| Course | HEP 456 Health Promotion Program Evaluation |
|---|---|
| Module | Module 5 |
| Paper type | Evaluation design and survey |
| Length | About 789 words, 5 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 5
How Walk With Ease Mesa Will Be Evaluated: Process and Impact Designs and the Pre-Post Survey
Student Name
BS in Health Education and Health Promotion, Arizona State University
HEP 456: Health Promotion Program Evaluation
Instructor Name
Month Day, Year
How Walk With Ease Mesa Will Be Evaluated: Process and Impact Designs and the Pre-Post Survey
8A. Process Evaluation Design
The process evaluation will describe reach, dose delivered and received, and fidelity for all eight cohorts, using a descriptive design with routine program records and observation.
Attendance will be summarized as the percentage of enrollees reaching 12 sessions, by cohort, center and season. Fidelity checklists will be scored as the share of components delivered, and exit call notes will be grouped into themes.
| Process question | Data source | Who collects | When |
|---|---|---|---|
| Who enrolled and from which source? | Enrollment form | Walk leader | First session |
| Did enrollees attend 12 of 18 sessions? | Attendance log | Walk leader | Every session |
| Did each session include its talk, warm-up, walk and cool-down? | Fidelity checklist | Evaluator | Two sessions per cohort |
| Why did people stop coming? | Five-minute exit phone call | Evaluator | After three missed sessions in a row |
8B. Impact Evaluation Design
The impact evaluation will use a one-group pretest-posttest design: participants complete the same survey at the first session and at the last session of week 6. This design fits the program's stage and budget, since there is no waiting list to serve as a comparison group and randomizing older adults away from a free community program would be hard to justify locally.
The design has known weaknesses. Without a comparison group, changes could reflect other events, such as cooler weather in the fall cohorts, natural improvement in pain, or people answering the second survey differently because they have seen it before. Participants who drop out may differ from completers, which can make the program look better than it is. To limit these threats, results will be reported by cohort season, dropouts' baseline answers will be compared with completers', and the report will speak of change observed in participants, not of program-caused effects, as the CDC framework advises when no counterfactual is available (Kidder et al., 2024).
8C. Evaluation Participants and Sample
All enrollees who consent will be surveyed. If about 80 complete both surveys, a two-sided paired test at the 0.05 level has roughly four chances in five of detecting a standardized change of 0.32, within the range of change reported for the program model's group format (Callahan et al., 2011).
Analysis Plan
Weekly walking minutes and self-efficacy scores will be compared from pretest to posttest with paired t tests, or Wilcoxon signed-rank tests if the data are skewed. The share meeting 150 minutes of moderate activity will be compared with McNemar's test. Pain on the 0 to 10 scale will be summarized as a mean change with a 95% confidence interval.
9. Pre-Post Survey
Instructions: These questions cover your walking, your arthritis and a little about you, and take about 15 minutes. Leave blank anything you prefer not to answer. Only group totals will ever be reported.
Part A. Walking and activity
1. In the past 7 days, on how many days did you walk for at least 10 minutes at a time? (0 to 7)
2. On those days, about how many minutes did you walk in total per day? ____ minutes
3. In a usual week, how many minutes do you spend in activity that makes you breathe harder than normal, such as brisk walking? ____ minutes
Part B. Arthritis pain
4. In the past 7 days, how would you rate your usual arthritis pain? (0 = no pain, 10 = pain as bad as it could be)
5. In the past 7 days, how much did arthritis pain interfere with your daily activities? (0 = not at all, 10 = completely)
Part C. Confidence in managing arthritis
6 to 16. Items from the pain and symptom portions of the Arthritis Self-Efficacy Scale, rated from 10, very uncertain, to 100, very certain (Lorig et al., 1989). Items are used as published, with permission requirements checked before use.
Part D. About you (pretest only)
17. Age in years. 18. Sex. 19. Hispanic or Latino origin. 20. Race. 21. Preferred language: English, Spanish, other. 22. Type of arthritis, if known. 23. How did you hear about Walk With Ease Mesa?
Part E. About the program (posttest only)
24. How satisfied are you with Walk With Ease Mesa? (1 = very dissatisfied, 5 = very satisfied)
25. How likely are you to keep walking after the program ends? (1 = very unlikely, 5 = very likely)
26. What one change would make the program better for you?
Questions 1 to 3 measure the planner's walking objectives, 4 and 5 the pain objective and 6 to 16 the confidence objective; Parts D and E describe participants and help interpret change. The survey will be pretested with three older adults, including one Spanish speaker, before the first cohort.
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
Reading the HEP 456 Module 5 assignment instructions
Module 5 in HEP 456 produces two sections of the Program Evaluation Plan, uploaded separately. Section 8, worth 28 points, sets out the process evaluation design, the impact evaluation design and how evaluation participants will be recruited. Section 9, worth 36 points, is the pre-post survey for the impact evaluation, built on the course template. The survey must measure the impact objectives you wrote in Section 6, so start there. Share both sections with your partner for review. The course's AI policy does not allow AI tools to draft survey items, so write every item yourself or adopt published scales with credit. Plan who administers the survey, when and in what language, since those choices affect the answers you receive.
Inside the HEP 456 Module 5 example
The sample's Section 8A presents the process evaluation as a table of questions, data sources, collectors and timing, with a note on how each will be summarized. Section 8B names a one-group pretest-posttest design, explains why it fits and lists its threats with steps to limit each. Section 8C covers participants and sample size with a power estimate, and an analysis plan names the tests. Section 9 presents the survey in five parts with response options and closes by mapping items to objectives. Each survey part is labeled, response scales are stated for every item and the closing paragraph maps item numbers to the planner's objectives, so the grader can check coverage at a glance.
Where the marks sit in the HEP 456 Module 5 rubric
Section 8 earns 28 points and Section 9 earns 36. Readers check that the designs are named and appropriate, that threats to validity are recognized, that data sources fit each question and that the survey measures every impact objective with clear, unbiased items. Common deductions come from designs described only by name, from surveys with double-barreled or leading items, from response options that do not match questions and from instruments that omit items needed to answer the evaluation questions. A short analysis plan that names the test for each measure and a sample size estimate also show that the design and the survey were planned together.
HEP 456 Module 5 help from the desk
List each impact objective and write the item or scale that measures it before anything else. Use published scales where you can and cite them. Keep each item to one idea. Name your design and its weaknesses honestly. Plan how you will analyze each item before finalizing it. Pretest the survey on two or three people like your participants. If your design section feels thin, the desk can help you work through threats to validity. Read every item and ask whether a participant could answer it honestly in under a minute. Delete any item you have no plan to analyze. Keep the same wording at pretest and posttest.
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 3: Section 6: Stakeholders, Evaluation Objectives and Questions
- HEP 456 Module 4: Section 7: Participant Recruitment, Consent Form and Consent Process
- HEP 456 Module 6: Sections 10 and 11: Evaluation Timeline and Communication Plan
- HEP 456 Module 7: Final Program Evaluation Plan
- HEP 452 Module 3: Module 3 Assignment: Policy Brief Plan
- HEP 386 Module 2: Module 2 Assignment: Literature Review Plan
- HEP 444 Module 5: Epidemiology Data Analysis and Evaluation Short Report
- HEP 454 Module 8: Assignment 8: Social Marketing Plan
HEP 456 Module 5 questions, answered
Where can I find a free HEP 456 Module 5 sample paper?
The full Sections 8 and 9 with evaluation designs and a pre-post survey for a walking program are on this page.
What evaluation design should I use in HEP 456?
Many plans use a one-group pretest-posttest design for impact and a descriptive design for process; name the threats and how you limit them.
What are threats to a pretest-posttest design?
Outside events, natural change over time, practice with the survey and dropout, among others.
Can I use a published scale in my HEP 456 survey?
Yes, with a citation and attention to any permission the scale requires.
How many points are Sections 8 and 9 worth?
Section 8 is worth 28 points and Section 9 is worth 36.