| Course | MSW 515 Advanced Social Work Research |
|---|---|
| Week | 4 |
| Paper type | Evaluation design plan |
| Length | About 610 words, 5 pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Chamberlain University |
| Program | Master of Social Work (MSW) |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for MSW 515 Week 4
Evaluation Design Plan for the Family Education Course: A Wait-List Comparison Chosen Over a One-Group Pretest and Posttest, One Measurement Row per Outcome, Threats Named for This Course and Consent Treated as Part of the Design
Student Name
Chamberlain University
MSW 515: Advanced Social Work Research
Instructor Name
Month Day, Year
Evaluation Design Plan for the Family Education Course: A Wait-List Comparison Chosen Over a One-Group Pretest and Posttest, One Measurement Row per Outcome, Threats Named for This Course and Consent Treated as Part of the Design
The Design and Its Price
The course already fills before each cohort starts, so relatives who sign up late wait about eight weeks for the next one. The plan uses that waiting period as a comparison: relatives in the January cohort are measured at enrollment and at week 8, and relatives on the list for the March cohort are measured at the same two points before their course begins. This is a nonequivalent comparison group design, not a randomized one. A one-group pretest and posttest would be simpler, but it could not separate the course from the passage of time, and relatives often feel better as a crisis eases on its own. The wait list buys some protection against that. It costs the confidence of random assignment, since relatives who enroll early may differ from those who enroll late. The trial of the same model used random assignment to a waiting list (Dixon et al., 2011); this agency cannot assign people at random to wait.
Measurement
Table 1
Measurement Plan
| Outcome | Instrument | Who completes it | When | Minutes |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Family empowerment (primary) | Family Empowerment Scale, adapted wording (Koren et al., 1992) | Relative, on paper at the center | Enrollment and week 8 | 10 |
| Psychological distress | K6 (Kessler et al., 2002) | Relative, same form | Enrollment and week 8 | 2 |
| Sessions attended | Sign-in sheet | Peer teacher | Each session | 1 |
| Delivery as written | Eight-item fidelity checklist | Second peer teacher | Each session | 3 |
Note. Note. The empowerment scale's references to "my child" are changed to "my relative"; the adaptation is reported as a limitation.
Instruments Justified for These Relatives
The empowerment scale fits the question because the trial of this model found its largest effects in empowerment. The K6 is short, which matters for tired relatives on a weeknight, and its six items read plainly. Both are completed in under 15 minutes. A burden scale was not chosen because burden did not change in the trial.
Reading level was checked as well. The adapted empowerment items were read aloud to two former participants, who flagged one item about "service systems" as unclear; it will carry a short example in brackets.
Threats Named for This Course
Selection: relatives who enroll first may be more organized or less overwhelmed; the analysis compares enrollment scores to check. Attrition: relatives drop out when a family member is hospitalized; the plan records why each person leaves. History: a relative's crisis in week 5 can swamp any course effect; crises are logged. Testing: answering the same items twice can change answers slightly, but both groups take them twice.
Ethics as a Design Element
Waiting relatives are not denied help: the center's support group and crisis line stay open to them, and they keep their place in the next cohort. Participation in measurement is voluntary and does not affect enrollment. Each form is labeled with a code; names stay in a locked file at the front desk. The center's research review committee approves the plan before January.
What the Design Cannot Show
It cannot show whether gains last, and it cannot rule out that early enrollers would have improved anyway.
References
Dixon, L. B., Lucksted, A., Medoff, D. R., Burland, J., Stewart, B., Lehman, A. F., Fang, L. J., Sturm, V., Brown, C., & Murray-Swank, A. (2011). Outcomes of a randomized study of a peer-taught Family-to-Family Education Program for mental illness. Psychiatric Services, 62(6), 591-597. https://doi.org/10.1176/ps.62.6.pss6206_0591
Kessler, R. C., Andrews, G., Colpe, L. J., Hiripi, E., Mroczek, D. K., Normand, S.-L. T., Walters, E. E., & Zaslavsky, A. M. (2002). Short screening scales to monitor population prevalences and trends in non-specific psychological distress. Psychological Medicine, 32(6), 959-976. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0033291702006074
Koren, P. E., DeChillo, N., & Friesen, B. J. (1992). Measuring empowerment in families whose children have emotional disabilities: A brief questionnaire. Rehabilitation Psychology, 37(4), 305-321. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0079106
MSW 515 Week 4 instructions, in plain terms
The design plan names a design and defends it against the alternatives you considered. Say what each option would buy in confidence and what it would cost, and choose the one your agency can carry out. Measurement deserves more space than design: give every outcome named in your question its instrument, who completes it, when, and how long it takes. Justify each instrument for the people who will complete it, including reading level and fit, rather than because a reading used it. Name the threats to validity that fit this program, with what you will do about each. Treat ethics as part of the design, including consent, voluntary participation and what happens to people in any comparison group. Close with what the design cannot show.
How the MSW 515 Week 4 example is put together
The design section explains that relatives who enroll late already wait about eight weeks, and uses that wait as a comparison group measured at the same two points as the course group. It compares this nonequivalent design with a one-group pretest and posttest and with the random assignment used by Dixon et al. (2011), saying what each buys. Table 1 gives four rows: empowerment, the six-item distress scale from Kessler et al. (2002), sessions attended and fidelity, each with completer, timing and minutes. Instruments are justified for brevity and fit, and wording was tested with former participants. Four threats are named with responses, and the ethics section keeps the support group and crisis line open to waiting relatives and sends the plan to the center's review committee.
Reading the MSW 515 Week 4 grading rubric
Top marks require a design that can answer the question it was given, defended against named alternatives. A single group measured once after the program, for example, cannot show change and loses heavily. Measurement comes next: every outcome needs an instrument, a respondent, a time point and a burden estimate. Instruments must be justified for this population. Faculty credit threats that fit the program, each with a planned response, over a generic list copied from a textbook. Ethics should appear as part of the design, not as an appendix. Clear tables help, and APA citations for instruments are expected. Plans that admit what the design cannot show earn credit for judgment.
Common MSW 515 Week 4 mistakes, and how to avoid them
The plan that loses most uses a design that cannot answer its own question, usually a posttest-only survey presented as an outcome evaluation. Next is an outcome with no instrument, where the plan promises to assess family functioning and never says how. Instruments chosen because they appeared in a reading, without regard to reading level or population, cost points as well. Threats listed by name without any response read as copied. If your program is different, perhaps a mentoring program or a parenting class, ask what comparison already exists in the agency's routine, such as a waiting list or a staggered start, and build from it. A plan drafted for your program would put measurement in a table and say plainly what the design cannot rule out.
Get a MSW-515 Week 4 example written to your instructions
Send the Week 4 instructions and the question you settled on earlier in the session, and a custom design plan is written to them and returned inside 24 to 48 hours, the first one free. If your section supplies a required table format, it is written straight into that.
More MSW 515 papers and MSW samples
- MSW 515 Week 1: Program to Evaluate Post
- MSW 515 Week 2: Logic Model and Evaluation Question
- MSW 515 Week 3: Family Education Literature Matrix
- MSW 515 Week 5: Single-system Design Write-up
- MSW 515 Week 6: Data Analysis Write-up
- MSW 515 Week 7: Program Evaluation Plan
- MSW 515 Week 8: Findings Presentation
- MSW 516 Week 4: Family Level Application
- MSW 514 Week 4: Rival Explanations Case Analysis
- MSW 517 Week 4: Session Choice Contrast
- MSW 513 Week 4: Kin Licensing Stakeholder Map
MSW 515 Week 4 questions, answered
Do I need a control group?
Rarely, and plans that promise one usually cannot deliver it. Agencies do not withhold services to make an evaluation neater, and self-determination sits against random assignment in most practice settings. What earns marks is naming an honest comparison you could actually obtain, a waiting list already in existence or the same clients before and after, then stating what it leaves unresolved.
Can I write my own questionnaire instead of using an existing scale?
Sometimes, for process questions about satisfaction or delivery, and it is a weak choice for outcomes. An existing scale arrives with evidence that it measures what it claims and with scores you can compare to something. A questionnaire written in a week has neither, so if you use one, say what it cannot support and keep the claims small.
Where does the baseline come from if the program is already running?
Usually from records the agency already keeps, which is why the plan has to say what those records contain before promising anything. Intake scores, attendance, referral counts and case notes can all supply a starting point. Where nothing exists, the plan says so and builds the first collection point into the design instead of assuming a past nobody documented.
Where can I find a free MSW 515 Week 4 sample paper?
The full MSW 515 Week 4 evaluation design plan for the relatives' class is posted on this page, with its measurement table and margin notes.
Why does the MSW 515 Week 4 sample use a waiting list?
Because the course fills before each cohort, so late enrollers already wait about eight weeks, and measuring them at the same points gives a comparison without denying anyone the course.