Psychology 970: Community Interventions:

Theory, Practice, and Evaluation

Spring 2017

Facilitator

Name / Contact information / Office Hours
Ignacio D. Acevedo-Polakovich, PhD / 127-B Psychology Building / By appointment.
517-432-4890

Meetings and Location

Regular Meetings. Thursdays, 12:40 PM - 3:30 PM,

Final Exam Week. TBD 127B Psychology Bldg

Goals and Objectives

““You never change things by fighting the existing reality.

To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete.”

―R. Buckminster Fuller

This seminar willprovide participants with an understanding of the role of community interventions in public health and social welfare, an overview of these interventions across levels of the social ecology, and practice in their design and evaluation.

Policies

“[Courage] consists … [of] daring to do the right thing and facing consequences ...”

–Mohandas K. Gandhi (Attributed).

This is a doctoral seminar on a specialty topic. Each participant is assumed to be bright, capable, and motivated, both generally and with regard to course goals. The seminar will provide participants with sufficient opportunity, support, and accountability to accomplish course goals.

Responsibilities of all Participants

Participants are expected to execute all domains pertinent to their roles to the best of their ability. Specific applications of this general principle include, but are limited to:

  • Arrivingat each seminar meeting on time, having studied the assigned materials and prepared any assignments to the best of their ability.
  • Participating actively, and collaboratively, in seminar meetings.
  • Being honest and courteous when interacting with other participants.
  • Abiding by the rules and expectations set forth in the syllabus.
  • Adhering to all other relevant rules and regulations (e.g., university or departmental policy).
  • Providingreasonable support and accountability to all participants so that they may have reasonable opportunity to achieve the course goals.

Additional Responsibilities of the non-Facilitators

  • Take ownership for achieving course goals. The facilitator’s domain is to ensure that you have opportunity, support and accountability, your domain is to take advantage of the opportunity.
  • Whenever the opportunity, support and accountability domains are not being adequately executed, communicate this clearly and promptly (preferably in writing) to the course facilitator.

Additional Responsibilities of the Facilitator

  • Be timely and thorough in the preparation of materials required by other participants, as in the evaluation of assignments.
  • Take ownership over ensuring that other participants receive reasonable support and accountability in their pursuit of course goals.

Commercialized Lecture Notes

  • Commercialization of lecture notes and university-provided course materials is not permitted in this course.

The Oxford Comma

It has often been said that “academic politics are so vicious because the stakes are so small.” The 'Oxford comma' is an optional comma before the word 'and' at the end of a list: We sell books, videos, and magazines. It's known as the Oxford comma because it was traditionally used by printers, readers, and editors at Oxford University Press. For the purposes of this course, the use of an Oxford comma will be considered a small stakes issue, and also an expected component of your course writing. Intended as the provision of a rationale by means of illustration—and also as a means for your personal entertainment—Appendix C provides you with multiple examples in which the decision to not employ an Oxford comma dramatically changed the meaning of a sentence.

Assignments & Grading

“The wise teacher … places a mirror before others, makes them sensible and meticulous.”

–Codex Matritense

I.Overview

Component
Subcomponent / Points
Final Paper Sequence
W3. Problem Statement Presentation (10)
W4. Individual Feedback (4)
W6-7. Planning Meeting (3)
W9. Ungraded Problem Statement Draft (0)
W9. Ungraded Paper Outline (0)
W12. Introduction Draft (6)
W13-14. Planning Update (2)
W 16. Full Draft (35) / 60
Course Participation
Attendance (16) / 40
Guest Facilitation Design (18)
Guest Facilitation Implementation (6))
TOTAL / 100
  1. Final Paper Sequence (60 Points)

A total of 60 points may be obtained as a result of a series of activities leading up to a final writtenpaper. Each of these activities is described in a dedicated subsection.

Problem Statement Presentation (10 points). During the third seminar meeting, each participant will deliver a five minute (total), five slide, presentation, detailing a personal area of focus within the course goals, and proposing desired objectives for seminar participation. Presentations will be evaluated by the facilitator based on the degree of development of the focus area. A sample presentation will be made available for participants ahead of this activity. A well-developed presentation should demonstrate;

(1) Sound conceptual foundations (50% of the grade);

(2) A basis in the contemporary scholarly literature (30%);

(3) A clear and accessible format (20%).

Feedback on Problem Statement Presentations (4 points). During the fourth seminar meeting, each participant will turn in to the seminar facilitatora one page (minimum; 12 point font, double spaced, 1 inch margins) typewritten review for two of the presentations delivered the prior week. The review should follow the style of the peer review of a scholarly manuscript. Ahead of this activity, participants will be provided both recommended background reading (i.e., Cummings & Rivara, 2002) and a sample review. A good review should be:

(1)Based on a correct understanding of the material presented (20% of the grade);

(2)Identify areas for improvement upon the material presented (50% of the grade);

(3)Offer specific suggestions for improvement (20% of the grade), and;

(4)Employ a respectful tone that is focused on the ideas of the presentation and not the presenter (10% of the grade).

A copy of the graded reviews will be returned to the authors (and to the relevant presenters) at the next class meeting.

Individual Planning Meeting (3 points). Participants should schedule (and attend) one individual meeting with the seminar facilitator during either week 5 or week 6. The goals of this meeting are to assist participants in (1) refining their area of focus (and associated paper), and (2) develop a reasonable work plan for the execution of the written paper associated with the area of focus. All participants who schedule and attend these individual meetings will receive 3 points toward the final seminar grade.

Ungraded Problem Statement Draft and Written Outline (0 points). On—or prior to—the ninth seminar meeting, participants will turn in a fully formatted draft of the problem statement section of their paper and an accompanying outline of the reminder of the paper. Although no points are awarded for this activity, the facilitator will—by the tenth seminar meeting—provide written feedback on these drafts.

Introduction Section Draftand Revised Outline (6 points). On—or prior to—the twelfth seminar meeting, participants will turn in a fully formatted draft of the introduction section of their paper (including revised problem statement) and (at minimum) an accompanying revised outline of the reminder of the paper. Although feedback will be provided on both the introduction and the outline, points will be awarded based on the facilitator’s assessment of the introduction draft, as follows:

Drafts that are judged to be publication ready (7 points)

Drafts that are judged to be “accepted, pending revisions” (6 points).

Drafts that are judged to require “revisions prior to resubmission” (4-5 points).

Drafts that are judged to be “rejected, with feedback” (2-3 points).

All other drafts (1 point).

Individual Planning Update (2 points). Participants should schedule (and attend) one individual meeting with the seminar facilitator during either week 13 or week 14. The goals of this meeting are to (1) provide participants with feedback on their introduction draft and revised outline, and (2) assist participants in updating their work plan for the execution of the final written paper. All participants who schedule and attend these individual meetings will receive 2 points toward the final seminar grade.

Final Paper (35 points). On, or prior to, the scheduled date and end time of the final exam participants will turn in a final written paper with the following characteristics:

  1. It may be either singly authored by the seminar participant OR a collaboration among several seminar participants.
  2. If a collaborative paper is selected, then each participant must also turn in a “Collaborator Scoring Form” (obtained from the facilitator), which provides various items that allow for an aggregate score rating a collaborator’s contributions from 0% (no contribution) to 100% (fully collaborative).
  3. The final grade for each co-author will be calculated by adjusting the final grade of the overall paper to the average collaboration score obtained by each author. For instance, if the paper is given a final grade of 100, and a coauthor’s average score is 92, that coauthor would receive a score of 92.
  4. It may not exceed 3,500 words (total).
  5. It must be best characterized as either a report of original research or evaluation, a research or evaluation proposal, a conceptual paper, or a (qualitative or quantitative) literature review.
  6. It must be in either APA or AMA ( format.

Points will be awarded based on the facilitator’s assessment of the paper, as follows:

Drafts that are judged to be publication ready (105% of available points)

Drafts that are judged to be “accepted, pending revisions” (100% of available points).

Drafts that are judged to require “revisions prior to resubmission” (80-95% of available points).

Drafts that are judged to be “rejected, with feedback” (60-75% of available points).

All other drafts (<55% of available points).

Rounding up rule. The above rubric skips five percentage points between each category. This is because, whenever the assessment of the paper renders a score that falls between categories, the paper will be awarded the next highest available score. For instance, a paper scored by the facilitator as 96% would receive 100%, a paper receiving a 77% score would receive 80%, etc. This rounding up rule is applied in recognition of the tenuous differences between immediately proximal continuous scores. Because the application of this rule significantly favors students, no challenges to the final score will be allowed within the framework of this course (although—should participants feel it necessary—all options outside of the course remain available to them).

III.Active Participation (40 points)

Attendance (16 points). Students are expected to actively participate in course meetings either in person (preferred), virtually by video conference (acceptable for up to 50% of classroom-based seminar meetings), or asynchronously (tolerated). Participating in said manner will earn students 1 point per seminar meeting.

Videoconferencing. Non-facilitators can attend up to 50% of standard classroom-based seminar meetings virtually by videoconferencing. This option is unavailable on days in which there are guest speakers or out-of-classroom activities. Participants who choose to exercise this option must make their own arrangements for videoconferencing, and these must allow the student to observe any media displayed in the classroom, and must not interfere with other students’ ability to make videoconferencing arrangements. Technical failures preventing the student, or others, from participating will be counted as an absence.

Asynchronous participation. All participants can face professional and personal demands that are outside of their control, and that prevent in person or virtual participation. Participants facing such demands will earn attendance credit by submitting to all participants—at least 24 hours prior to the start of class—a typewritten contribution that includes reactions to the readings along with any additional contributions that the absent participant would be expected to make on the day of the absence.

Guest Lead Facilitation (24 points). Each student is expected to lead the design (18 points) and implementation (6 points) of the seminar’s learning activities during one week. Guest lead facilitators are responsible for designing and implementing a doctoral-level learning experience that achieves the course objectives for that week. Such an experience can include discussion of readings, in-class activities, out-of-class activities, and/or guest speakers. While the course’s regular facilitator is available to support the guest facilitator in the design and implementation of that week’s seminar, the guest facilitator must assume accountability for both of these domains. The course’s regular facilitator must approve of the guest facilitator’s design at least one week prior to the date of the guest facilitation.

  1. Grading Scale

Your grade will be calculated in the following way:

To get this grade: / You need this many points:
4.0 / 93
3.5 / 88
3.0 / 83
2.5 / 78
2.0 / 73
1.5 / 68
1.0 / 63
0 / <63

Your total points will be rounded to the nearest whole number. Scores cannot be “on the border,” they are one grade or the next. There will be no adjustments because your score is close to the cutoff.

Tentative Topic Sequence and Reading List

(WEEK 1)

  1. Course Overview

Acevedo-Polakovich, I.D. (2015). Course Syllabus for Psychology 992: Community Interventions; Theory, Practice, and Evaluation. East Lansing, MI: Author.

  1. On The Bounds of Psychosocial Research

Open Science Collaboration. (2015). Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science.Science,349(6251), aac4716 (1-8).

Hall, C. C. I. (1997). Cultural malpractice: The growing obsolescence of psychology with the changing US population. American Psychologist, 52(6), 642-651.

Fish, J. M. (2000). What anthropology can do for psychology: Facing physics envy, ethnocentrism, and a belief in"race". American Anthropologist, 102, 552-563.

Ammerman, A., Smith, T. W., & Calancie, L. (2014). Practice-based evidence in public health: improving reach, relevance, and results. Annual review of public health, 35, 47-63.

(WEEK 2)

  1. Foundational Topics
  2. Broader Systems Interventions in an Ecological Context

Frieden, T. R. (2010). A framework for public health action: The health impact pyramid. American Journal of Public Health, 100, 590-595.

Golden, S.D., McLeroy, K.R., Green, L.W., Earp., J.L., & Lieberman, L.D. (2015). Upendinding the social ecological model to guide health promotion efforts towards policy and environmental change. Health Education & Behavior, 42(15), 8S-14S.

(Further Reading)

Lieberman, L.D., & Earp, J.L. (Eds.) (2015). Supplement Issue: The Evidence for Policy and Environmental Approaches to Promoting Health. Health Education & Behavior, 42 (1, suppl).

  1. Broader Systems Interventions, Overview

Blankenship, K. M., Friedman, S. R., Dworkin, S., & Mantell, J. E. (2006). Structural interventions: concepts, challenges and opportunities for research. Journal of Urban Health, 83(1), 59-72.

Checkoway, B. (1995) Six Strategies of Community Change. Community Development Journal, 30(1), 2-20.

(WEEK 3. Case Example of Structural Interventions: Connect to Protect. Guest Presenter: Danielle Chiaramonte, MS.)

(WEEK 4-5)

  1. Exosystem Interventions: Dissemination and Implementation of Microsystem and Individual Interventions
  1. Foundational Concepts

Rabin, B. A., & Brownson, R. C. (2017). Terminology for Dissemination and Implementation Research. In R.C.Brownson, G.A. Colditz, E.K. Proctor (Eds.). Dissemination and Implementation Research in Health: Translating Science to Practice (pp. 19-46).New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Tabak, R.G., Chambers, D. A., Hook, M., & Brownson, R. C. (2017). The Conceptual Basis for Dissemination and Implementation Research: Lessons from Existing Models and Frameworks. In R.C.Brownson, G.A. Colditz, E.K. Proctor (Eds.). Dissemination and Implementation Research in Health: Translating Science to Practice (pp. 73-88).New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Kirchner, J.E., Waltz, T.J, Powell, B.J., Smith, J.F., & Proctor E.K. (2017). Implementation Strategies. In R.C.Brownson, G.A. Colditz, E.K. Proctor (Eds.). Dissemination and Implementation Research in Health: Translating Science to Practice (pp. 245-266).New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

  1. Design and Evaluation

Landsverk, J. et al. (2017). Design and Analysis in Dissemination and Implementation Research. In R.C.Brownson, G.A. Colditz, E.K. Proctor (Eds.). Dissemination and Implementation Research in Health: Translating Science to Practice (pp. 201-228).New York, NY: Oxford University Press

Lewis, C.C., Proctor, E.K., & Brownson, R.C.(2017). Measurement Issues in Dissemination and Implementation Research. In R.C.Brownson, G.A. Colditz, E.K. Proctor (Eds.). Dissemination and Implementation Research in Health: Translating Science to Practice (pp. 229-244).New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Gaglio, B. & Glasgow, R. (2017). Evaluation Approaches for Dissemination and Implementation Research. In R.C.Brownson, G.A. Colditz, E.K. Proctor (Eds.). Dissemination and Implementation Research in Health: Translating Science to Practice (pp. 317-334).New York, NY: Oxford University Press

Palinkas, L.A., & Cooper, B.R. (2017). Mixed Methods Evaluation in Dissemination and Implementation Science. In R.C.Brownson, G.A. Colditz, E.K. Proctor (Eds.). Dissemination and Implementation Research in Health: Translating Science to Practice (pp. 335-354).New York, NY: Oxford University Press

(Further Reading)

Brownson, R. C., Colditz, G. A., & Proctor, E. K. (Eds.). (2017). Dissemination and implementation research in health: translating science to practice. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

(WEEK 6: Individual Presentations)

Cummings, P., & Rivara, F. P. (2002). Reviewing manuscripts for Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine. Archives of pediatrics & adolescent medicine, 156(1), 11.

(WEEK 7: Community Engagement)

Stoecker (2011) Are academics irrelevant? Approaches and roles for scholars in CBPR. In M. Minkler, & N. Wallerstein, N. (Eds.).Community-based participatory research for health: From process to outcomes (pp., 107-120). John Wiley & Sons.

Wallerstein, N. & Duran, B., Minkler, M., & Foley, K. (2005). Developing and maintaining partnerships with communities. In B.A. Israel, E. Eng, A.J. Schulz, E.A. Parker (Eds.), Methods in Community-based Participatory Research for Health.

Becker, A.B., Israel, B.A., Allen A.J. III (2005). Strategies and techniques for effective group processes in CBPR partnerships. In B.A. Israel, E. Eng, A.J. Schulz, E.A. Parker (Eds.), Methods in Community-based Participatory Research for Health.

Chavez et al (2011) The dance of race and privilege in CBPR. In M. Minkler, & N. Wallerstein, N. (Eds.).Community-based participatory research for health: From process to outcomes (pp., 91-106). John Wiley & Sons.

(WEEK 8: Individual Feedback)

(WEEK 9)

V.(Roselyn)Exosystem Interventions:Organizational Change.

Burke, W.W. (2014). Organizational Change. In B. Schneider & K. Barbera (Eds.) The Oxford Handbook of Organizational Climate and Culture (pp. 457-483). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Cameron, K., & McNaughtan, J. (2014). Positive organizational change.The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science,50(4), 445-462.

Acevedo-Polakovich, I. D., Crider, E., Kassab V.A., & Gerhart, J.I. (2011). Increasing Service Parity through Organizational Cultural Competence. In L. Buki & L.M. Piedra (Eds.). Creating Infrastructures for Latino Mental Health (pp.79-98). New York, NY: Springer

Supplemental:

Aarons, G.A., Moullin, J.C., & Erkhart, M. (2017). The Role of Organizational Processes in Dissemination and Implementation Research. In R.C. Brownson, G.A. Colditz, E.K. Proctor (Eds.). Dissemination and Implementation Research in Health: Translating Science to Practice (pp. 121-142). New York, NY: Oxford University Press

Ciapponi, A., Lewin, S., Bastías, G., Dudley, L., Flottorp, S., Gagnon, M. P., ... & Opiyo, N. (2014). Delivery arrangements for health systems in low‐income countries: an overview of systematic reviews. The Cochrane Library

(WEEK 10)

(DUE FROM NON-FACILITATORS: Problem Statement Draft and Paper Outline)

VI.(Rome) Structural Interventions to Change Exosystem Conditions

Noffsinger, M. A., Pfefferbaum, B., Pfefferbaum, R. L., Sherrieb, K., & Norris, F. H. (2012). The burden of disaster: Part I. Challenges and opportunities within a child’s social ecology.International journal of emergency mental health,14(1), 3.

Pfefferbaum, R. L., Pfefferbaum, B., Jacobs, A. K., Noffsinger, M. A., Sherrieb, K., & Norris, F. H. (2012). The burden of disaster: part II. applying interventions across the child’s social ecology.International journal of emergency mental health,14(3), 175.

Sanders, M. R., & Prinz, R. J. (2008). Using the mass media as a population level strategy to strengthen parenting skills.Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology,37(3), 609-621.