SUMMATIVE ASSESSMENT

JUNILE YOUNG
TABLE OF CONTENTS

 Program Overview
 Program Evaluation Purpose
 Identified Problems and Gaps
 Proposed Evaluation Strategy
 Advantages and Limitations
 Program Access
 Data Collection and Analysis
 Evaluation Results and Reporting
 References
OVERVIEW OF THE AI-BASED THERAPY TRAINING PROGRAM

 The AI-Based Therapy Training Program is designed to enhance the skills of mental health professionals by
providing interactive, AI-driven simulations that replicate diverse therapeutic scenarios. The program targets
practicing therapists and counselors, focusing on improving their cultural competence, diagnostic accuracy, and
therapeutic strategies.
PURPOSE OF THE PROGRAM EVALUATION

 The purpose of this evaluation is to assess the effectiveness of the AI-Based Therapy Training Program in
improving the competencies of mental health professionals. The evaluation will focus on the program's impact on
participants' cultural competence, therapeutic strategies, and diagnostic accuracy, as well as identify areas for
potential improvement.
PROBLEMS AND GAPS

 While the AI-Based Therapy Training Program has shown promise, there are concerns about the depth of cultural
scenarios provided and the program’s accessibility to a diverse range of professionals. Additionally, there is a
need to evaluate the long-term retention of skills gained through the program.
EVALUATION STRATEGY

 The evaluation will employ a mixed-methods approach, incorporating both quantitative surveys to measure
improvements in diagnostic accuracy and therapeutic strategies and qualitative interviews to gather detailed
feedback on participants' experiences and perceived cultural competence improvements.
ADVANTAGES AND LIMITATIONS

 Advantages:
 The mixed-methods approach provides a comprehensive understanding of the program's effectiveness by combining
numerical data with in-depth personal insights.
 Allows for the identification of specific areas where the program excels and where it may need refinement.

 Limitations:
 Time-consuming nature of conducting in-depth qualitative interviews.
 Potential bias in self-reported data from participants.
ACCESS CONSIDERATIONS

Psychological Access:
 Build trust with program participants by ensuring confidentiality and emphasizing the purpose of the evaluation as a tool for program
improvement.
 Engage with program facilitators to create an environment conducive to open and honest feedback.

Physical Access:
 Secure necessary permissions for accessing program materials and participant data.
 Adhere to ethical guidelines, including obtaining informed consent and maintaining data security.
DATA COLLECTION

Data Sources:
 Participants: Surveys to assess knowledge retention and interviews for in-depth feedback.
 Program Records: Review attendance logs, session duration, and participant engagement metrics.

Data Analysis:
 Quantitative data will be analyzed using statistical methods to identify trends and patterns.
 Qualitative data will be coded and thematically analyzed to extract key insights into the program’s impact.
REPORTING AND UTILIZATION OF FINDINGS

Reporting:
 Results will be compiled into a detailed report and presented to stakeholders, including program developers and funders.
 Key findings will be highlighted in a summary presentation to ensure accessibility of information.

Utilization:
 Recommendations for program improvement will be provided based on the evaluation results.
 Stakeholders will be encouraged to use the findings to refine the program, enhance its accessibility, and ensure it meets the needs of a diverse
range of mental health professionals.
REFERENCES

American Psychological Association. (2020). Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct. APA.

[Link]

Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2011). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (2nd ed.). SAGE Publications.

Cross, T., Bazron, B., Dennis, K., & Isaacs, M. (1989). Toward a culturally competent system of care (Vol. 1). Georgetown University

Child Development Center.

Durlak, J. A., & DuPre, E. P. (2008). Implementation matters: A review of research on the influence of implementation on program

outcomes and the factors affecting implementation. American Journal of Community Psychology, 41(3), 327-350.

Greene, J. C., Caracelli, V. J., & Graham, W. F. (1989). Toward a conceptual framework for mixed-method evaluation

designs. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 11(3), 255-274.

Hall, G. C. N. (2001). Psychotherapy research with ethnic minorities: Empirical, ethical, and conceptual issues. Journal of

Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 69(3), 502-510.

Patton, M. Q. (2015). Qualitative research & evaluation methods (4th ed.). SAGE Publications.

Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J.-Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical

review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879-903.

Sue, S., Fujino, D. C., Hu, L.-T., Takeuchi, D. T., & Zane, N. W. S. (2009). Community mental health services for ethnic minority

groups: A test of the cultural responsiveness hypothesis. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 67(6), 993-1000.

Weiss, C. H. (1998). Evaluation (2nd ed.). Prentice Hall.