| Course | HEP 456 Health Promotion Program Evaluation |
|---|---|
| Module | Module 3 |
| Paper type | Evaluation objectives and questions section |
| Length | About 550 words, 4 pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Arizona State University |
| Program | BS in Health Education and Health Promotion |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for HEP 456 Module 3
Who Helps and What We Ask: Stakeholders, Process and Impact Evaluation Questions for Walk With Ease Mesa
Student Name
BS in Health Education and Health Promotion, Arizona State University
HEP 456: Health Promotion Program Evaluation
Instructor Name
Month Day, Year
Who Helps and What We Ask: Stakeholders, Process and Impact Evaluation Questions for Walk With Ease Mesa
6A. Stakeholder Recruitment
The CDC's 2024 evaluation framework replaces the word stakeholder with interest holder to stress that anyone with an interest in the program or its evaluation should be engaged, and it asks evaluators to engage collaboratively and advance equity at every step (Kidder et al., 2024). I use the course's term, stakeholders, but follow that guidance.
Stakeholders will meet three times: to agree on questions, to review the survey and to interpret findings before the report is written.
| Stakeholder | Role in the evaluation | How I will recruit them |
|---|---|---|
| Program planner and walk leaders | Shape questions, collect attendance and diaries, interpret process results | Kickoff meeting at the first center; leaders already meet monthly |
| Two participants from the pilot cohort | Review survey wording, help interpret results, co-present findings | Invitation from the walk leader with a gift card for each meeting |
| Mesa active adult center managers | Provide space and records, decide whether to continue | Meeting request through the city's parks and recreation office |
| A primary care nurse from a referring clinic | Advise on pain and safety measures, share results with patients | Email through the planner's clinic contact |
| A Spanish-speaking community health worker | Review translated materials and help reach Hispanic older adults | Introduction through the local health department's community health worker program |
6B. Process Evaluation Objectives and Questions
Process evaluation examines how the program is delivered relative to its plan, including the content, quantity and quality of what participants receive (Kidder et al., 2024).
P1. By December 31, 2027, document the number and characteristics of adults enrolled across eight cohorts and compare them with the target of 120.
How many adults enrolled, and how many came from each recruitment source?
How do enrollees' age, sex, ethnicity and language compare with Mesa adults aged 55 and older?
P2. At the end of each cohort, calculate the share of enrollees attending at least 12 of 18 sessions.
What proportion met the attendance target, and did it differ by center or season?
What reasons do participants who stop attending give?
P3. During each cohort, observe two sessions with a fidelity checklist covering the talk, warm-up, walk and cool-down.
Were all four session components delivered as designed?
What changes did leaders make, and why?
6C. Impact Evaluation Objectives and Questions
I1. Measure the change in self-reported weekly walking minutes from week 1 to week 6 among completers.
Did weekly walking minutes increase, and by how much?
What share of completers reported 150 or more moderate minutes in a usual week by week 6?
I2. Measure the change in pain on a 0 to 10 scale from week 1 to week 6.
Did average pain decrease?
I3. Measure the change in arthritis self-efficacy from week 1 to week 6 using the Arthritis Self-Efficacy Scale (Lorig et al., 1989).
Did participants' confidence in managing pain and other symptoms increase?
Were changes similar across centers, sexes and language groups?
These measures mirror outcomes on which the six-week program model has shown improvement (Callahan et al., 2011).
Connection to the Program's Objectives
P1 and P2 test the planner's two process objectives, and I1 tests the impact and outcome objectives on walking. I2 and I3 test the planner's impact objective on pain and confidence.
References
Callahan, L. F., Shreffler, J. H., Altpeter, M., Schoster, B., Hootman, J., Houenou, L. O., Martin, K. R., & Schwartz, T. A. (2011). Evaluation of group and self-directed formats of the Arthritis Foundation's Walk With Ease Program. Arthritis Care & Research, 63(8), 1098-1107. https://doi.org/10.1002/acr.20490
Kidder, D. P., Fierro, L. A., Luna, E., Salvaggio, H., McWhorter, A., Bowen, S.-A., Murphy-Hoefer, R., Thigpen, S., Alexander, D., Armstead, T. L., August, E., Bruce, D., Clarke, S. N., Davis, C., Downes, A., Gill, S., House, L. D., Kerzner, M., Kun, K., . . . Young, K. (2024). CDC program evaluation framework, 2024. MMWR. Recommendations and Reports, 73(6), 1-37. https://doi.org/10.15585/mmwr.rr7306a1
Lorig, K., Chastain, R. L., Ung, E., Shoor, S., & Holman, H. R. (1989). Development and evaluation of a scale to measure perceived self-efficacy in people with arthritis. Arthritis & Rheumatism, 32(1), 37-44. https://doi.org/10.1002/anr.1780320107
What the HEP 456 Module 3 instructions ask for
Module 3 in HEP 456 completes Section 6 of the Program Evaluation Plan, worth 28 points. Section 6A describes how you will recruit stakeholders to help develop and carry out the evaluation, analyze the data and share results, and who they will be. Section 6B gives process evaluation objectives and questions, and 6C gives impact evaluation objectives and questions, for the program you chose. The same module asks you to complete the CITI social and behavioral research training and upload your certificate. Share Section 6 with your partner for feedback before it is graded. Expect your partner to test whether each question can really be answered with the data the program will produce, so write questions you could defend in that conversation.
Inside the HEP 456 Module 3 example
The sample opens 6A by noting the CDC's 2024 framework and its shift to the term interest holder, then lists five stakeholders in a table with each one's role and a recruitment method. Section 6B defines process evaluation in one sentence and gives three objectives with two questions each, on enrollment, attendance and fidelity. Section 6C gives three impact objectives on walking, pain and self-efficacy, names a published scale and ends by tying each evaluation objective back to the planner's own objectives. The process questions cover reach, attendance and fidelity, three elements most process evaluations examine, while the impact questions each name the measure that will answer them.
Reading the HEP 456 Module 3 grading rubric
Section 6 is worth 28 points. Readers look for stakeholders who represent the program, its participants and its decision makers, with a realistic way to recruit each, and for process and impact objectives that are measurable and matched to answerable questions. Marks are lost when stakeholders are listed without roles, when process and impact questions are mixed up, when questions cannot be answered with data the program will have and when evaluation objectives drift away from what the program set out to do. Strong sections also give stakeholders a defined task and a schedule of involvement rather than a single meeting at the end, and they include at least one question about whether results differ across groups.
HEP 456 Module 3 help from the desk
Begin from the program's own objectives and list the facts that would show whether each was met. Write process questions about reach, dose and fidelity and impact questions about change in participants. Name a measure for each impact question. Include at least one participant or community member among stakeholders. Keep questions short and answerable. If you are unsure whether a question is process or impact, the desk can help sort it. Draft two questions for each objective, then keep the one that is easier to answer with the data you will have. Give every stakeholder a reason to say yes.
Write yours, or have the desk draft it
This paper is an original model document written by our desk, not a submitted student paper and not an official Arizona State University document. Read it for the moves, then write your own to the instructions in your classroom. If you want one built to your exact prompt and rubric, the first custom sample is free and arrives in 24 to 48 hours.
More HEP 456 and BS in Health Education and Health Promotion sample papers
- HEP 456 Module 1: Section 4: Background and Significance of the Health Problem
- HEP 456 Module 2: Section 5: Introduction to the Program
- HEP 456 Module 4: Section 7: Participant Recruitment, Consent Form and Consent Process
- HEP 456 Module 5: Sections 8 and 9: Evaluation Design and Pre-Post Survey
- HEP 456 Module 6: Sections 10 and 11: Evaluation Timeline and Communication Plan
- HEP 456 Module 7: Final Program Evaluation Plan
- HEP 452 Module 4: Module 4 Assignment: Policy Brief Draft One
- HEP 444 Module 3: Article Review: Case-Control Study
- HEP 454 Module 2: Assignment 2: Problem Identification
- HEP 466 Module 3: Module 3 Artifact: Program Budget Presentation
HEP 456 Module 3 questions, answered
Where can I find a free HEP 456 Module 3 sample paper?
The full Section 6 with stakeholders, process and impact evaluation questions for a walking program is on this page.
What is the difference between process and impact evaluation questions?
Process questions ask how the program was delivered; impact questions ask what changed for participants.
Who should be a stakeholder in a program evaluation?
Program staff, participants, decision makers, partners and community members the program affects.
What does the CDC 2024 framework call stakeholders?
Interest holders, to stress that anyone with an interest in the program or evaluation should be engaged.
What else is due in HEP 456 Module 3?
The CITI social and behavioral research training certificate and a quiz.