The Intergenerational Program Evaluation Tool: Results of a Delphi Study

Figures & data

Figure 1. The delphi study process.

Table 1. Qualitative feedback themes and resultant changes to the IPET.

Themes in Panelist Feedback	Response strategy	Example
Round 1
(1) Use clearer language	Avoided jargon and using interchangeable terms Replaced technical terms with more widely used terms Avoided interchangeable terms by using a single term consistently	Revised item 2: Original: social history Revised: participant culture, experiences, interests, and language Replaced “staff” with alternate term “facilitator”
(2) Revise to reflect diverse program contexts	Incorporated more inclusive language about participants and recognized a potential dual role of participant or facilitator	Items 2 & 3: Added “culture” and “language” to factors informing activity development Added not applicable to Item 9. Facilitators stood back … to encourage IG interaction. Yes or no may be insufficient if the facilitator is a youth or older person.
(3) Add content to improve quality and utility of the IPET	Added space for qualitative notes Added to the item noting predominant social behavior as an indicator Separated parts; described in IPET guide when, how adopters might use the parts separately or jointly.	How will you know this activity was successful for youth and older adult participants? See guide (supplemental material)
Round two
(4) Be inclusive of diverse participants	Depict cultural diversity	Revised item 13 to depict participant cultural diversity

Table 2. Round 2 IPET criteria rating indicators.

Criteria Rating Item	% of scores 3	IQR	Agreement level
Items are relevant to intergenerational (IG) programs
Similar to items used for other IG programs	100.0	1	High
Relevant for most IG participant groups	93.7	0	High
Relevant for IG programming in diverse cultural contexts	87.6	1	High
Relevant to programming involving different number of participants	87.6	1	High
Relevant for programs with consistent or variable groupings of IG participants	93.8	1	High
Relevant for most IG staffing contexts	100.0	1	High
Relevant for most IG programming content	93.8	1	High
Relevant for most IG programmatic settings	93.8	1	High
Items are comprehensive
Covers dimensions critical to measuring how an activity is implemented	100.0	1	High
Covers dimensions critical to measuring IG program outcomes	93.8	1	High
Provides adequate structure	100.0	0	High
Provides adequate flexibility	100.0	1	High
Items are well-constructed
Clear and unambiguous	93.8	1	High
Uses unbiased language	100.0	0	High
Appropriate reading level	100.0	1	High
Avoid overlap	100.0	1	High
Logically sequenced	100.0	0	High
Clear response categories	100.0	0	High
Appropriate length	100.0	1	High
Understandable procedures for target audience	100.0	1	High

IQR = inter-quartile range is the difference between the 75th and 25th quartile of rating.

Data availability statement

The data that support the findings of this study are available on request from the corresponding author, [SJ]. The data are not publicly available due to the authorized IRB protocol (OSU IRB#2018E0058).