CPRC key terms

A structured process of gathering data to identify gaps between current and desired conditions in a population, so that programs can target the most important problems with scarce resources.

Conditions or attributes that respectively raise or lower the likelihood of a problem outcome. Prevention planning weighs both, aiming to reduce risk and strengthen protection at individual, family, school, and community levels.

An intervention or approach whose effectiveness is supported by credible research, ideally several rigorous studies or systematic reviews, and which is selected and delivered consistent with the conditions under which it was tested.

A structured, protocol-driven synthesis of all relevant studies on a question, using explicit search and appraisal rules. Meta-analysis is a related technique that statistically pools effect sizes across studies.

The voluntary agreement of a person to take part in research or programming after being told the purpose, procedures, risks, benefits, and alternatives, documented in language the person can understand.

An independent committee that reviews research involving human subjects before it begins, checking that risks are minimized, selection is fair, and consent and privacy protections meet ethical and regulatory standards.

A selection method in which every member of a defined population has a known, non-zero chance of being chosen, supporting representativeness and allowing estimates of sampling error.

The consistency of a measurement or instrument: whether repeated administration, alternate forms, or different raters produce similar results under comparable conditions.

The degree to which an instrument or study measures or demonstrates what it claims to, encompassing content, construct, and criterion evidence and, for studies, internal and external forms.

Non-numeric information such as interview transcripts, focus group notes, or observation records, analyzed for themes and meaning. It is useful for explaining how and why a program works in context.

Information already collected by someone else for another purpose, such as census files, school records, or surveillance surveys, reanalyzed to answer a new question at lower cost but with less control over quality.

A one-page picture linking resources, activities, outputs, and short- and long-term outcomes, showing the assumed pathway by which a program is expected to produce change; it guides planning, monitoring, and evaluation.

A narrative and diagrammed explanation of how and why an intervention is expected to work, spelling out the preconditions, mechanisms, and assumptions that must hold for intended outcomes to occur.

Program objectives written to be specific, measurable, achievable, relevant, and time-bound, so that progress can be observed and judged rather than merely described in general terms.

The subgroup a program deliberately targets because its need, risk, or burden is greatest and resources are too limited to serve everyone; defining it sharply shapes recruitment, design, and messaging.

The deliberate involvement of people with an interest in the program, including participants, staff, funders, partners, and policymakers, in planning and decisions, which builds trust, improves fit, and supports later use of findings.

The degree to which a community's leaders, resources, and attitudes are prepared to address an issue. Assessing it helps planners match strategies to the current stage rather than pushing ahead prematurely.

Activities that strengthen the skills, infrastructure, partnerships, and systems a community or organization needs to plan, deliver, and sustain programs on its own over time.

A written strategy for keeping a program's benefits going after initial funding ends, covering diversified funding, institutional hosting, trained local staff, policy support, and ongoing data use.

The systematic modification of a program's content, language, or delivery so it fits the culture, values, and context of a new population while preserving the core elements linked to its effectiveness.

The extent to which a program is delivered as designed, covering adherence to core components, dosage, quality of delivery, participant responsiveness, and differentiation from other services.

The amount of program content actually received by participants, expressed as sessions attended, hours of exposure, or activities completed; too little exposure can make an otherwise sound program look ineffective.

A small-scale trial run of a program or instrument in a real setting before full launch, used to surface practical problems, estimate recruitment and time demands, and refine procedures cheaply.

Ongoing, tailored support such as coaching, consultation, troubleshooting, and materials, given to implementers so they can deliver a program competently and solve problems as they arise.

The proportion and representativeness of the intended population that actually participates in or receives a program; weak reach limits potential impact even when the intervention itself works well.

Continuous, routine collection of data on activities, outputs, and participation during delivery, giving managers timely signals about whether the plan is being carried out and where adjustments are needed.

A condition that obstructs delivery as intended, such as insufficient time, unclear roles, competing demands, or staff turnover; identifying barriers early supports targeted, practical solutions.

A cyclic, data-driven approach, often plan-do-study-act, in which teams make small changes, measure results, and refine repeatedly to improve processes and outcomes over time.

Evaluation conducted during development or early delivery to improve a program, examining feasibility, acceptability, and emerging implementation issues rather than judging final results.

Evaluation carried out to judge a program's overall merit or worth at a defined point, typically asking whether intended outcomes were achieved and whether benefits justify the costs.

Examination of how a program was delivered, including activities, reach, fidelity, dose, and participant response, used to document implementation and explain why outcomes did or did not appear.

Measurement of changes in the target population's knowledge, attitudes, behaviors, or conditions that the program intended to affect, ideally compared with what would have happened without it.

A specific, measurable variable tracked to show whether an activity or objective is on course, such as the percentage of participants completing a program or the rate of a target behavior.

Participants in an evaluation who do not receive the program, or who receive an alternative, providing a benchmark against which the intervention group's changes can be judged.

Allocating participants to intervention or comparison conditions by chance, which, with adequate numbers, makes groups similar on average at baseline and reduces selection bias.

Combining multiple data sources, methods, or observers to examine the same question, so that conclusions rest on converging evidence rather than a single potentially flawed measure.

The extent to which findings from a study can be generalized to other populations, settings, and times, which depends heavily on how representative the sample and study conditions were.

The planned sharing of evaluation findings and program materials with audiences who can use them, including staff, partners, funders, policymakers, and the public, in formats suited to each.

A comparison of a program's monetary costs with the estimated monetary value of its benefits, used to judge whether returns justify the investment; it requires assumptions that should be stated openly.