When (not if) evaluation flexibility is desirable. Examples from the CPHPE initiative.

The evaluation literature often debates whether evaluators should be flexible in evaluation design and activities in order to collaborate with program directors and be responsive to programming needs. Two conditions are specified under which evaluation flexibility is not only desirable but essential. Two examples from the cluster evaluation of the W. K. Kellogg Foundation's Community Partnerships for Health Professions Education initiative are provided to illustrate why flexibility under these conditions proved to be essential. One of the examples, related to the "community" involvement in the initiative, illustrates the need for flexibility as programs experience goals clarification. The other example, related to the coincidental national health care reform efforts, illustrates the need for flexibility both to capture programs' efforts to protect their integrity and to ensure against spurious conclusions as a result of external turbulence in policy environments. How the cluster evaluation team addressed these issues is also described.

Multidisciplinary education outcomes of the W.K. Kellogg Community Partnerships and Health Professions Education initiative.

This evaluation highlights several points to be considered by others instituting multidisciplinary approaches to health professions education. Community-based, multidisciplinary experiences appear to reinforce support students' interests in pursuing primary care careers. The multidisciplinary, community-based approach to health professions education did not affect academic learning. Project leaders and students reported no risks in terms of board scores between CPHPE students and others in traditional programs. The multidisciplinary, community-based approach to health professions education created opportunities at some sites for students to see "team medicine" in action. It was practical and helped students to understand how they could be more effective in their roles as opposed to competitive. Students require socialization within their own individual disciplines as well as socialization across disciplines. The differences in the structures of traditional health professions education schools interfered with the development of multidisciplinary contexts for learning at some sites. Campus faculty were not necessarily socialized to engage in multidisciplinary efforts. Their disciplines generally do not recognize and reward this behavior. Early and continuous faculty development may significantly help projects to improve communication and develop a better understanding of the contexts of curricular changes across disciplines. This evaluation was exploratory. Further research is needed to better understand what forms of multidisciplinary curriculum are most effective and economically feasible, what forms survive over time, and whether the intended final outcomes of the CPHPE initiative are achieved, not only with medical students but also with the other health professions students.