-
Program Evaluation Rationale 1
Whole30® Program Evaluation Rationale
Vika Thayer
Walden University
Dr. Michael Burke
Program Evaluation (EIDT 6130)
January 22, 2017
-
Program Evaluation Rationale 2
Whole30® Program Evaluation Rationale
The Whole 30 ® Program is a 30-day elimination diet that results in better overall health
(n.d.). It makes that claim through reducing food groups, where users consume none of the
following in 30 days: legumes, grains, dairy, sugar, and alcohol. It is based on the premise that
people are at odds with how to eat for health, based on misguided attempts at guidelines by the
USDA. The rules are very rigid and clear so that there are not excuses to fail. The creators and
consumers alike can reset all of their body markers in just a month, and create a more holistic
relationship with food as fuel.
The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) is at odds with the Whole 30®
Program, because it claims to recommend building blocks for better health that includes: 2.5
cups a day of vegetables (legumes), 6 ounces per day of grains, 3 cups per day of dairy, and to
eat less sugar (Sisson, 2015).
Big Agriculture, consisting of Soybean farmers, Corn farmers, Dairy farmers, and Cattle farmers,
is at odds with the Whole 30® Program too. Soybean farmers, who produce soy sauce, tofu, and
miso, do not get purchased for 30 days. Corn is considered a grain on the program, dairy is not
allowed, and cattle farmers also lose out, as Whole 30® promotes grass-fed meat, which is a
product that traditional cattle farmers in Big Agriculture do not produce.
Big Pharmaceutical (Big Pharm) is at odds with the Whole 30® Program because the
food restrictions often result in healing conditions that Big Pharm also claims to fix: healing
aches and pains, achieving ideal weight, balance immune system, balance hormones, and reduce
hunger.
-
Program Evaluation Rationale 3
References
Whole 30. (n.d.). Rules. Retrieved from http://whole30.com/whole30-program-rules/
Sisson, M. (2015, October 22). A brief history of U.S. dietary guidelines [Blog post]. Retrieved
from http://www.marksdailyapple.com/a-brief-history-of-u-s-dietary-guidelines/
http://whole30.com/whole30-program-rules/http://www.marksdailyapple.com/a-brief-history-of-u-s-dietary-guidelines/
-
Program Analysis 1
Whole30® Program Analysis for Evaluation
Vika Thayer
Walden University
Dr. Michael Burke
Program Evaluation (EIDT 6130)
January 29, 2017
-
Program Analysis 2
Whole30® Program Analysis for Evaluation
The Whole 30® Program was created by Dallas Hartwig (MS, PT) and Melissa Hartwig
(CISSN) in 2009. It is a short term, 30-day diet based on the Paleo diet where users eliminate
foods that commonly irritate the gut, namely sugar, grains, legumes, dairy, and alcohol, to reset
metabolism, control sugar cravings, minimize unhealthy habits, balance immune system, and for
people to “figure out the way the food they are eating is actually affecting them” (Whole9life,
n.d.).” It “could lead to weight loss, higher energy levels, better sleep, improved focus and
mental clarity and even ‘a sunnier disposition’” (Heid, 2016). Jackson and many consumers
have “experienced a significant reduction (if not complete remission) of their autoimmune
disorder by eating the diet (2014). Other notable Paleo diet stakeholders include Dr. Loren
Cordain, a nutritionist and exercise physiologist who coined the term; Robb Wolf, a research
biochemist and promoter of the Paleo diet; Arthur De Vany, a former economics professor and
Paleo content publisher; and Mark Sisson, a former elite endurance athlete and Paleo content
promoter.
Consumers of the paleo diet and Whole30® program specifically are stakeholders, which
include gym owners, medical/wellness clinics, small businesses, and other community groups
(Whole30, 2014). They already believe the process does all the aforementioned and their money,
or lack thereof, can speak volumes to producers of the products that are eliminated.
Besides the paleo diet advocates and consumers, other notable stakeholders include the
United States Department of Agriculture, Big Agriculture or “Big Ag” for short, and Big
Pharmaceutical, or “Big Pharm” for short. USDA, supported by many nutritionists and
dieticians, voice concern over eliminating entire food groups, especially for long term health and
because it may worsen underlying conditions (Heid, 2016; Miller, 2014). Big Ag is a group
-
Program Analysis 3
loosely made of farmers of soybean, corn, and dairy, all of which are eliminated on the diet; Big
Pharma are companies that develop and market drugs for medication treating autoimmune
disorders, the same disorders Whole 30® coincidentally seems to cure.
Whole 30® uses steps in its operations: Step 1 is learning the basics, Step 2 is learning
the rules, Step 3 is committing, Step 4 is building support, Step 5 is purging your food stores and
meal preparation, Step 6 is planning for conflicts, Step 7 is hiding the scale, and Step 8 is start
the 30 days of elimination (Whole30.com, n.d.). The operation is rigidly detailed, which is what
seems to make it successful and off-putting to many.
Whole 30® has a large testimonial section touting performance success, although it is not
always clear if these are healthy individuals or individuals looking to fix a disorder. CrossFit
Potential and CrossFit Orillia members produced large strength and endurance gains on Whole
30 (Crossfit7220, 2015). Many dieticians seem unable to stick to 30 days for a true evaluation
(prettylittlegrub, 2016; Toups, 2015), and outside dietician evaluations seem negative (Miller,
2014). The Whole30® program has not been formally evaluated at this time. My evaluation
would have evaluated the implementation of Whole30®, because the outcomes at this time point
to success: a 2013 survey of more than 2300 Whole30’ers, 87% started and completed program
as reported by Melissa Hartwig (Ballantyne, 2014).
Political context is an important factor for Whole 30®, especially as the USDA and
dieticians in general, Big Ag, and Big Pharma all oppose the program. Whole 30® is readily
available to consumers via a website and multiple books, as well as a burgeoning support
community of social media. It is a direct contrast to the Standard American Diet (SAD) that is
endorsed by the USDA, notably “avoid too much fat, saturated fat, and cholesterol” and “eat
plenty of…grains” (Sisson, 2015). Big Ag has put effort into paid advertising, pro-agriculture
-
Program Analysis 4
campaigns, and agriculture-friendly foundations to combat bad publicity, and Big Pharma has a
well-established track record with advertising (Morris, 2011).
The biggest potential ethical challenges in the rapid rise in popularity. “Fad diets and diet
cults appeal to emotion, not to evidence-based reasoning. They give their followers a sense of
belonging, a sense of control over their health, and a virtuous feeling of doing something that is
difficult but good for them…true believers can always find a few cherry-picked scientific studies
that tend to support their beliefs” (Hall, p. 15, 2014). All paleo-based clinical trials to date have
been with small sample groups, even if they all promote the lifestyle (Ballantyne, 2016).
Ultimately, Whole 30® is a very restrictive diet that either cleans up an already healthy
consumer, or affects them in the long term. It may help someone or it may bring to light serious
medical conditions. Miller correctly identifies with Fitzgerald in that “science has not identified
the healthiest way to eat” (2014).
-
Program Analysis 5
References
Ballantyne, S. (2014, March 24). Who should do the Whole30: an interview with Melissa
Hartwig [Blog post]. The Paleo Mom. Retrieved from
https://www.thepaleomom.com/whole30-interview-melissa-hartwig/
Crossfit7220. (2015, April 26). Whole30/MEBB study: Crossfit Potential and Crossfit Orillia
[Blog post]. Retrieved from https://cf7220.wordpress.com/2015/04/26/whole30-results-
on-performance/
Hall, H. (2014). Food myths: what science knows (and does not know) about diet and nutrition.
Skeptic Magazine, 19(4), p. 10-19
Heid, M. (2016, October 12). You asked: should I try the Whole30 diet? Time. Retrieved from
http://time.com/4525768/whole30-diet-nutrition-food/
Jackson, K. (2014, October 8). How I ate away my RA (Rheumatoid Arthritis) with the paleo
diet. Retrieved from http://www.paleoplan.com/2014/10-08/ra-rheumatoid-arthritis-
paleo-diet/
Miller, A. M. (2014, December 15). Should you try the Whole 30 diet? U.S. News and World
Report. Retrieved from http://health.usnews.com/health-news/health-
wellness/articles/2014/12/15/should-you-try-the-whole30-diet
Morris, F. (2011, March 4). Agriculture industry seeks to restore its image. Retrieved from
http://www.npr.org/2011/03/09/134263421/agriculture-industry-seeks-to-restore-its-
image
Prettylittlegrub.com. (2016, April 28). My Whole 30 experience and why I quit after 8 days
[Blog post]. Retrieved from http://www.prettylittlegrub.com/2016/04/28/my-whole-30-
experience/
https://www.thepaleomom.com/whole30-interview-melissa-hartwig/https://cf7220.wordpress.com/2015/04/26/whole30-results-on-performance/https://cf7220.wordpress.com/2015/04/26/whole30-results-on-performance/http://time.com/4525768/whole30-diet-nutrition-food/http://www.paleoplan.com/2014/10-08/ra-rheumatoid-arthritis-paleo-diet/http://www.paleoplan.com/2014/10-08/ra-rheumatoid-arthritis-paleo-diet/http://health.usnews.com/health-news/health-wellness/articles/2014/12/15/should-you-try-the-whole30-diethttp://health.usnews.com/health-news/health-wellness/articles/2014/12/15/should-you-try-the-whole30-diethttp://www.npr.org/2011/03/09/134263421/agriculture-industry-seeks-to-restore-its-imagehttp://www.npr.org/2011/03/09/134263421/agriculture-industry-seeks-to-restore-its-imagehttp://www.prettylittlegrub.com/2016/04/28/my-whole-30-experience/http://www.prettylittlegrub.com/2016/04/28/my-whole-30-experience/
-
Program Analysis 6
Sisson, M. (2015, October 22). A brief history of U.S. dietary guidelines [Blog post]. Retrieved
from http://www.marksdailyapple.com/a-brief-history-of-u-s-dietary-guidelines/
Toups, K. (2015, May 25). Whole 30: a wholly misguided approach to healthy eating [Blog
post]. Retrieved from https://kellytoups.com/2015/05/25/whole30-a-wholly-misguided-
approach-to-healthy-eating/
Whole9life.com. (n.d.). You ask, we answer: “do you ever cheat?” [Blog post]. Retrieved from
http://whole9life.com/2014/02/you-ask-we-answer-do-you-ever-cheat/
Whole30.com. (n.d.). Rules. Retrieved from http://whole30.com/whole30-program-rules/
Whole30. (2014, December 18). 9 steps to a successful group Whole30 “challenge” [Blog post].
Retrieved from http://whole30.com/2014/12/group-whole30-challenge/
http://www.marksdailyapple.com/a-brief-history-of-u-s-dietary-guidelines/https://kellytoups.com/2015/05/25/whole30-a-wholly-misguided-approach-to-healthy-eating/https://kellytoups.com/2015/05/25/whole30-a-wholly-misguided-approach-to-healthy-eating/http://whole9life.com/2014/02/you-ask-we-answer-do-you-ever-cheat/http://whole30.com/whole30-program-rules/http://whole30.com/2014/12/group-whole30-challenge/
-
Program: Whole30® diet Logic Model Situation: Americans are continuing to grow obese at an alarming rate, despite government food guidance. Whole30® program is a diet is set to make losing weight effortless, breaks food addiction, and change the food lifestyle forever.
• Whole30®
rules
• Whole30® online support
• Whole30® book
• Paleo blogs
Make people knowledgeable on the effects of
certain foods • Food addicts
• Sugar addicts
• Carbohydrate addicts
• People with chronic
conditions
Awareness of psychological food issues (bad habits, comfort)
• Obese people
• Athletes
• Curious people
• Type “A” people
Participants heal aches and pains
Inputs Outputs Activities Participation
Outcomes Short Medium Long
Promote clean eating lifestyle
Improved sleep quality and self-esteem
Participants balance hormones
Participants reduce hunger
Participants balance immune system
• Improved energy levels, mood
• Stress-relief
Assumptions
• Everyone suffers from a “hangover” detox in first few days
• Everyone suffers from food in some way
• Everyone has tried and failed at a diet before
External Factors
• Social factors affecting participants (competition for time, including family time)
• USDA campaign for standard American diet vs. Paleo diet
Effortless weight loss
Dramatically decrease or eliminate symptoms of medical condition
• Combat the obesity epidemic and health issues of Americans
• Change in lifestyle
• Change relationships with
food
Rev. 7/09
-
Program Evaluation Approaches Comparison and Questions
A Comparison of Advantages and Disadvantages of Various Program Evaluation
Approaches and Process Evaluation Questions
Vika Thayer
Walden University
Dr. Michael Burke
Program Evaluation (EIDT 6130)
February 15, 2017
-
Program Evaluation Approaches Comparison and Questions
A Comparison of Advantages and Disadvantages of Various Program Evaluation
Approaches and Process Evaluation Questions
Of the four general types of evaluation approaches studied, including expertise and
consumer-oriented approaches, program-oriented approaches, decision-oriented approaches, and
participant-oriented approaches, the obvious choice for a program evaluation for the Whole30®
is a program-oriented approach (See Table 1). An expertise-oriented approach involves many
biases, either entirely for paleo-style eating by someone who has adopted that lifestyle, or
entirely against paleo by someone who has a strong bias towards another diet, with diet meaning
way of eating rather than a food restriction. Consumer-oriented approaches follow suite, most
notably U.S. News & World Report ranking Whole30® as the #38 of 38 diets studied.
Decision-oriented approaches are “meant to serve decision makers,” which has nothing to
do with the Whole30® and therefore, the evaluation (Fitzpatrick, Sanders, and Worthen, p. 172,
2010). A participant-oriented approach is an interesting approach that could work for
Whole30®, except that stakeholders have vastly opposing interests, and an inexperienced
evaluator like myself would be woefully inept at facilitating an agreement on evaluation
questions and everything that followed. On the other hand, a program-oriented approach is
feasible, practical, and effective for this program evaluation.
The Program Evaluation Standards speak of feasibility as practical procedures (F2) and
contextual viability (F3) for this program evaluation. The evaluator must not stick to
preordained standards but be “practical and responsive to the way the program operates”
(Fitzpatrick, et. al., p. 500, 2010). Theories and ideas start the process, but the actuality of the
program should drive the evaluation. “The point is to understand the program from beginning to
-
Program Evaluation Approaches Comparison and Questions
end and, then, to choose the appropriate links or components to evaluate given the stage of the
program and the information needs of the stakeholders” (Fitzpatrick, et. al., p. 167, 2010). Only
by thoroughly coming to know the program and the objectives can the evaluator effectively
proceed.
The Whole30® program is best evaluated by producing a logic model, using the Duignan
Visual Evaluation Approach to form the questions and answers, and displaying it in a poster
version (Laureate Education, n.d.). This approach produces a product that walks the stakeholder
step-by-step through the intended outcomes, questions to evaluate how the program might reach
them, and then the answers to those questions. Using Duignan’s approach overcomes the usual
limitation of unintentionally ignoring “program actions, links, outputs, or outcomes that merit
attention” (Fitzpatrick, et. al., p. 167, 2010).
The Whole30® program has proven successful outcomes. A quick online search for
“Whole30 success” brings up over 400,000 results. This evaluation will evaluate processes, to
analyze if the implementation is sound, and if there is any room for improvement. Five
evaluation questions (1-5) that determine what the Whole30® evaluation will answer are based
on recommendations from Fitzpatrick, Sanders and Worthen (p. 327, 2010). The questions and
associated standards are:
1. Have the appropriate personnel been selected to implement the program?
Standard: Appropriate personnel are those who have successfully completed
one Whole30®, can identify 3 Whole30® resources (recipe sites, online
forums, motivators, etc.), are willing to provide daily support (either
personally or via Whole30® website), and use other motivators than weight
loss (Whole 30, 2014).
2. What portion of participants complete the program?
-
Program Evaluation Approaches Comparison and Questions
Standard: 75% of participants from Day 1 will successfully complete through
Day 30 of Whole30® program. Success is 100% rule compliance for 30 days.
The rules are basically to eat real foods, including seafood, poultry, red meat,
eggs, oils, vegetables, fruits, nuts and seeds; and to avoid dairy, grains,
legumes (including peanut butter), alcohol, added sugar, and additives like
MSG, sulfites, and carrageenans.
3. Is the implementation of Whole30® at the necessary level of intensity and duration?
Standard: Implementation of the Whole30® is at the necessary level of
intensity and duration to break food cravings and emotional eating, where
intensity is 100% compliance and duration is 30 days
4. Do participants take part in the intended manner?
Standard: 75% of participants take part in the intended manner, which is
100% rule compliance in 30 days.
5. Is the Whole30® program encouraged outside of the website and affiliated links?
Standard: Whole30® is encouraged worldwide, with workout partners, office
colleagues, and bloggers.
These questions will impact the program evaluation by highlighting program implementation to
identify if there might be better procedures for conducting the program.
The evaluation will not cover context, needs, or outcomes or the Whole30®. The validity
of the Whole30® has everyone from researchers, archeologists, doctors and dieticians
conflicting, so context will not be evaluated. Needs of the Whole30® are completely qualitative
per person, regardless on the long-term outcome of societal effect, so that will also not be
evaluated. Lastly, the outcomes of Whole30® are overwhelmingly positive for those that stick
through the 30 days, so that evaluation would not be useful to most stakeholders. The group of
-
Program Evaluation Approaches Comparison and Questions
stakeholders involved in determining evaluation questions would be those interested in
improving Whole30® implementation and those that had perceived to fail because of
implementation issues.
-
Program Evaluation Approaches Comparison and Questions
Table 1: Evaluation Approach Comparison
Evaluation Model Advantages Disadvantages
EXPERTISE AND CONSUMER-ORIENTED
APPROACHES
Expertise-Oriented Approach (Fitzpatrick, et.
al., p. 142, 2010)
- “Emphasized central role of expert
judgment, experience, and human
wisdom”
- “Articulated standards help to introduce
consistency across experts”
- “Experts should look beyond the
standards and use their connoisseurship to
describe, interpret, and judge” important
qualities
Consumer-Oriented Approach (Fitzpatrick, et.
al., p. 147-149, 2010)
- “does not rely on content experts, but
rather evaluation experts”
- “programs with “randomized control trials
(RCTs) or regression discontinuity
designs…receive the highest
ratings…studies using quasi-experimental
designs may be endorsed with
reservations”
- Scriven’s “process emphasized a
comprehensive appraisal of the product,
including need, side effects, process,
support for users, and cost, as well as
several criteria concerning outcomes or
performance”
- ”Prompt the potential user to consider the
effectiveness of the program in achieving
its outcomes and to provide a central
location for accessing comparable
information of educational programs and
products”
Expertise-Oriented Approach (Fitzpatrick, et.
al., p. 142-143, 2010)
- “May permit evaluators to make
judgments that reflect little more than
personal biases”
- “The presumed expertise of the experts is
a potential weakness…too often, the team
contains only content expert...but may lack
experts in the evaluation process itself”
- “Independence or neutrality of experts are
questioned”
- “Lack of transparency of the process”
- “Expert judgement cannot be easily
dismissed” (like it would for an art critic)
Consumer-Oriented Approach (Fitzpatrick, et.
al., p. 147-149, 2010)
- “success [is] confined to program
outcomes” only
-
Program Evaluation Approaches Comparison and Questions
PROGRAM-ORIENTED EVALUATION
APPROACHES
(Fitzpatrick, et. al., p. 166-169, 2010)
- Simple (“easily understood, easy to follow
and implement, and produces information
that program directors…agree is relevant
to their mission”)
- “Caused program directors to reflect about
their intentions and to clarify formerly
ambiguous generalities about intended
outcomes”
- Face validity – “discussion of appropriate
objectives with the community being
served”
- “Logic models overcome many
disadvantages by requiring dialogue,
achieving an understanding and a clear
articulation of the reasoning behind the
program”
(Fitzpatrick, et. al., p. 166-169, 2010)
- “Single minded focus on objectives and their
measurement at the cost of evaluators ignoring
other important outcomes…beneficial and
detrimental, causing judgements to be
incomplete”
- Neglects program description, “the need to
gain an understanding of the context in which
the program operations and the effects of that
context on program success or failure”
- “Evaluators may neglect their role in
considering the value of the objectives
themselves”
- “Likely to focus on the theory and may ignore
unintended program actions, links outputs, or
outcomes that merit attention; desire to test the
theory as a whole may prompt them to neglect
values or information needs of stakeholders”
- “Oversimplifying the complexity of program
delivery and context; can lead to a failure to
understand how difficult, and costly, it is for
programs…to achieve stated goals”
DECISION-ORIENTED EVALUATION
APPROACHES
(Fitzpatrick, et. al., p. 184-185, 2010)
- “Focus on decision makers to evaluation
results will be used”
- “Among oldest approaches and still in
frequent use...their longevity speaks to their
success”
- “Succeed because they provide information
that helps people, typically managers or
policymakers, make decisions”
- “Evaluator in in charge of the evaluation and,
although focusing on the decisions of primary
stakeholders, will often use advisory groups or
(Fitzpatrick, et. al., p. 184-185, 2010)
- “Too focused on decisions; may neglect
stakeholders with less power”
-“Focus on managers could restrict the
information that evaluators seek, the types of
data they collect, and the dissemination of the
results”
- “Evaluators must take care to not come
across as a ‘hired gun’”
- “Programs that lack decisive leadership are
not likely to benefit from this approach to
evaluation”
-
Program Evaluation Approaches Comparison and Questions
seek information from other stakeholders to
supplement decisions about the evaluation”
- “Assume important decision and info to make
them have been clearly identified in advance,
and that they will remain stable during the
evaluation…evaluator should be prepared to
frequently reassess and make adjustments for
change”
PARTICIPANT-ORIENTED EVALUATION
APPROACHES
(Fitzpatrick, et. al., p. 223-224, 2010)
- “Awareness of value of stakeholder inputs
throughout study”
- “Stakeholders can provide more valid data
than evaluators”
- “Involving stakeholders [allows them to] gain
trust in evaluation, begin to understand it, and
consider how they might use it”
- “Policymakers know what other programs
they are considering, the budgetary and time
constraints for their decisions, and the factors,
political and otherwise, that may influence their
decisions”
- “Many evaluations make use of advisory
groups of stakeholders to pursue this
partnership – to exchange information on the
program, the clients, and the evaluation”
- “Deep participatory involvement of a few
managers and staff…is probably most
successful…in formative evaluations – those
concerned with program improvement.
Summative decisions are often made by
policymakers who are higher in the
organization…not likely to have the time to
become closely involved in the evaluation of a
program”
(Fitzpatrick, et. al., p. 224-226, 2010)
- “Two broad categories of drawbacks are (a)
the feasibility, or manageability, of
implementing a successful participative study;
and (b) the credibility of the results to those
who do not participate in the process”
- “Can be increased time and costs”
- “Difficult to obtain participation for the most
disadvantaged stakeholders”
- “Few evaluators have extensive training or
skills in facilitation, particularly with groups that
may have political differences”
- “Outside audience wonder if stakeholders are
able to be objective; there is potential from
bias; it is difficult to judge ones’ own work
objectively”
- “Stakeholders may not be competent to
perform the tasks that some evaluation
approaches call for; may even be true for
some evaluators” who can then call on a
colleague
-
Program Evaluation Approaches Comparison and Questions
References
Fitzpatrick, J., Sanders, J., & Worthen, B. (2010). Program evaluation: Alternative
approaches and practical guidelines (4th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson
Laureate Education (Producer). (n.d.). Evaluating programs in instructional design:
Developing logic models (outcomes models) [Video file]. Baltimore, MD: Author.
Whole 30. (2014, December 18). 9 steps to a successful group Whole20 “challenge”
[Blog post]. Retrieved from http://whole30.com/2014/12/group-whole30-challenge/
http://whole30.com/2014/12/group-whole30-challenge/
-
Reporting Strategy 1
Whole30® Process Evaluation Reporting Strategy
Vika Thayer
Walden University
Dr. Michael Burke
Program Evaluation (EIDT 6130)
February 26, 2017
-
Reporting Strategy 2
Whole30® Process Evaluation Reporting Strategy
Stakeholder Reporting Strategy Implications Stakeholder Involvement
Whole30® creators and
promoters
- Interim and final reports, to reach many audiences
- Executive summary - Verbal presentation - Infographics or
Webgraphics
- News media communications
All types of reports should go
to the creators and promoters.
“General program managers
and staff are interested in the
most detail on program
operations, outputs, and
outcomes. They know the
program well and want to
improve it” (Fitzpatrick, p. 459,
2010).
Melissa Hartwig reported that
“In a 2013 survey of more than
2,300 Whole30’ers, 87% who
started the program were able
to successfully complete all 30
days” (Ballantyne, 2014).
Positive implementation results
would back up the existing
process and further validate the
results. Negative
implementation results could
become a factor for
overhauling the implementation
strategy, or provide feedback as
a need for more resources. I
believe that may have
happened a few times, now that
Whole30® is on version 5.0
and recommending guidelines
for challenges (Whole30, 2011;
2014).
These stakeholders should be
involved in weekly updates
because one iteration of the
program is only 30 days long.
Any unforeseen results should
be discussed within 48 hours.
Whole30® consumers
- Executive summaries - Posters - Infographics or
Webgraphics
- News media communications
Consumers and potential
consumers will be looking for
Positive implementation results
will have consumers practicing
Whole30® as usual. Negative
implementation implications
will likely not affect current
consumers much because it is a
short program. I would expect
a negative evaluation to change
how the creators implement the
These stakeholders may be
involved during the evaluation
for information collection, both
initial and follow-up questions.
-
Reporting Strategy 3
brief summaries of the
evaluation, because most will
be looking for positive
reinforcement of their choices.
The saavy looking for more
information will visit the
Whole30® website or promoter
websites.
program, thereby effecting
consumers at that time.
Under Secretary for Farm and
Foreign Agricultural Services
as a representative of the Farm
Service Agency (FSA) under
the United States Department
of Agriculture (USDA) – for
soybean, corn, dairy farmers
- Executive summaries - News media
communications
The Under Secretary and policy
makers “external to the
organization who may vote on
issues relevant to the
program…are typically more
interested in information about
outcomes and impact”
(Fitzpatrick, p. 459, 2010).
A positive or negative
implementation evaluation will
not have much implication for
the Under Secretary, unless the
implementation influenced the
outcome. A decline or negative
outcome would influence
advertising and sales.
These stakeholders may be
involved in choosing evaluation
questions and deliberations
over content.
Under Secretary for Food,
Nutrition, and Consumer
Services as a representative of
the Center for Nutrition Policy
and Promotion (CNPP) – for
dieticians and nutritionists
- Newsletters, bulletins brochures, posters
- Executive summaries - Infographics or
Webgraphics
- News media communications
The Under Secretary and policy
makers “external to the
organization who may vote on
issues relevant to the
program…are typically more
A positive or negative
implementation evaluation will
not have much implication for
the Under Secretary, unless the
implementation influenced the
outcome. A decline or negative
outcome might influence
statistics, studies, and
advertising.
These stakeholders may be
involved in choosing evaluation
questions and deliberations
over content.
-
Reporting Strategy 4
interested in information about
outcomes and impact”
(Fitzpatrick, p. 459, 2010).
Pharmaceutical Research and
Manufacturers of America
(PhRMA), Biotechnology
Industry Organization, and the
top 20 pharmaceutical
companies
- Executive summaries - News media
communications
The pharmaceutical lobby will
be “more interested in
information about outcomes
and impact” (Fitzpatrick, p.
459, 2010).
A positive or negative
implementation evaluation
again will not have much
implication for Big Pharma,
unless the implementation
influenced the outcome. I
believe a decline or negative
evaluation would result in
either a little lest spent in
advertising because Whole30®
would not be as big of a
competitor, or that advertising
would rise dramatically to end
Whole30® completely.
These stakeholders may be
involved in choosing evaluation
questions and deliberations
over content.
Gyms, medical/wellness
clinics, small businesses, and
other community groups”
(Whole30, 2014).
- Infographics or Webgraphics
- Executive summary - News media
communications
“Those less familiar with the
program or its totality…are
also interested in brief program
descriptions” (Fitzpatrick, p.
459, 2010).
Positive implementation results
will have implementers
continuing their programs as
they are. Negative
implementation implications
would still not affect current
implementers much because it
is a short program. I would
expect a negative evaluation to
change how the creators
implement the program,
thereby effecting these groups
when a new version would be
produced.
These stakeholders may be
involved during the evaluation
for information collection, both
initial and follow-up questions.
-
Reporting Strategy 5
• Values, Standards, and Criteria:
Fitzpatrick, Sanders, and Worthen state that “evaluation is often valued by stakeholders because they perceive it to be objective,” and
that “the evaluator’s strength lies in the integrity of the study, the use of appropriate methods, honest and balanced interpretation of
results, and judgements and recommendations based on those results” (p. 69, 73, 2010). These authors also elaborate on Chelimsky’s
recommendations for “evaluative independence and the political requirements of a democratic society,” which are (1) “expand the
design phase” to have time to learn about political context; (2) “include public groups in evaluations,” where an “advisory or planning
task force” for collecting data increases validity and credibility by collecting data from many different perspectives; (3) “lean heavily
on negotiation” to find room for compromise and change; and (4) “never stop thinking about credibility” because that is an evaluator’s
strength (Fitzpatrick, et. al., p. 72-73, 2010). A few Program Evaluation Standards I will use to ensure openness and credibility are:
(U1) evaluator credibility by using qualified evaluators; (U2) attention to the full range of stakeholders; (U3) evaluation purposes that
are negotiated based on the needs of the stakeholders; (U4) clarification and specification of “individual and cultural values
underpinning purposes, processes, and judgments;” (F3) “recognize, monitor and balance cultural and political interest and needs of
individuals and groups”…through (P2) formal agreements; (P5) transparency and disclosure; and (P6) conflicts of interest”
(Fitzpatrick, et. al., p 499-500, 2010).
I have biases towards Whole30® being a success because I believe that it does enable self-control, weight loss, great sleep, and relief
from ailments. I have completed two Whole30® challenges approximately 5-8 years ago. I also believe that the USDA, in both the
FSA and CNPP capacities, might have an unspoken agreement to promote soy, corn, and dairy. I am aware that individual farmers are
likely separate from this effort. These biases must be reported so that they can be mitigated throughout the final evaluation report.
That being stated, this process evaluation, rather than summative program evaluation, helps to ensure those biases do not come into
play, because the evaluation is not about outcomes, but rather about a successful process.
• Potential ethical issues:
A potential purpose for the results is to promote understanding of issues, changing attitudes, changing the nature of dialogue or
interaction among groups, influencing policy, and introducing those involved to new ways of thinking through evaluation (Fitzpatrick,
p. 455, 2010). Whole30®, which requires elimination of soy, corn, wheat, and dairy, can be thought to promote the destruction of
some family’s livelihood. Understandably, some dialogue and negotiation will always be required, and likely through the entire
evaluation. Whole30® has never been formally evaluated, and fledgling scientific papers are scarce, with the first one being
published in 1984. Additionally, the USDA FSA and CNPP are not likely to be open to receive input to change their
recommendations. “Clients and other – the public – look to evaluators to provide objective, independent judgments about the quality
-
Reporting Strategy 6
of programs, products, or policies. We use analytic methods to judge the product and assume that the transparency and validity of
those methods will substantiate our findings” (Fitzpatrick, et. al., p. 79, 2010). Morris and Cohn via Fitzpatrick, Sanders, and
Worthen, cite “possible ethical problems as challenges in the contracting phase, ethical concerns regarding confidentiality or
disclosure agreements, challenges in presenting findings, and ethical concerns after the report is complete concerning
misinterpretation or misuse…almost two-thirds of the evaluators reported being pressured by stakeholders to alter results” (p. 79-80,
2010).
.
-
Reporting Strategy 7
References
Ballantyne, S. (2014, March 24). Who should do the Whole30: an interview with Melissa
Hartwig [Blog post]. The Paleo Mom. Retrieved from
https://www.thepaleomom.com/whole30-interview-melissa-hartwig/
Fitzpatrick, J., Sanders, J., & Worthen, B. (2010). Program evaluation: alternative approaches
and practical guidelines (4th ed). Boston, MA: Pearson.
Gifford, J. (20123, January 29). Infographics are dead. Long live webgraphics. Venture Beat.
Retrieved from http://venturebeat.com/2013/01/29/infographics-webgraphics/
Whole30. (2014, December 18). 9 steps to a successful group Whole30 “challenge” [Blog post].
Retrieved from http://whole30.com/2014/12/group-whole30-challenge/
Whole30. (2011, October 17). Better butter on the Whole30 version 5.0 [Blog post]. Retrieved
from http://whole30.com/2011/10/better-butter-on-the-whole30-version-5-0/
https://www.thepaleomom.com/whole30-interview-melissa-hartwig/http://venturebeat.com/2013/01/29/infographics-webgraphics/http://whole30.com/2014/12/group-whole30-challenge/http://whole30.com/2011/10/better-butter-on-the-whole30-version-5-0/
WK2AssgnThayerV_updatedWK3AssgnThayerV_updatedWK4AssgnThayerV_updatedWK5AssgnThayerV_updateReporting Strategy_FinalWhole30