You are not logged in.

Methodology for the evaluation of the Stephanie Alexander Kitchen Garden program

Gibbs, L., Staiger, P. K., Townsend, M., Macfarlane, S., Gold, L., Block, K., Johnson, B., Kulas, J. and Waters, E. 2013, Methodology for the evaluation of the Stephanie Alexander Kitchen Garden program, Health promotion journal of Australia, vol. 24, no. 1, pp. 32-43, doi: 10.1071/HE12905.

Attached Files
Name Description MIMEType Size Downloads

Title Methodology for the evaluation of the Stephanie Alexander Kitchen Garden program
Author(s) Gibbs, L.
Staiger, P. K.
Townsend, M.
Macfarlane, S.
Gold, L.ORCID iD for Gold, L. orcid.org/0000-0002-2733-900X
Block, K.
Johnson, B.
Kulas, J.
Waters, E.
Journal name Health promotion journal of Australia
Volume number 24
Issue number 1
Start page 32
End page 43
Total pages 12
Publisher CSIRO Publishing
Place of publication Clayton, Vic.
Publication date 2013-04
ISSN 1036-1073
Keyword(s) Feeding Behavior
Focus Groups
Gardening
Health Promotion
Pilot Projects
Qualitative Research
Schools
Victoria
Science & Technology
Life Sciences & Biomedicine
Public, Environmental & Occupational Health
children
economic evaluation
evaluation methods
health-promoting schools
Summary ISSUES ADDRESSED: Community and school cooking and gardening programs have recently increased internationally. However, despite promising indications, there is limited evidence of their effectiveness. This paper presents the evaluation framework and methods negotiated and developed to meet the information needs of all stakeholders for the Stephanie Alexander Kitchen Garden (SAKG) program, a combined cooking and gardening program implemented in selectively funded primary schools across Australia.
METHODS: The evaluation used multiple aligned theoretical frameworks and models, including a public health ecological approach, principles of effective health promotion and models of experiential learning. The evaluation is a non-randomised comparison of six schools receiving the program (intervention) and six comparison schools (all government-funded primary schools) in urban and rural areas of Victoria, Australia. A mixed-methods approach was used, relying on qualitative measures to understand changes in school cultures and the experiential impacts on children, families, teachers, parents and volunteers, and quantitative measures at baseline and 1 year follow up to provide supporting information regarding patterns of change.
RESULTS: The evaluation study design addressed the limitations of many existing evaluation studies of cooking or garden programs. The multistrand approach to the mixed methodology maintained the rigour of the respective methods and provided an opportunity to explore complexity in the findings. Limited sensitivity of some of the quantitative measures was identified, as well as the potential for bias in the coding of the open-ended questions.
CONCLUSION: The SAKG evaluation methodology will address the need for appropriate evaluation approaches for school-based kitchen garden programs. It demonstrates the feasibility of a meaningful, comprehensive evaluation of school-based programs and also demonstrates the central role qualitative methods can have in a mixed-method evaluation. So what? This paper contributes to debate about appropriate evaluation approaches to meet the information needs of all stakeholders and will support the sharing of measures and potential comparisons between program outcomes for comparable population groups and settings.
Language eng
DOI 10.1071/HE12905
Field of Research 111704 Community Child Health
1117 Public Health And Health Services
Socio Economic Objective 920411 Nutrition
HERDC Research category C1.1 Refereed article in a scholarly journal
ERA Research output type C Journal article
Copyright notice ©2013, Australian Health Promotion Association
Persistent URL http://hdl.handle.net/10536/DRO/DU:30067203

Connect to link resolver
 
Unless expressly stated otherwise, the copyright for items in DRO is owned by the author, with all rights reserved.

Versions
Version Filter Type
Citation counts: TR Web of Science Citation Count  Cited 2 times in TR Web of Science
Scopus Citation Count Cited 2 times in Scopus
Google Scholar Search Google Scholar
Access Statistics: 28 Abstract Views, 2 File Downloads  -  Detailed Statistics
Created: Mon, 02 Feb 2015, 12:39:33 EST

Every reasonable effort has been made to ensure that permission has been obtained for items included in DRO. If you believe that your rights have been infringed by this repository, please contact drosupport@deakin.edu.au.