IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/epplan/v60y2017icp64-71.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The importance of matching the evaluation population to the intervention population: Using Medicaid data to reach hard-to-reach intervention populations

Author

Listed:
  • Askelson, Natoshia M.
  • Golembiewski, Elizabeth H.
  • Baquero, Barbara
  • Momany, Elizabeth T.
  • Friberg, Julia
  • Montgomery, Doris

Abstract

Subject recruitment is a challenge for researchers and evaluators, particularly with populations that are traditionally hard to reach and involve in research, such as low-income and minority groups. However, when the evaluation sample does not reflect a program's intended audience, the discrepancy may lead to evaluation results that are not valid for that audience. We conducted evaluation activities for a state Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program-Education (SNAP-Ed) intervention that promotes consumption of fruits and vegetables (F&V) in low-income areas. Previous program evaluations efforts had failed to obtain a sufficient proportion of individuals identified as low-income based on their participation in SNAP. We used state Medicaid data as a means of identifying low-income families to recruit for a telephone survey (n=311) and an in-depth qualitative interview (n=30) that we designed for the program being evaluated. We chose to focus on the dynamics of parent-child communication around F&V because we considered this previously unevaluated component of the intervention vital to understanding program effectiveness. Our results indicated that the Medicaid database provided an appropriate sample and that parents reported frequent F&V requests from their children. Parents also reported that they would positively respond to requests in many different settings, such as grocery stores (92.6%), restaurants (88.1%), and fast food restaurants (80.4%).

Suggested Citation

  • Askelson, Natoshia M. & Golembiewski, Elizabeth H. & Baquero, Barbara & Momany, Elizabeth T. & Friberg, Julia & Montgomery, Doris, 2017. "The importance of matching the evaluation population to the intervention population: Using Medicaid data to reach hard-to-reach intervention populations," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 60(C), pages 64-71.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:epplan:v:60:y:2017:i:c:p:64-71
    DOI: 10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2016.09.008
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0149718916300064
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2016.09.008?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Congressional Budget Office, 2012. "The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program," Reports 43173, Congressional Budget Office.
    2. Congressional Budget Office, 2012. "The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program," Reports 43173, Congressional Budget Office.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Prentice, Dawn & Engel, Joyce & Boggs, Jeff, 2020. "Does it make a difference? Evaluation of a Canadian poverty reduction initiative," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 80(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Coleman-Jensen, Alisha & Nord, Mark, 2013. "Food Insecurity Among Households With Working-Age Adults With Disabilities," Economic Research Report 142955, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    2. Robert E. Hall, 2015. "Quantifying the Lasting Harm to the US Economy from the Financial Crisis," NBER Macroeconomics Annual, University of Chicago Press, vol. 29(1), pages 71-128.
    3. Dodini, Samuel & Larrimore, Jeff & Tranfaglia, Anna, 2024. "Financial repercussions of SNAP work requirements," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 229(C).
    4. Oliveira, Victor & Prell, Mark & Tiehen, Laura & Smallwood, David, 2018. "Design Issues in USDA’s Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program: Looking Ahead by Looking Back," Economic Research Report 276253, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    5. Sherry Glied, 2022. "Presidential Address: Connecting the Dots: Turning Research Evidence into Evidence for Policymaking," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 41(3), pages 676-682, June.
    6. Hudak, Katelin M. & Racine, Elizabeth F., 2021. "Do additional SNAP benefits matter for child weight?: Evidence from the 2009 benefit increase," Economics & Human Biology, Elsevier, vol. 41(C).
    7. Justine Hastings & Jesse M. Shapiro, 2018. "How Are SNAP Benefits Spent? Evidence from a Retail Panel," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 108(12), pages 3493-3540, December.
    8. Jessica E. Todd, 2015. "Revisiting the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program cycle of food intake: Investigating heterogeneity, diet quality, and a large boost in benefit amounts," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 37(3), pages 437-458.
    9. Almada, Lorenzo N. & Tchernis, Rusty, 2018. "Measuring effects of SNAP on obesity at the intensive margin," Economics & Human Biology, Elsevier, vol. 31(C), pages 150-163.
    10. Blumenthal, Susan & Hoffnagle, Elena & Leung, Cindy & Lofink, Hayley & Jensen, Helen H. & Foerster, Susan & Cheung, Lilian & Nestle, Marion & Willett, Walter, 2013. "Strategies to improve the dietary qualtiy of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) beneficiaries: an assessment of stakeholder opinions," Staff General Research Papers Archive 37403, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
    11. Charlotte Alexander & Anna Haley-Lock, 2015. "Underwork, Work-Hour Insecurity, and A New Approach to Wage and Hour Regulation," Industrial Relations: A Journal of Economy and Society, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 54(4), pages 695-716, October.
    12. Tim Slack & Candice Myers, 2014. "The Great Recession and the Changing Geography of Food Stamp Receipt," Population Research and Policy Review, Springer;Southern Demographic Association (SDA), vol. 33(1), pages 63-79, February.
    13. Parolin, Zachary & Luigjes, Christiaan, 2019. "Incentive to Retrench? Investigating the Interactions of State and Federal Social Assistance Programs after Welfare Reform," OSF Preprints s5fwr, Center for Open Science.
    14. Robert B. Nielsen & Martin C. Seay & Melissa J. Wilmarth, 2018. "The Receipt of Government Food Assistance: Differences Between Metro and Non-Metro Households," Journal of Family and Economic Issues, Springer, vol. 39(1), pages 117-131, March.
    15. Hilary Hoynes & Diane Whitmore Schanzenbach, 2015. "US Food and Nutrition Programs," NBER Chapters, in: Economics of Means-Tested Transfer Programs in the United States, Volume 1, pages 219-301, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    16. Zachary Parolin & Christiaan Luigjes, 2018. "Incentive to Retrench? Institutional Moral Hazard among Federal & State Social Assistance Programs after Welfare Reform," Working Papers 1802, Herman Deleeck Centre for Social Policy, University of Antwerp.
    17. Michael Reich & Rachel West, 2015. "The Effects of Minimum Wages on Food Stamp Enrollment and Expenditures," Industrial Relations: A Journal of Economy and Society, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 54(4), pages 668-694, October.
    18. Davis, George C. & You, Wen, 2013. "Estimates of returns to scale, elasticity of substitution, and the thrifty food plan meal poverty rate from a direct household meal production function," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(C), pages 204-212.
    19. Albert Y. Liu & Johanna Lacoe & Stephen Lipscomb & Joshua Haimson & David R. Johnson & Martha L. Thurlow, "undated". "Preparing for Life after High School: The Characteristics and Experiences of Youth in Special Education, Volume 3: Comparisons Over Time," Mathematica Policy Research Reports 891e7c8646b7474da58e04ac2, Mathematica Policy Research.
    20. James Mabli & Jim Ohls & Lisa Dragoset & Laura Castner & Betsy Santos, "undated". "Measuring the Effect of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) Participation on Food Security," Mathematica Policy Research Reports 69d901432c7a46779666a240a, Mathematica Policy Research.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:epplan:v:60:y:2017:i:c:p:64-71. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/evalprogplan .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.