Researchers often invoke strong assumptions in empirical analyses to identify significant statistical outcomes. Invoking assumptions that do not sufficiently reflect the occurrence of true phenomenon reduces the credibility of inferences. Literature suggests that the potential effects of assumptions on credibility of inferences can be mitigated by comparing and combining insights from alternative econometric models. I use this recommendation to conduct robustness checks of commonly used methods in environmental and health economics. The first chapter proposes a novel nonparametric regression model to draw credible insights from meta-analyses. Existing literature on benefit-transfer validity is examined as an application. Nonparametric regression is found to be a viable approach for drawing robust policy insights. The second chapter proposes an alternative structural and simulations based framework to understand elicitation effects in survey response data. This analysis explains the structural mechanisms in which response anomalies occur and is important for building credible insights from survey data. The last chapter uses methods in program evaluation to investigate the impacts of institutional child deliveries on long-term maternal health in the context of developing countries. The outcomes of this analysis indicate that institutional deliveries positively affect maternal health in lower socio-economic states. Based on the findings of my three chapters, I recommend that researchers should combine insights from alternative models to mitigate the scope of specification bias in empirical outcomes and inform policy about the potential uncertainty that arises in uncovering the truth using statistical methods. / Ph. D.

English language learners (ELLs) are the fastest growing student group in U.S. public schools. ELLs also consistently lag behind their native-English speaking peers in academic achievement. These facts set the stage for the study that evaluated one school district’s program to prepare their teachers to effectively educate ELLs. This program included a year-long series of six professional development courses that covered ELL-specific topics. The study’s evaluation tools included an online survey completed by teachers who took the courses, teachers’ feedback on course evaluation forms, interviews of district-level officials familiar with the program, and an examination of the homework assignments from each course. The program evaluation showed that teachers and district officials thought the courses helped prepare the teachers to instruct ELLs. However, the teachers’ feedback about the program’s influence included some specific references to teaching ELLs, but more examples from general education settings. The evaluation also found that only about 10% of the homework assignments required direct instruction of students. These evaluation results suggest that the program could be strengthened to include more opportunities for teachers to practice instructing ELLs. This additional practice could increase teachers’ confidence to serve the needs of ELLs in their classrooms.

Schools participating in the Carson Curriculum Project use a scripted literacy curriculum. After years of implementation, these curricula are still being used, despite no increase in standardized tests, which is the goal of the project. An evaluation of scripted literacy curriculum has never been completed. The purpose of this study was to use a qualitative case study to gather the perspectives of 12 teachers, administrators, and curriculum coaches, three from each of the four schools who have taught in 3rd, 4th, or 5th grade for at least 1 school year. The conceptual framework for this study was Bradley's effectiveness model. Research questions were based on the indicators of Bradley's model and how they are implemented with scripted literacy programs. Also explored was how these indicators affect the use of supplemental literacy instruction as a part of a scripted literacy curriculum, and how teachers work together using these indicators in this district when teaching a scripted literacy curriculum. Data were collected through interviews and surveys then analyzed using a priori coding and themes were developed using Bradley's model. Descriptive information from the survey was used to inform the final report. Finding showed that vertical curriculum continuity was not met in school A, horizontal curriculum continuity, broad involvement, long range planning, and decision making clarity were not met in any of the schools, positive human relations, and theory into practice approach were not met in schools A or B, and planned change was not met in schools A or D. A curriculum evaluation was developed to presents task items to address each of Bradley's indicators. Implications for positive social change include using the findings of this study to guide the planning and implementation of scripted literacy curriculum and supplemental materials to enhance students' learning in this district.

This study was conducted to develop a standardized agricultural literacy assessment using the National Agricultural Literacy Outcomes (NALOs) as benchmarks. The need for such an assessment was born out of previous research, which found that despite numerous programs dedicated to improving agricultural literacy, many students and adults remain at low or very low levels of literacy. Low literacy levels lead to negative associations with the production and processing of food, clothing, and shelter, as well as misinformed public perceptions and policies. Agricultural literacy researchers recognized that the development of a standardized assessment for post-12th grade, or equivalent, could unify both research and program development efforts. The assessment was developed by forming two groups of experts. Teaching experts and agricultural content experts worked together in an iterative process. They crafted 45 questions using research methods and models. The 45 items were placed in an online survey to be tested for validity by a participant group. During the Fall 2018 semester, 515 Utah State University students between the ages of 18-23 years old participated in the online assessment. The participant data assisted in determining which questions were valid and reliable for determining agricultural literacy, as aligned to the NALO standards. Additional demographic information was also collected from participants. The demographic items asked students to self-report their level of exposure to agriculture and their self-perceived level of agricultural literacy. The study concluded that two separate 15-item Judd-Murray Agricultural Literacy Instruments (JMALI) were valid and reliable for determining agricultural proficiency levels based on the NALOs. Participant scores were reported as a single proficiency stage: exposure, factual literacy, or applicable proficiency. The study also determined that students who had a “great deal” or higher level of exposure to agriculture also had a strong, positive correlation with a “good” or higher level of agricultural literacy. Findings show participants who reported a “good” level of agricultural literacy shared a positive correlation with either performing at a factual literacy (middle) or applicable proficiency (highest) level on the assessment. The results suggest JMALI instruments have the potential to assist in improving current agricultural education endeavors by providing a critical tool for determining the agricultural literacy proficiency stages of adult populations.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

Research shows that since the mid-1990s funders of the nonprofit sector have significantly increased the sophistication of their reporting requirements. Funders today want agencies to demonstrate beyond outputs and report on outcomes and the impact they have on the communities they serve. Funders are monitoring community impact by requiring more complex reports from the agencies they fund. These changes have meant that agencies must become proficient in data collection, management, and analyses practices in order to accurately respond to funders’ report requests. Nonprofits, however, find these requirements difficult to conceptualize and even more difficult to attain. Managing and analyzing the data necessary to create the required reports proves a formidable task. This research shows that among many obstacles reported, a lack of communication between agency and funders about their intended goals leads to some frustration from both sides, ultimately making it exceptionally difficult to attain the ultimate goal of the new reporting requirements: to measure community-level impact. This study utilizes qualitative interviews with 8 human service nonprofit agencies and one funding agency in the greater Orlando area to investigate what agencies report are their major obstacles when trying to meet funders’ new reporting requirements and what a funder’s response to these concerns is. Agency interviews were analyzed for the most common themes and concerns reported. The interviews explore the way nonprofits are responding to the new requirements from donors and what they think could be done differently to better capture valuable data that would speak to issues at the community level.

While the old adage of “it takes a village…” is often stated in reference to raising children, this statement is also extremely applicable in combating social problems such as intimate partner abuse (IPA). All too often society members turn a “blind eye” to abuse occurring within our homes between intimate partners. Although recent research has shown improvement in attitudes condemning IPA, other research has identified that many individuals continue to perceive IPA as largely a private problem (Bethke & DeJoy, 1993; Straus, Kaufman Kantor, & Moore, 1997). This commonplace belief stands in stark contrast to the vast amount of research that shows IPA is anything but a private problem. In order to halt these occurrences, various intervention programs have been implemented (i.e. batterer intervention programs, mandatory arrest policies, etc.). However, less effort has gone into creating programs to prevent abuse in the first place (Harvey, Garcia-Moreno, & Butchart, 2007). In order to fulfill this need, Harbor House of Central Florida (Orlando, FL) created one notable primary prevention initiative referred to as Project Courage. Launched in 2010, Project Courage staff flooded an Orlando neighborhood (Pine Castle, FL) with IPA services. The following evaluation details Project Courage’s successes, challenges, and provides recommendations for the future. The data used in this evaluation were made available by Harbor House of Central Florida, and have been used with permission from the agency and from the University of Central Florida’s Institutional Review Board. Data from Project Courage were originally collected by the agency’s Prevention Department. First-year funding for the project was provided by the 100 Women Strong giving circle located in Orlando, Florida. The collector(s) of the original data, the funder(s), and their agents or employees bear no responsibility for the analyses or interpretations presented here