Table 1.
Evaluation feature | Evaluation question | Indicator of fidelity | Data source |
---|---|---|---|
Reach | Were the target groups of pupils, teachers, principals and parents reached as proposed? | - Proposed pupils and grades were involved in We Act | Field visits (=43) Questionnaires to parents (n = 52) |
- Teachers assigned and delivered as proposed | |||
- Parents informed; used app, Facebook, and webpage; received IEAT handout; participated in pupils’ presentation of visions | |||
- Principals participated in introduction meetings, competence workshop and pupils’ presentation of visions | |||
- Health committee formed and supported the action phase. | |||
Dose and delivery | Was the dose of lessons and activities delivered as proposed, and with the intended pupil participation according to the IVAC methodology? | Investigation with IMOVE: 6 lessons over 2 weeks | Field visits (=43) Questionnaires to parents (n = 52) Interviews with teachers (n = 9) and principals (n = 4 principals in 7 interviews) Focus group interviews (=12) with pupils (n = 52) |
Investigation with IEAT: 9 lessons over 2 weeks (same 2 weeks as IMOVE) | |||
Vision Workshop: 12 lessons over 2 weeks (immediately after IMOVE/IEAT) | |||
Action & Change: 12 lessons over 1–3 months | |||
- It worked well in practice that pupils collected their own data on steps and food intake | |||
- All assignments were used for IMOVE and IEAT | |||
- Pupils elected IMOVE managers (indicator of participation) | |||
- Pupils worked with the IEAT handout (indicator of parent involvement) | |||
- Steps for the Vision Workshop were followed and pupils participated actively | |||
- Pupils presented their visions to an audience outside the class | |||
- Pupils participated in actions | |||
Context | What context factors interacted and influenced the implementation fidelity? | All above | |
How consistent were the adaptions with the intervention theory? |