Table 1 Process evaluation methods for the physical activity club
Characteristic | Data sources | Instruments/measurement | Timing | Data collectors or survey completers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Reach | • Attendance records of girls | • Attendance sheets & iPad | • Daily | • PA club manager |
Dose received (exposure) | • ActiGraph GT3X-plus counts | • 5 girls randomly selected to wear accelerometer | • Every other week | • PA club coaches and manager |
Dose received (satisfaction) | • Process evaluator observing club • Girls’ evaluation • PA club coaches’/managers’ evaluation | • 2-item survey to evaluate receptivity of intervention by process evaluators • 2-item survey to evaluate receptivity of intervention by girls • 3-item survey to evaluate receptivity of intervention by girls and the overall club as perceived by club managers and coaches | • Weeks 3, 9, & 15 • Post-intervention • Post-intervention | • Process evaluator • Girls • PA club coaches and managers |
Dose delivered | • PA club observations | • Combination of SOFIT and ALT-PE instruments; a stopwatch to record and ruler to mark beginning and end of activity times in minutes were used. | • Weeks 3, 9, & 15 | • Process evaluator |
Fidelity | • Survey | • 8-item survey to evaluate extent to which intervention reflects conceptual framework • 11-item survey completed by girls to assist in determining extent to which intervention reflects conceptual framework • 11-item survey completed by club managers and coaches to assist in determining extent to which intervention reflects conceptual framework | • Weeks 3, 9, & 15 • Post-intervention • Post-intervention | • Process evaluator • Girls • PA club coaches and managers |