Qualitative secondary analysis (QSA) allows researchers to explore new research questions and ensure that participants’ voices are heard to the greatest extent possible, without the burdens of additional data collection. However, this approach is rarely used outside of the health sciences, and little guidance exists in the literature about how to conduct QSA. This study is a secondary analysis of qualitative program evaluation data related to the well-being of human services professionals from two fields: child welfare and early care and education (ECE). It explores these professionals’ well-being, as well as the methodological issues of how well-being has been addressed in workforce studies and the successes and challenges of conducting QSA. Analytical techniques included coding based on phenomenology and qualitative content analysis. Findings inform best practices in conducting QSA, suggest ways in which ECE and child welfare evaluators could more robustly study well-being, and contribute to the body of knowledge regarding the well-being of professionals who work with young children and families.
","abstract_html":"<p>Qualitative secondary analysis (QSA) allows researchers to explore new research questions and ensure that participants’ voices are heard to the greatest extent possible, without the burdens of additional data collection. However, this approach is rarely used outside of the health sciences, and little guidance exists in the literature about how to conduct QSA. This study is a secondary analysis of qualitative program evaluation data related to the well-being of human services professionals from two fields: child welfare and early care and education (ECE). It explores these professionals’ well-being, as well as the methodological issues of how well-being has been addressed in workforce studies and the successes and challenges of conducting QSA. Analytical techniques included coding based on phenomenology and qualitative content analysis. Findings inform best practices in conducting QSA, suggest ways in which ECE and child welfare evaluators could more robustly study well-being, and contribute to the body of knowledge regarding the well-being of professionals who work with young children and families.</p>","abstract_has_math":false,"creators":["Deaton Wacker, Elizabeth Ann"],"institution":null,"degree_name":"Ph.D.","degree_level":"Dissertation","degree_discipline":null,"degree_department":null,"school":null,"contributors":["Nicholas J. Cutforth","Amy M. Roberts","Robyn Thomas Pitts"],"advisors":[],"committee_chairs":[],"committee_members":[],"year":2022,"date_issued":"2022-01-01T08:00:00Z","date_published":"2022-01-01T08:00:00Z","updated_at":"2026-07-24T02:02:19Z","subjects":["Child welfare","Early care and education","Phenomenology","Program evaluation","Qualitative research methods","Community-Based Research","Early Childhood Education","Education","Social Work"],"languages":["en"],"rights":["Copyright is held by the author. User is responsible for all copyright compliance.
"],"rights_urls":[],"identifier_entries":[]},"links":{"outbound_url":"https://digitalcommons.du.edu/etd/2029","outbound_label":"Repository record","outbound_source":"dc:identifier"},"metadata_groups":[{"id":"people","label":"People","entries":[{"key":"dc:contributor","label":"Contributor","values":["Nicholas J. Cutforth","Amy M. Roberts","Robyn Thomas Pitts"]},{"key":"dc:creator","label":"Author","values":["Deaton Wacker, Elizabeth Ann"]}]},{"id":"academic_context","label":"Academic Context","entries":[{"key":"dc:date.available","label":"Dc Date Available","values":["2024-04-14T07:00:00Z"]},{"key":"thesis:degree_level","label":"Degree Level","values":["Dissertation"]},{"key":"thesis:degree_name","label":"Degree Name","values":["Ph.D."]}]},{"id":"subjects_keywords","label":"Subjects and Keywords","entries":[{"key":"dc:subject","label":"Dc Subject","values":["Child welfare","Early care and education","Phenomenology","Program evaluation","Qualitative research methods","Community-Based Research","Early Childhood Education","Education","Social Work"]}]},{"id":"language_rights","label":"Language and Rights","entries":[{"key":"dc:language","label":"Dc Language","values":["en"]},{"key":"dc:rights","label":"Dc Rights","values":["Copyright is held by the author. User is responsible for all copyright compliance.
"]}]},{"id":"identifiers","label":"Identifiers","entries":[{"key":"dc:identifier","label":"Identifier","values":["https://digitalcommons.du.edu/etd/2029"]}]},{"id":"additional","label":"Additional Metadata","entries":[{"key":"dc:description.abstract","label":"Abstract","values":["Qualitative secondary analysis (QSA) allows researchers to explore new research questions and ensure that participants’ voices are heard to the greatest extent possible, without the burdens of additional data collection. However, this approach is rarely used outside of the health sciences, and little guidance exists in the literature about how to conduct QSA. This study is a secondary analysis of qualitative program evaluation data related to the well-being of human services professionals from two fields: child welfare and early care and education (ECE). It explores these professionals’ well-being, as well as the methodological issues of how well-being has been addressed in workforce studies and the successes and challenges of conducting QSA. Analytical techniques included coding based on phenomenology and qualitative content analysis. Findings inform best practices in conducting QSA, suggest ways in which ECE and child welfare evaluators could more robustly study well-being, and contribute to the body of knowledge regarding the well-being of professionals who work with young children and families.
"]},{"key":"dc:format","label":"Dc Format","values":["application/pdf"]},{"key":"dc:title","label":"Title","values":["Making the Most of Program Evaluation Data: Understanding Human Services Professionals’ Well-Being Through Qualitative Secondary Analysis"]}]}],"canonical_facts":{"dc:contributor":["Nicholas J. Cutforth","Amy M. Roberts","Robyn Thomas Pitts"],"dc:creator":["Deaton Wacker, Elizabeth Ann"],"dc:date.available":["2024-04-14T07:00:00Z"],"dc:description.abstract":["Qualitative secondary analysis (QSA) allows researchers to explore new research questions and ensure that participants’ voices are heard to the greatest extent possible, without the burdens of additional data collection. However, this approach is rarely used outside of the health sciences, and little guidance exists in the literature about how to conduct QSA. This study is a secondary analysis of qualitative program evaluation data related to the well-being of human services professionals from two fields: child welfare and early care and education (ECE). It explores these professionals’ well-being, as well as the methodological issues of how well-being has been addressed in workforce studies and the successes and challenges of conducting QSA. Analytical techniques included coding based on phenomenology and qualitative content analysis. Findings inform best practices in conducting QSA, suggest ways in which ECE and child welfare evaluators could more robustly study well-being, and contribute to the body of knowledge regarding the well-being of professionals who work with young children and families.
"],"dc:format":["application/pdf"],"dc:identifier":["https://digitalcommons.du.edu/etd/2029"],"dc:language":["en"],"dc:rights":["Copyright is held by the author. User is responsible for all copyright compliance.
"],"dc:subject":["Child welfare","Early care and education","Phenomenology","Program evaluation","Qualitative research methods","Community-Based Research","Early Childhood Education","Education","Social Work"],"dc:title":["Making the Most of Program Evaluation Data: Understanding Human Services Professionals’ Well-Being Through Qualitative Secondary Analysis"],"thesis:degree_level":["Dissertation"],"thesis:degree_name":["Ph.D."]},"updated_at":"2026-07-24T02:02:19Z"}