PSY-FPX5140 develops a practical, methodologically rigorous skill set that master's psychology graduates increasingly need for roles in nonprofit, government, healthcare, and human services settings. Program evaluation differs from academic research — it is explicitly oriented toward decision-making, stakeholder communication, and program improvement rather than knowledge generation for its own sake. Assessments require students to apply evaluation frameworks, not just describe them. This guide explains what each assessment demands and how PSY-FPX5140 support keeps you on track.
Course Overview
The course covers evaluation theory (formative vs. summative evaluation, process vs. outcome evaluation, empowerment evaluation), logic model development, evaluation design (experimental, quasi-experimental, and qualitative evaluation designs), data collection methods (surveys, interviews, observations, administrative data), analysis approaches appropriate to evaluation questions, ethical considerations in evaluation (especially with vulnerable populations), and stakeholder engagement and reporting. Stufflebeam's CIPP model, Kirkpatrick's evaluation levels, and the CDC Evaluation Framework are commonly referenced frameworks.
Common Assessment Focus Areas
-
1Logic Model Development
Develops a logic model for a specific program or intervention — mapping inputs, activities, outputs, short-term outcomes, and long-term impacts. The model must be internally coherent (activities plausibly produce outputs, outputs plausibly produce outcomes) and grounded in theory of change, not just a visual diagram.
-
2Evaluation Design Plan
Designs a full evaluation plan for the program, including evaluation questions, design type (RCT, quasi-experimental, qualitative, mixed methods), data sources and collection methods, analysis approach, and timeline. Must justify each design choice in terms of the evaluation questions — not just select the "best" design in the abstract.
-
3Stakeholder Report and Recommendations
Translates evaluation findings (real or hypothetical) into a stakeholder-facing report with actionable recommendations. Graded on clarity of communication to a non-academic audience, strength of recommendations tied to evidence, and appropriate handling of limitations and uncertainty.
How We Help With PSY-FPX5140
- Building a genuinely coherent logic model — not just filling in a template, but ensuring the causal theory of change holds together
- Selecting and justifying the right evaluation design for the specific evaluation questions posed in Assessment 2
- Writing the stakeholder report (Assessment 3) at the right register — accessible to non-researchers without sacrificing evidentiary rigor
- Connecting recommendations directly to evaluation evidence and rating them by feasibility and priority
- APA 7 formatting and scholarly source citation for all technical evaluation methodology claims
Common Challenges in This Course
Logic model development (Assessment 1) trips up students who treat it as a diagram exercise rather than a theoretical claim. A logic model that lists activities but doesn't explain why those activities would produce the stated outcomes is incomplete — the theory of change is the point, and the diagram is just its visual representation. Assessment 2 design plans frequently under-justify design choices: saying "I will use a quasi-experimental design" without explaining why randomization wasn't feasible, what specific quasi-experimental design is being used, and how selection bias will be addressed leaves major scoring gaps.
Need Help With PSY-FPX5140?
Share your assessment instructions and rubric and we'll connect you with a program evaluation specialist who understands Capella's graduate standards.
Related Courses
PSY-FPX5140 FAQ
A basic understanding of quantitative and qualitative research methods (comparable to a graduate research methods course) is helpful. The course focuses on selecting and justifying data analysis approaches rather than performing statistical calculations — but you need to know enough to specify an appropriate analysis plan.
Formative evaluation occurs during program implementation and aims to improve the program while it is running. Summative evaluation occurs after implementation and assesses outcomes and impact. Most comprehensive evaluation plans include both, and understanding this distinction is foundational for Assessment 2's design plan.
Common frameworks include Stufflebeam's CIPP model (Context, Input, Process, Product), Kirkpatrick's four-level model (Reaction, Learning, Behavior, Results), and the CDC's Framework for Program Evaluation in Public Health. The logic model approach is a tool used across most frameworks.
Yes — stakeholder reports use plain language, executive summaries, visual displays of data, and actionable recommendation framing. You are writing for program managers and funders, not for peer reviewers. Graduate rubrics evaluate whether you can adapt scholarly content for a professional non-academic audience.