Create a comprehensive quality and performance management plan using the provided outline. Provide a report for the selected organization regarding the chosen program, incorporating all topics
Develop a comprehensive and integrated plan that includes an introduction, program description, and evaluation overview.
Thoroughly describe a proposal for using an evaluation of the organization's program using a quantitative design methodology.
Identify recommendations, best practices, and next steps for future program outcomes based on the evaluation findings from the proposed program evaluation.
. Program Description: Parent Training Program (PTP)
The PTP is an 8-week structured group training course designed for primary caregivers of children receiving ABA services at BFAC.
Goal: To increase caregiver competency in implementing foundational ABA strategies, thereby increasing the consistency of the child's treatment across environments.
Target Behaviors (Caregiver): Increase accurate use of (1) Differential Reinforcement (DR) procedures and (2) Functional Communication Training (FCT) strategies during structured and unstructured home-based activities.
Target Outcomes (Child): Decrease challenging behavior frequency and increase the child’s rate of compliance with caregiver instructions.
C. Evaluation Overview
The PTP evaluation will use a rigorous quantitative design methodology to determine the program's causal impact on caregiver competency and child outcomes.
| Evaluation Question | Data Source | Metric |
| Did the PTP increase caregiver competency? | Caregiver Competency Assessment (pre/post) | Mean increase in percentage of correct implementation. |
| Did the PTP impact child behavior? | Child Behavioral Data (clinic & home) | Mean decrease in problem behavior frequency (per day). |
| Was the program delivered consistently? | Treatment Fidelity Checklist | Mean percentage of sessions delivered as planned. |
Export to Sheets
II. Proposal for Program Evaluation: Quantitative Design
The proposed evaluation will utilize a Quasi-Experimental, Nonequivalent Groups Design (NEG). This design is robust for applied settings like BFAC where true random assignment (a requirement for a Randomized Controlled Trial) may be unethical or logistically impractical.
A. Design Methodology: Nonequivalent Groups Design (NEG)
Selection of Groups:
Intervention Group (G1): A cohort of 15 caregivers enrolled in the upcoming 8-week PTP.
Comparison Group (G2): A group of 15 caregivers who are wait-listed for the PTP and receive standard consultative support (but not the full structured PTP) during the 8-week evaluation period.
Note: While the groups are not randomized, every effort will be made to match them on key characteristics (e.g., child's age, severity of autism, duration of ABA services).
Procedure:
Pre-test (O1): Both G1 and G2 complete the Caregiver Competency Assessment and a baseline of child behavioral data (problem behavior frequency) is collected for 4 weeks.
Intervention (X): G1 receives the 8-week PTP. G2 receives no PTP.
Post-test (O2): After 8 weeks, both G1 and G2 complete the Caregiver Competency Assessment again, and another 4 weeks of child behavioral data is collected.
Statistical Analysis:
A 2 x 2 Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) or a Repeated Measures ANOVA will be used to analyze the difference between the groups' pre-test and post-test scores.
Interpretation: A significant interaction effect (G1 improvement ≫ G2 improvement) would provide strong evidence that the PTP caused the change in caregiver competency and child behavior, controlling for the effect of time and general ABA services.
B. Data Collection Instruments
| Instrument | Measurement Focus | Data Type | Time Point |
| Caregiver Competency Assessment | Score on a 20-item measure of knowledge and planned application of DR and FCT. | Interval (Score 0-100) | Pre-test (O1) and Post-test (O2) |
| Direct Observation Fidelity Check | Percentage of planned PTP components delivered by the trainer. | Ratio (0-100%) | During PTP delivery (ongoing) |
| Child Behavioral Data | Average daily frequency of the child’s challenging behavior. | Ratio (Count per day) | Baseline and Post-intervention |
Export to Sheets
C. Ensuring Reliability and Validity
Internal Validity: Using a Comparison Group (G2) helps control for threats such as history (external events) and maturation (changes over time). The fidelity checks ensure the intervention (X) was applied consistently.
Reliability: The Caregiver Competency Assessment will be pilot-tested to ensure high internal consistency (e.g., Cronbach's α>0.80). Child behavioral data collection will require two independent observers (caregivers or technicians) to establish high interobserver agreement (IOA) (≥80%) prior to the study.