Evaluation Protocol

Although the contents of an evaluation protocol will vary according to the program assessed, the guidelines below provide an overview of components that authors may wish to consider including in their submission.

Background

• Evaluation Rationale: Concisely develop a rationale for conducting the evaluation in three paragraphs that outline:
• What is currently known on the topic of interest with reference to existing literature and relevant previous work in the area;
• What is currently not known with a particular focus on the gaps in evidence that will be addressed by completing this evaluation;
• What is the purpose of this evaluation with specific details of novelty and how this evaluation will address gaps in the current evidence-base.
• Evaluation Objectives: Clearly outline the primary objective and any secondary objectives by articulating comprehensive and precise evaluation questions for each objective.

Methods

• Brief description of the sport-for-development program: Provide sufficient details to enable the reader to understand the critical components of the program. This should include program objectives and a basic logic model for how these are intended to be achieved.
• Evaluation Design: Briefly describe the evaluation design with specific reference to:
• Research Paradigm (if appropriate)
• Quantitative vs. qualitative vs. mixed methods
• Data collection framework (e.g., inclusion of control group, pre-post assessment, ad hoc/post hoc framework for analysis, participant action research)

It is recommended that complex evaluation designs are presented diagrammatically.

• Target Population: Describe who can participate in the evaluation by outlining specific inclusion and exclusion criteria for participants.
• Sample Size and Selection: Describe any procedures used to determine an appropriate sample for the evaluation and how the participants will be selected.
• Outcomes: For quantitative evaluation, clearly define the primary outcome and any secondary outcomes.
• Data Collection Procedures: Outline procedures for recruiting participants and obtaining consent to participate in the evaluation. The location of data collection should also be described (e.g., schools). Provide a full description of the quantitative measurement protocols / tools (e.g., questionnaire) and/or qualitative assessment procedures (e.g., focus group / interview question sheet). It may also be beneficial to report any information known about metric quality (e.g., reliability, validity, credibility).
• Data Analysis and Presentation: Describe how the collected data will be analysed (e.g., statistical tests, thematic analysis, coding etc.) and presented (e.g., tabulated, representative quotes, themes etc.). Although the specific methods may evolve as the evaluation develops, the broad analytical framework should be described at the outset.
• Collaborating organisations: Identify all stakeholders contributing to the sport-for-development program and evaluation.
• Ethical approval: Describe any ethical approval that has been sought or is pending. (NOTE: JSFD prioritises evaluations that are undertaken with formal ethical approval, but if this is not readily available through the participating institutions, the evaluation team should identify any potential ethical issues and describe how these will be managed appropriately – see the following link for guidance.

Discussion

• Provide a brief discussion of the evaluation protocol in two paragraphs that outline:
• Its strengths with an explanation of how the proposed evaluation will progress current evidence and practice in the sport-for-development sector;
• Its limitations with an explanation for the reasons behind these and how they may influence the results of the proposed evaluation.

References

• Include a maximum of 20 references.

 

Book Reviews

The most important element of a book review is to provide a commentary, not merely a summary. You should devote relatively little space to surveying the content. Instead, present a brief outline or synopsis, indicating the general topic, the chronological scope, the major emphasis of the text and which, if any, aspects of the focus area are inadequately developed. The bulk of your review, should concentrate on your evaluation of the way the author(s) handled the issues discussed. The reviewer should be as direct as possible and should consider:

• What are the key points, recommendations and conclusions?
• What are your reactions to the issues raised?
• How did the book enhance your understanding of the issues?

It will be helpful to the reader if you refer to specific sections of the book to illustrate your statements and conclusions, but it is generally not advisable to quote extensively from it. Do not try to make more points than can be accomplished thoroughly in your review. It is better to make a few points well than many points poorly.  You should support your key points with your own arguments and with brief examples from the book under review. Finally, it is important for you to draw critical conclusions as to the meaning and importance of the issues that you have identified.

If the book you are reviewing is a teaching text, you might also want to comment on the suitability of the book for classroom use:

• What populations/cohorts of students?
• Which disciplines might find the content relevant/useful?
• What chapters might be more useful than others?