 | ||||
Exclamation mark | 1 | 1 | ||||
Aggressive | 1 | 1 | ||||
For the metaphors that were used by the informants that could stand for the program, there were 72 raw objects involving 128 related attributes (Table
Categorization of the metaphors used by instructors to describe the program.
Nature of response | No. of responses towards the nature of the metaphor | |||||
2005/06 | 2006/07 | 2007/08 | 2007/08 | 2008/09 | Total | |
Positive items (%) | 3 | 14 | 9 | 5 | 9 | 40 |
Negative items (%) | 2 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 6 |
Neutral items (%) | 3 | 15 | 5 | 1 | 2 | 26 |
No. of codes derived from the metaphor | ||||||
Positive items (%) | 2 | 26 | 11 | 5 | 21 | 65 |
Negative items (%) | 5 | 5 | 1 | 0 | 5 | 16 |
Neutral items (%) | 1 | 18 | 10 | 1 | 17 | 47 |
The perceived benefits of the program to the program participants are shown in Table
Categorization of instructors’ responses on the perceived benefits of the Tier 1 Program.
Area of competence | Subcategory | Benefits | S1 | S1 | S2 | S3 | S3 | Total |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Societal level | Social responsibility and affairs | Enhanced understanding of mother country | 1 | 1 | ||||
Increased awareness of citizen’s responsibility | 1 | 1 | ||||||
| ||||||||
Familial level | Family relationships | Improved communication and relationship with family | 2 | 3 | 2 | 7 | ||
Enhanced instructor-student relationship and understanding | 4 | 9 | 20 | 5 | 8 | 46 | ||
Learned teamwork | 1 | 1 | ||||||
General interpersonal competence | Improved peer relationships, understanding, and cooperation | 2 | 13 | 6 | 1 | 22 | ||
Enhanced social skills | 9 | 9 | ||||||
Learned to handle love relationship | 3 | 3 | ||||||
Enhanced interpersonal relationship | 1 | 1 | ||||||
Improved communication skills | 2 | 2 | ||||||
Interpersonal level | Reduced bullying behavior | 1 | 1 | |||||
Delayed gossiping | 1 | 1 | ||||||
Learned how to handle conflicts/avoid conflicts | 2 | 1 | 3 | |||||
Specific interpersonal competence | Learned how to treat people and deal with issues | 3 | 3 | |||||
Increased ability and willingness to express oneself | 5 | 10 | 7 | 2 | 24 | |||
Cultivated proper views on dating | 1 | 1 | ||||||
Used learned materials to help or teach others | 1 | 1 | ||||||
Leadership | 1 | 1 | 2 | |||||
Learned to appreciate, accept, care, and respect others | 2 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 12 | ||
Personal level | Delayed misbehavior | 1 | 1 | |||||
Behavioral competence | Took initiative | 2 | 3 | 5 | ||||
Strengthened positive behaviors | 5 | 5 | ||||||
Enhanced problem-solving skills | 3 | 1 | 1 | 5 | ||||
Cognitive competence | Learned critical thinking | 2 | 5 | 2 | 3 | 5 | 17 | |
General enhancement | 1 | 1 | ||||||
Emotional competence | Enhanced ability in handling emotions | 2 | 2 | |||||
Enhanced emotional management | 3 | 3 | ||||||
Moral competence and virtues | Enhanced sense of equality | 3 | 3 | |||||
Enhanced moral competence | 1 | 2 | 4 | 7 | ||||
Beliefs in the future | Facilitated goal setting and realization of goals | 1 | 1 | |||||
Beliefs in the future | Increased understanding of the study path in the future | 3 | 3 | |||||
Enhanced self-understanding | 1 | 5 | 1 | 7 | ||||
Promoted self-enrichment | 3 | 3 | ||||||
Enhance personal growth/maturity | 3 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 9 | |||
Enhanced self-confidence | 10 | 1 | 1 | 12 | ||||
Positive self | Enhanced self-efficacy | 2 | 2 | |||||
Became more active | 2 | 1 | 3 | |||||
Promoted sense of success | 1 | 1 | ||||||
Broadened students’ horizon | 1 | 2 | 3 | |||||
Enhanced self-reflection | 4 | 2 | 4 | 4 | 9 | 23 | ||
Personal level | Spirituality | Improved morality/spirituality | 3 | 3 | ||||
Enhanced understanding purpose of life | 3 | 6 | 9 | |||||
General resilience | 1 | 1 | 2 | |||||
Resilience | Be more persistent when facing difficulties | 1 | 1 | |||||
Learned how to seek help | 1 | 1 | ||||||
Significant positive influences | 1 | 7 | 1 | 9 | ||||
Some kind of help | 16 | 14 | 30 | |||||
Cultivated potentials | 1 | 1 | ||||||
General gains | Enhanced motivation for learning | 1 | 1 | |||||
Better academic achievement | 1 | 1 | ||||||
Applied what learned to daily life | 2 | 1 | 3 | |||||
Gained recognitions and encouragement from instructors | 2 | 3 | 5 | |||||
Difficult to measure | 1 | 1 | ||||||
The program was useful | 2 | 2 | ||||||
Misbehavior could be controlled | 1 | 1 | ||||||
Misbehavior was not widespread | 1 | 1 | ||||||
Effectiveness depended on individual students | 1 | 1 | 2 | |||||
Effective to those students with positive values | 1 | 1 | ||||||
General benefits | Positive comments | Benefit to study | 1 | 1 | ||||
Enhanced concentration in class | 1 | 1 | ||||||
Effectiveness shown in long run | 7 | 2 | 9 | |||||
Unable to assess the effectiveness in a short time | 2 | 2 | ||||||
Introduced personal development education into education system | 1 | 1 | ||||||
Others | 33 | 33 | ||||||
Could not learn anything | 1 | 4 | 5 | |||||
Unhelpful | 9 | 9 | ||||||
Not much change | 5 | 5 | 10 | |||||
Unable to help students with special needs | 1 | 1 | ||||||
Negative comments | Unable to assess the effectiveness in a short time | 1 | 1 | |||||
Students’ changes were doubtful | 8 | 8 | ||||||
Less effective when compared with the Adolescent Health Project | 2 | 2 | ||||||
Ineffective to those students with distorted values | 1 | 1 | ||||||
Effectiveness could be observed, but students’ interest in the program was declining | 1 | 1 | ||||||
General benefits | Difficult to measure | 11 | 11 | |||||
Not much change | 2 | 2 | ||||||
Neutral comments | Needed to refer to objective data | 1 | 1 | |||||
Effectiveness depended on the students’ learning attitude | 2 | 2 | 4 | |||||
Students’ changes were doubtful | 1 | 16 | 17 | |||||
Unable to assess the effectiveness in a short time | 15 | 8 | 23 | |||||
Others | 5 | 5 | ||||||
The effectiveness was doubtful | 1 | 1 | ||||||
Unable to assess the effectiveness in a short time | 1 | 3 | 4 | |||||
Undecided | Unable to perceive immediate changes in students themselves | 1 | 4 | 5 | ||||
Difficult to measure | 2 | 2 | ||||||
Others | 1 | 1 | ||||||
Enhanced understanding towards students | 1 | 7 | 2 | 10 | ||||
Learned a lot from the program content/teaching experiences | 1 | 7 | 8 | |||||
Others | Benefits to instructors | Enhanced knowledge and development | 7 | 7 | ||||
Promoting schools’ concern on student development | 1 | 1 | ||||||
As Donnermeyer and Wurschmidt [
Based on the integrative analyses, two salient observations can be highlighted from the findings collected from different cohorts of students. First, the program was perceived positively from the perspective of the program implementers (Tables
There is a growing trend for using focus group methodology in order to understand the views of stakeholders in the field of evaluation, and the number of qualitative evaluation studies is increasing in the field. For example, Chen et al. [
In qualitative studies, it is important to examine alternative explanations [
There are several limitations of the study. First, although the number of schools and workers participating in the study can be regarded as on the high side according to the common practice in mainstream qualitative evaluation studies, it would be helpful if more schools and workers could be recruited. Second, besides one-shot focus group interviews, regular and ongoing qualitative evaluation data could be collected. Third, although focus group interview data were collected, inclusion of other qualitative evaluation strategies, such as in-depth individual interviews, would be helpful in order to further understand the subjective experiences of the program implementers. Despite the above limitations, the present qualitative findings based on the experiences of program implementers showed that the respondents had positive perceptions of the program and implementers, and they perceived benefits of the programs throughout the years.
The preparation for this paper and the Project P.A.T.H.S. were financially supported by The Hong Kong Jockey Club Charities Trust.