HealthWorks Efficacy for its Peer Leaders

1. CSA 504 Kate Curley HealthWorks Efficacy for its Peer Leaders Kate Curley

2. I. Who and what is HealthWorks? • HealthWorks members: • All take Biobehavioral Health Training course (BBH 324) • May do health promotion outreach and programming • May perform HIV counseling • May teach health education workshops • Participants of the assessment • All 34 HealthWorks members • Majority women • Undergraduates at The Pennsylvania State University-University Park • Organized under the Office of Health Promotion and Wellness (HPW) in University Health Services (Liao, 2012)

3. II. Purpose of the study and potential implications • Peer group is powerful (Astin, 1993) • Growing programs on college campuses: • Peer education (Cuseo, 2010; Ender & Kay, 200) • Leadership development (Dugan & Komives, 2007) • Healthworks is a combo of above: • Significant resources • Importance of assessment (Council for the Advancement of Standards, 2009; Keeling, 2006) • No available assessment measurements apply or have been done • Justification or Modification

4. III. Research question Ultimate Question: How does HealthWorks benefit the peer leaders? The Assessment: Seeks to discover the effectiveness of the HealthWorks program as defined by the extent to which peer leaders can articulate their ability to meet a combination of peer education and leadership learning outcomes developed through the literature review.

5. IV. Literature Review: a) Peer Education • Critical thinking skills • Educational topic and professional preparation gains • Personal positive impact on one’s behavior and attitude • Greater self-confidence, self-awareness, and self-efficacy • Presentation skills and comfort in presenting • Multicultural competence and diversity sensitivity • Helping skills (Butler, Hetzell, & Sherwood, 2008; Colvin & Ashman, 2010; Keller, Frank-Bader, Beltram, & Bowar-Ferres, 2011; Owen, 2011; Voorhees, 2008; Wawrzynski, LoConte, & Straker, 2011)

6. b) Leadership Development Group Values • Collaboration • Common Purpose • Controversy with Civility (Komives, 2011) Individual Values • Consciousness of Self • Congruence • Commitment Societal/ Community Values • Citizenship CHANGEthrough COMMITMENT: • Peer educators • Leadership development

7. VII. Limitations and Concerns • Data is self-reported • HealthWorkssupervisor biased when compiling data • Time and expense constraints • Possible method discrepancies One of the biggest limitations of this study is that the data is largely self-reported and while this makes sense in the study’s theoretical framework, a 360 degree feedback from their peers and students outside of the program with whom they interact would provide a more comprehensive and unbiased assessment. Another significant limitation is that the person compiling the data and interviewing the students is also the supervisor of the program and potentially can incorporate bias into the one-on-one meetings with the students. While doing the concurrent mixed method analysis attempts at addressing some of these limitations, more multi-method approaches are needed. Finally, a larger limitation of this mixed-method design is that the process takes extensive amount of time and expertise to do correctly. Plus, if there are discrepancies in the two methods, sometimes it is difficult to make sense of the differing results. Despite the limitations, the analysis brought about significant enough results that some of these limitations still do not serve to discount the overall findings. A more thorough description of these findings and the discussion will continue in the following sections. *Full Reference list provided on table below