TABLE 3—
Participant Skill | No. (Valid %) |
Community assessment skills used most since coursea | |
Developing a community partnership to conduct assessment | 6 (17) |
Developing goals and objectives to focus a community assessment | 17 (48) |
Identifying good sources of health data for community advocacy | 12 (34) |
Determining when to collect new health data | 5 (14) |
Identifying pros and cons of various data collection methods | 10 (29) |
Identifying appropriate data analysis methods | 6 (17) |
Communicating assessment findings to targeted audiences | 10 (29) |
Developing community assessment plan | 2 (6) |
Working with other researchers | 9 (26) |
Telling my community's story to funders and policymakers | 8 (23) |
Planning or implementing program or policy change | 8 (23) |
Changes in approach to assessments since courseb | |
Approach not changed | 2 (6) |
Enhanced current work on community assessments | 20 (56) |
Will apply skills to future community assessments | 8 (22) |
Applied skills to other research processes | 11 (31) |
Frequency of use of data since course | |
Much more frequently | 4 (11) |
More frequently | 11 (31) |
About the same frequency | 16 (44) |
Less frequently | 3 (8) |
Don't use data in work | 2 (6) |
Frequency of presenting data since course | |
More often than before | 11 (31) |
With about the same frequency | 20 (56) |
Less frequently | 3 (8) |
Have not presented data | 0 |
Organization's frequency of use of data for funding since course | |
Yes, more often than before | 15 (42) |
No, frequency the same | 15 (42) |
Not tried to use data for funding since course | 5 (14) |
Organization's frequency of use of data for advocacy since course | |
Yes, more often than before | 15 (42) |
No, frequency the same | 19 (53) |
Not tried to use data for advocacy since course | 0 |
Organization's frequency of use of data for program or policy development since course | |
Yes, more often than before | 14 (40) |
No, frequency the same | 13 (37) |
Not tried to use data for program or policy since course | 6 (17) |
Note. The sample size was n = 36.
Respondents could check up to 3 responses.
Respondents could check all that apply.