Finally, I think the ultimate research question you’re hoping to answer is this:
Which program is mo st effective in addressing mental health concerns of Missouri’s farmers, ranchers, and other agricultural production works experiencing anxiety, depression, substance misuse, and death by suicide? That’s a huge question. When assessing the impact of a p rogram, it’s helpful to think of a pyramid of evaluation methods.
More conclusive
Randomized Design
Quasi- Experimental Design
Comparative Design
Descriptive Study
Less conclusive
The most iron-clad way to determine which of these programs is most effective would be to take the universe of potential participants, randomly assign them to complete a training in one of the programs (or not – to be the control), and then follow up for a given period of time assessing the rate of mental health issues encountered.
That’s not what you’ve been funded to do, and such a study isn’t feasible given your current programmatic structure (decentralized across multiple institutions in multiple states).
Instead, what you’re seeking to do is to look across programs and compare outcomes. If you see better outcomes associated with one program versus the others, it could be because:
- -
That program was implemented better That program had better instructors
- That program was attended by people who were less inclined to suffer from mental health to begin with You won’t really know initially – and that’s okay. You have to start somewhere, and a completely valid starting place is wanting to better understand how the programs are implemented and their outcomes
3
Powered by FlippingBook