Given Hapunda

100 more powerful than cross-sectional observational designs because they make multiple repeated observations of the same people with same characteristics, and the changes or differences observed in those people are likely to be accurate. However, longitudinal observational designs are very expensive as they take time and hence require adequate resources. Cross-sectional Study Designs This is another type of non-experimental or non-intervention design in which variables are not manipulated (Leedy & Ormrod, 2013). These designs are usually used with surveys. They make observations of the representative subset of the population at one specific point in time. These designs are descriptive in nature as they describe the characteristics (such as age, gender, income, education, ethnicity, culture, disability, programme or intervention received) of the subgroups of the population. Evaluators using cross- sectional survey designs, select the sample of current programme or intervention beneficiaries or former programme participants at one specific point in time. So, evaluators might employ this design to assess people’s satisfaction with services received, use of services, or opinions of service delivery at one point in time. These designs often answer descriptive questions as they do not establish the cause-and-effect relationship between variables (Morra-Imas & Rist, 2009). One typical example of a cross-sectional evaluation could be a single census, which is descriptive in nature (Rubin & Babbie, 2013). Advantages and Disadvantages of Cross-sectional Study Designs They are affordable as they make observations of the representative subset of the population at one specific point in time and hence they do not require adequate resources. However, they do not permit researchers to make repeated observations of the same variables of people with the same characteristics over long periods of time. Thus, these designs are not more powerful than longitudinal evaluation designs because they do not make multiple repeated observations of the same people, with same characteristics, Focus Box 11: Longitudinal Evaluation Design Due to the importance attached to communication in palliative care and the dissatisfaction reported by patients and their families in their interaction with health professional, Wilkinson et al ., (1999) carried out a longitudinal evaluation to assess if at all education and training would improve the communication skills of the health professionals. 110 nurses were targeted for this study, of which 20% declined to participate, 45% agreed and 35% did not respond; only 33 nurses returned usable data. The mean length of time in this study was 2.5 years. The results demonstrated a significant improvement in the nurses’ communication skills. For instance, the nurses became more confident in emotional care overtime. Additionally, the study also revealed a reduction in stress among health professionals which usually emanated from communication difficulties.