This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Davis, D. Articles by O’Brien, G. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Davis, D. Articles by O’Brien, G. Social Bookmarking                   What's this?

Analysis of a Database of Materials for HIV Prevention Program Evaluation

Program Evaluation Research Branch of the Division of HIV/AIDS Prevention at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta, Georgia., dad5{at}cdc.gov

Gary Uhl, PhD

Division of HIV/AIDS Prevention, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia.

Tracey Barrington, MS

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta, Georgia.

Randy Rowel, PhD

Morgan State University Public Health Program in Baltimore, Maryland.

Linda Squiers, PhD

Cancer Information Service Program in the National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, in Bethesda, Maryland.

Katherine Sharp, MPH

Department of Health Education and Health Promotion at Kent State University in Kent, Ohio.

Greg O’Brien, BS

Westat in Rockville, Maryland.

Program evaluation technology transfer is the transfer of information on program evaluation from research to practitioners. There have been anecdotal reports of a lack of technology transfer materials related to HIV prevention program evaluation, especially materials usable by persons without extensive training in evaluation. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reviewed available program evaluation materials relevant to HIV prevention and developed a database of those materials. Materials were classified according to appropriate audience, level of evaluation expertise required, steps in the evaluation process addressed, and other criteria. The database was queried to determine the number of materials available for various combinations of search criteria. These queries revealed that for certain audiences and steps in the evaluation process there are few materials, especially usable by individuals without evaluation experience. The conclusion is that for certain areas of program evaluation, and for certain audiences, more evaluation technology transfer materials are needed.

Key Words: evaluation • HIV prevention • technical assistance • capacity building • technology transfer • CBO

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    What's this?