<p> Since the Healthwise for Life Program is a nationally replicated, well-established program implemented at various institutions, each agency that offers this intervention inevitably collects data; some do so, on an ongoing basis. After all, this helps continuously improve the program. Most data collected has been impact oriented. Using participant surveys, the University</p><p>Outreach and Extension ( ) asked participants to report whether the class met their needs, how useful the materials and information presented were and/or whether the delivery method and communication conveyed the information and guidance in a meaningful way (p. 1).</p><p>The Veterans Administration charged with the care of the target population for this program conducted a long-term evaluation of the Healthwise for Life self-care guide </p><p>(Businesswire, 2003). According to the VA 2002 findings (Business wire, 2003), approximately one-third revealed its preventative abilities relative to unnecessary trips to the emergency room. </p><p>A slightly higher percentage revealed it save then a trip to the clinic. Nearly two-thirds said the guide helped them take better care of themselves and/or family members at home and </p><p>(Businesswise, 2003) “[…] 74% used information from the book.”</p><p>All of these results, the impact, outcome and procession evaluation questions and analysis thereof are self-reported. They lack control group comparisons. Therefore, this method can lead to problems with reliability and validity, especially relative to the outcomes. This is not to say the findings are not valid. Rather, alternate data sources could be utilized to increase the reliability and validity of these findings (fhi360, 2004, p. 77). Such methods could include comparisons with matched characteristics control groups post-test only (p. 77). Also, participants excluded from the posttests due to illness or death should have been recorded as dropouts. </p><p>While the VA 2002 study highlighted increased confidence in healthcare decision-making and their ability to apply home care, thereby lessening unnecessary doctor/hospital visits, the aforementioned quasi-experimental design could strengthen the validity of self-reported results </p><p>(fhi360, 2004, p. 77). After all, post-test surveys with several months in between surveys increase the chances of external factor influence automatically. The control group elucidates intervention efficacy and counters the external influences. Resources</p><p>Businesswire (2003). Healthwise for Life health handbook improves self-care, reduces medical </p><p> confusion for older adults. Retrieved from http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Healthwise+</p><p> for+Life+Health+Handbook+Improves+Self-Care%2c+Reduces...-a0102022545</p><p>FHI 360 (2004). Part 1: The how-to’s of monitoring and evaluation: Evaluation designs to assess </p><p> program impact. Retrieved from http://www.fhi.org/NR/rdonlyres/eompk4crbi44l7</p><p>4u3r6tqwz5uhx4ga7weqdisdru3opxers77zer56lniwg7jiaydjrcijv6vhv4mk/Chapter5.pdf</p><p>Issel, M. L. (2009). Chapter 17: Program evaluators’ responsibilities" Health program </p><p> planning and evaluation: A practical, systematic approach for community health (2nd </p><p> ed.). Sudbury, MA: Jones and Bartlett. </p><p>University Outreach and Extension (2004). Human Environmental Sciences Extension Program</p><p>Logic Model: Healthwise. Columbia, MO: University of Missouri. Retrieved from </p><p> http://extension.missouri.edu/hes/plms/plmpdfs/hlthwiseplm.pdf</p>