Interim evaluation of project P.A.T.H.S. : an integration of findings based on program implementers

Research output: Chapter in book / Conference proceedingChapter in an edited book (as author)Academic researchpeer-review

5 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

To understand the implementation quality of the Tier 1 Program of the Project P.A.T.H.S. in Hong Kong, interim evaluation was conducted in three consecutive years. Program implementation details in each school were collected through personal interviews, telephone interviews, and self-administered questionnaires. Using data collected from 2006 to 2009 from 378 schools based on several rating items, results showed that a high proportion of program implementers considered the program as helpful to adolescent holistic development, and that students responded positively to the program. Views toward the implementation of the Tier 1 Program were positive across different grades (Secondary 1–3), curriculum modes (full curriculum vs. core curriculum), and types of implementers (social workers vs. school teachers). The project was also well received by different stakeholders. In line with the results obtained from other evaluative methods, the present findings support the success of the Tier 1 Program of the Project P.A.T.H.S. in promoting the holistic development of the program participants.

Original languageEnglish
Title of host publicationQuality of Life in Asia
PublisherSpringer
Pages149-164
Number of pages16
ISBN (Electronic)9789814451543, 9814451541
ISBN (Print)9789814451536, 9814451533
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2013

Publication series

NameQuality of Life in Asia
Volume3
ISSN (Print)2211-0550
ISSN (Electronic)2211-0569

Keywords

  • Core Curriculum
  • Implementation Quality
  • Positive Youth Development
  • Program Implementation
  • Program Implementer

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Public Administration
  • Demography
  • Development
  • Education

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Interim evaluation of project P.A.T.H.S. : an integration of findings based on program implementers'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this