FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W272852997> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W272852997 startingPage "8" @default.
• W272852997 abstract "Dear Editor: As park, recreation and sport management professionals become increasingly involved in youth development, they find themselves operating in a world requiring diverse and complementary program justification. There is an interest to move beyond the provision of facilities and equipment for traditional sports activities to the development of programs that target specific outcomes that benefit youth (Ellis, Braff, & Hutchinson, 2001). Program justification has become essential for credibility. Credibility depends on a sound programming process that clearly establishes a link between theory, the program model and subsequent behavioral changes in participating youth (McKenzie & Smeltzer, 1997). This pendulum shift has presented several challenges to park, recreation and sport management professionals. While park, recreation and sport professionals are quick to tout the positive impact of their programs for youth in terms of increased self-esteem, improved school achievement, and better communication skills; however, the actual relationship between recreation and beneficial outcomes has not been adequately explained (Baker & Witt, 2000). Baldwin (2000) stated there has been little discussion of the theoretical foundation of park and recreation programming for youth, despite the need for scientific rigor to establish the leisure services and sport field's credibility of these programs. Secondly, most professionals have not been trained in scientific evaluation or have not used their skills in years, consequently have not embraced evaluation as a programming process. These issues are further complicated because the evaluation process in park, recreation and sport often lacks specificity in the selection of possible program outcomes despite recent improvements in program planning. Many programs are dominated by short-term, unstructured activities, such as recreational basketball, that do not focus on behavioral changes. Kleiber (1999) stated that these traditional activities do not provide the challenge necessary to promote development in participants. Recent research reveals that park and recreation practitioners are expressing a desire to understand theory and incorporate it into their programs (McKenzie & Smeltzer, 1999). Practitioners realize that such inclusion provides credence and a rationale for the intervention or program, as well as a foundation for the desired outcome. However, most park and recreation prevention programs have used broad/ vague program objectives, making it difficult to assess specific program outcomes (Baldwin, 2000). Baldwin asserted that identifying the behavioral framework of the recreation program context is particularly challenging for park and recreation professionals. To advance professional use of evaluation models, the author developed a logic model to systematically illustrate and evaluate the relationship between theories, procedures, programmatic content, evaluation methods, and outcome of a multidisciplinary, community-based prevention project that was designed for high at-risk youth. The author hopes that this experience will bridge theory and practice, and assist in advancing funding and collaborative opportunities. While it is not the intent of this communication to report findings of the study, the author does provide general information regarding the results to explain the interrelated components of the model. The project examined the outcomes of recreation and health related activities to improve youth academic standing and reduce youth negative behaviors such as drugs and criminal activities. A multidisciplinary team of educators, prevention professionals, community organizations, college students, and parents undertook the project referred to as Project WISE-UP, which was funded by a two-year grant from the U.S. Department of Juvenile Justice and the Florida Department of Juvenile Justice. …" @default.
• W272852997 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W272852997 creator A5074623000 @default.
• W272852997 date "2006-09-01" @default.
• W272852997 modified "2023-09-23" @default.
• W272852997 title "Enhancing Prevention Programs' Credibility through the Use of a Logic Model" @default.
• W272852997 hasPublicationYear "2006" @default.
• W272852997 type Work @default.
• W272852997 sameAs 272852997 @default.
• W272852997 citedByCount "3" @default.
• W272852997 countsByYear W2728529972012 @default.
• W272852997 countsByYear W2728529972013 @default.
• W272852997 countsByYear W2728529972016 @default.
• W272852997 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W272852997 hasAuthorship W272852997A5074623000 @default.
• W272852997 hasConcept C110269972 @default.
• W272852997 hasConcept C111919701 @default.
• W272852997 hasConcept C138496976 @default.
• W272852997 hasConcept C144024400 @default.
• W272852997 hasConcept C144133560 @default.
• W272852997 hasConcept C15744967 @default.
• W272852997 hasConcept C162853370 @default.
• W272852997 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W272852997 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W272852997 hasConcept C21788436 @default.
• W272852997 hasConcept C2775940519 @default.
• W272852997 hasConcept C2780224610 @default.
• W272852997 hasConcept C36289849 @default.
• W272852997 hasConcept C39549134 @default.
• W272852997 hasConcept C41008148 @default.
• W272852997 hasConcept C75630572 @default.
• W272852997 hasConcept C98045186 @default.
• W272852997 hasConceptScore W272852997C110269972 @default.
• W272852997 hasConceptScore W272852997C111919701 @default.
• W272852997 hasConceptScore W272852997C138496976 @default.
• W272852997 hasConceptScore W272852997C144024400 @default.
• W272852997 hasConceptScore W272852997C144133560 @default.
• W272852997 hasConceptScore W272852997C15744967 @default.
• W272852997 hasConceptScore W272852997C162853370 @default.
• W272852997 hasConceptScore W272852997C17744445 @default.
• W272852997 hasConceptScore W272852997C199539241 @default.
• W272852997 hasConceptScore W272852997C21788436 @default.
• W272852997 hasConceptScore W272852997C2775940519 @default.
• W272852997 hasConceptScore W272852997C2780224610 @default.
• W272852997 hasConceptScore W272852997C36289849 @default.
• W272852997 hasConceptScore W272852997C39549134 @default.
• W272852997 hasConceptScore W272852997C41008148 @default.
• W272852997 hasConceptScore W272852997C75630572 @default.
• W272852997 hasConceptScore W272852997C98045186 @default.
• W272852997 hasIssue "3" @default.
• W272852997 hasLocation W2728529971 @default.
• W272852997 hasOpenAccess W272852997 @default.
• W272852997 hasPrimaryLocation W2728529971 @default.
• W272852997 hasRelatedWork W1979484349 @default.
• W272852997 hasRelatedWork W2004146285 @default.
• W272852997 hasRelatedWork W2006135461 @default.
• W272852997 hasRelatedWork W205925222 @default.
• W272852997 hasRelatedWork W2066148617 @default.
• W272852997 hasRelatedWork W2112759000 @default.
• W272852997 hasRelatedWork W2135951475 @default.
• W272852997 hasRelatedWork W2137237612 @default.
• W272852997 hasRelatedWork W2140146372 @default.
• W272852997 hasRelatedWork W2148553856 @default.
• W272852997 hasRelatedWork W2329644321 @default.
• W272852997 hasRelatedWork W2419071644 @default.
• W272852997 hasRelatedWork W250422024 @default.
• W272852997 hasRelatedWork W2612851029 @default.
• W272852997 hasRelatedWork W2784068091 @default.
• W272852997 hasRelatedWork W2932867638 @default.
• W272852997 hasRelatedWork W306058283 @default.
• W272852997 hasRelatedWork W97837089 @default.
• W272852997 hasRelatedWork W2290710789 @default.
• W272852997 hasRelatedWork W2888558069 @default.
• W272852997 hasVolume "50" @default.
• W272852997 isParatext "false" @default.
• W272852997 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W272852997 magId "272852997" @default.
• W272852997 workType "article" @default.