Evaluation of the ndis final Report Kostas Mavromaras, Megan Moskos, Stéphane Mahuteau, Linda Isherwood
Yüklə 1,47 Mb.
|
NDIS Evaluation Data Sources1.4.1 OverviewThe NDIS evaluation is underpinned by a large evidence base collected by the evaluation team, comprising a quantitative element (consisting of a set of large scale surveys) and a qualitative element (consisting of a large number of in-depth interviews conducted with a broad range of relevant stakeholders groups). A common feature of most evidence bases for the main evaluation is that they collected information on their subjects at different points in time and more than once, in order to observe change and its impacts at the personal level. Thus, we have information at the early stages of the NDIS evaluation (typically from late 2013 to 2015) and at the later stages of the evaluation (typically late 2015 to late 2017). The Older People Study and the Mainstream Study were an exception, in that they did not utilise repeat (longitudinal) sampling, but were only conducted at a single time point, the reason being first, that difficulties in finding older people eligible for the study restricted recruitment and second, the mainstream study only became feasible at the later stages of the evaluation. The evaluation utilises all data collections making the clear distinction about their respective strengths and weaknesses. The qualitative interviews provide evidence that is diverse and deep, and very broad ranging, but neither statistically generalisable, nor lending itself to make easy comparisons. In contrast, noting that the quantitative large scale survey evidence answers standardised questions in large numbers and is statistically generalisable lending itself to quantifiable comparisons, we recognise that it lacks the flexibility and depth offered by the qualitative evidence. The NDIS evaluation uses all evidence both separately and in an integrated manner which enables us to utilise the complementarities between quantitative and qualitative data. On the quantitative side, we report the first and second wave of the longitudinal survey of people with disability and their carers. The sampling of people with disability and their carers covered NDIS participants, but also NDIS eligible non-participants (that is, people who would have been eligible to participate, if they were located in a trial site). This enables comparisons to be made between people with disability who are similar insofar as their disability is concerned, but different as to their ability to participate in the NDIS. In addition, we report the two waves of the survey of disability support providers, which included employers, their workers and the self-employed. The sample for these surveys included all providers irrespective of their registration status with the NDIS. In all sampling WA was excluded as a separate evaluation was conducted within that state. On the qualitative side, we report the findings from the two waves of interviews with NDIS participants and their carers, disability service providers, disability workforce stakeholder organisations, and NDIA staff undertaken as part of the qualitative impact evaluation in the five original trial sites. We also report separately on the two waves of interviews undertaken with the same stakeholder groups for the evaluation of the NDIS in the Barkly Region of the NT; and one wave of interviews undertaken with various stakeholder groups as a part of two additional studies exploring the impact of the NDIS on mainstream health, mental health, education and employment sectors and on older people with disability and the aged care sector. Table 1.1 summarises the samples sizes on which the evidence in this report is based. It records the number of respondents upon whom the analysis is performed. For the analysis using wave 2 data (third column), the numbers stated in Table 1 are lower than the actual final response rates to the survey (See Table 1.3) because the data collection extended to mid-November 2017 while the needed cut-off point for the data analysis to be included in the report was end September 2017. There are also a few number variations between trial and comparison groups from wave 1 to wave 2 because some people with disability joined the NDIS between wave 1 and wave 2 after being surveyed as comparison in wave 1, but we consider these statistically negligible. This explains the apparently low number of wave 2 comparison individuals, as about 220 wave 1 comparison individuals have moved to a Trial survey in wave 2 (by reporting they have become NDIS participants). We also observed a few individuals who were surveyed as Trial participants in wave 1 but who no longer identified as such in wave 2 and these were subsequently surveyed as members of the comparison group. A brief overview of each of these evaluation components is provided below. For a more comprehensive overview of the methodologies employed please refer to the NDIS evaluation Initial Report (2015), the NDIS evaluation Intermediate Report (Mavromaras, Moskos and Mahuteau 2016) and the Appendices of this report. Table .1: NDIS evaluation sample
*Sample/Responses for waves 1a, 1b and 1c
Yüklə 1,47 Mb. Dostları ilə paylaş:
|