Third, implementers of the program in different grades were invited to participate in the study. Fourth, this is the first known scientific study of focus group KPT-330 evaluation of a positive youth development program based on program implementers in China. Finally, this is also the first focus group evaluation study based on such a large sample of program implementers in the global context.Based on the integrative analyses, two salient observations can be highlighted from the findings collected from different cohorts of students. First, the program was perceived positively from the perspective of the program implementers (Tables (Tables33 and and4).4). The program implementers generally used positive descriptors and metaphors to describe the program.

Although some implementers perceived the program in a negative light, this is not the dominant view. Second, results in Table 5 show that the program had a beneficial effect on the participants, with 78% of the responses coded as positive. Generally speaking, benefits in both the personal and interpersonal levels were observed. The above observations are generally consistent with the qualitative evaluation findings based on the program participants reported by Shek and Sun in this special issue. In short, different stakeholders had positive perceptions of the program, program implementers, and perceived benefits of the program. Based on the principle of triangulation, the present study and the previous findings suggest that based on both quantitative and qualitative evaluation findings collected from program participants and program implementers, research findings suggest that the Tier 1 Program of the Project P.

A.T.H.S. is effective in promoting holistic development of the program participants.There is a growing trend for using focus group methodology in order to understand the views of stakeholders in the field of evaluation, and the number of qualitative evaluation studies is increasing in the field. For example, Chen et al. [28] employed different evaluation methods (including qualitative evaluation) and pointed out that there were several Entinostat limitations in employing participatory evaluation with at-risk youth. Mahoney et al. [29] used qualitative methodology to evaluate a tobacco prevention program among 5th grade students using impressions from classroom teachers and program presenters. Pedersen et al. [30] examined relationship quality in a community mentoring program via qualitative methodology. O’Rourke and Key [31] evaluated a school-based youth development peer group with integrated medical care using focus groups. Scheer and Gavazzi [32] used focus groups to evaluate the program ��Families and Systems Teams Initiative.