• Facebook
• Twitter

Admin area Edit this page Log out

Content Analysis of Training Modules on IFE

By Caroline Wyrosdick, BA, MS

Caroline Wyrosdick recently completed her MSc at Tufts University, concentrating in humanitarian assistance. She works as a nutritionist with the Supplemental Nutrition Programme for Women, Infants and Children (WIC) in Asheville, North Carolina.

Two orientation/training modules on Infant and Young Child Feeding in Emergencies (IFE) have been developed through interagency collaboration¹. In 2007, an independent evaluation of the effectiveness of both Modules as a tool for addressing the challenges of infant and young child feeding in emergencies was initiated and carried out. Key findings of this evaluation are summarized below (the full evaluation is available at www.ennonline.net/ife).

Aims

A set of four key criteria were used to evaluate the effectiveness of the Modules' content. The term 'effective' was defined as being comprehensive, applicable and therefore, useful, in various emergency contexts.

Criteria for Analysis

The materials were evaluated against four integral criteria ('characteristics'):

1. Clear objectives and evidence of assessment and evaluation
2. Use of scientific arguments
3. Challenge identification and provision of clear, practical tools for addressing challenges
4. Accessibility

Each criterion had key defined conditions for their evaluation (Box 1). Modules fulfilling all four characteristics were deemed likely to be most useful to their targeted audiences. If the Module analysed met at least two conditions (and, in the case of characteristic 2, only 1 condition) of a given characteristic, this characteristic was considered to be met.

Outcomes of Content Analysis

The evaluation explored how the Modules met each of the conditions, extensively citing examples from the Modules to evidence findings. Modules 1 and 2 met at least two conditions of each characteristic (excepting characteristic 2 that only had one condition), and therefore met all four identified criteria. Conditions noted as strongly met were: identification of challenges to IFE (Condition 3a) and practical tools to address them (Condition 3b), evidence of interagency collaboration in their creation (Condition 3a) and scientific arguments used (Condition 2).

There were characteristics where all the conditions were not met and/or there was room for improvement. The most significant were:

Condition 1a. Clear objectives including a defined target audience
Though target audiences are clearly identified and included individuals involved at all levels in emergency response, Module 1's target audience includes "decisionmakers and regional planners". This is too vague. It would be helpful to define where possible who the "decisionmakers" of interest are.

Condition 3c. Pictures, figures and graphs used as tools are informative and culturally appropriate for various contexts.
Both Modules include extensive graphs, pictures and figures to offer case studies and facilitate discussion. However, many of the pictures in both Modules are of African women and show exposed breasts that may not be culturally acceptable elsewhere. Tailoring pictures in the manuals for different audiences/contexts is recommended.

Condition 3d. The information and tools offered speak to previously identified target audiences and their dissemination is feasible.
Both Modules 1 and 2 include guidelines for facilitators, including mode of delivery and suggested duration to cover topics for both Modules 1 and 2 and so meet Condition 3d. However, a potential problem may be the ability of field managers to disseminate and field practitioners to filter and process all of the information contained in the Modules in order to devise an orientation/ training. Planning time for devising training and dissemination was suggested as crucial, rather than relying on the distribution of these resources in the midst of an emergency for reference. Including the Modules in routine staff training would be ideal.

Condition 1d: Within the Modules the Core Group asks for feedback, thus informing their working group of necessary changes.
Since both Modules are considered 'working documents', feedback should be solicited more explicitly in the print version of the Modules (feedback is sought online).

Condition 4d. Translations of the Modules are available.
At the time of the evaluation (2007), both Modules were only available in English and this was identified as a significant limitation².

The time lag between production of Module 1 (2001) and the more technical Module 2 (2004) was also noted in the evaluation. Lack of funds to support the module development and the need to address technical gaps (artificial feeding in emergencies and managing malnourished infants under six months) identified in the course of development of Module 2 were the main reasons identified for the delay.

Conclusions

The evaluation concludes that the reviewed Modules are an effective tool and their thoroughness is demonstrated in the content analysis. A limitation of the evaluation is that there is no formal qualitative or quantitative analysis of the Modules' impact. The detailed analysis of the evaluation, especially where conditions are not fully met, should provide useful guidance in the development of these materials and support their implementation.

Since this evaluation, Module 1 on IFE is being extensively revised by the IFE Core Group funded by the IASC Nutrition Cluster. Version 2.0 of Module 1 should be available by Dec 2008 (see news piece in this issue of Field Exchange).

The full evaluation report is available on the ENN website, www.ennonline.net/ife in the IFE Resource Library. For further information, contact: Caroline Wyrosdick, email: Wyrosdick@gmail.com

Show footnotes

Reference this page

Content Analysis of Training Modules on IFE. Field Exchange 34, October 2008. p42. www.ennonline.net/fex/34/content

(ENN_3862)