Free CHES Exam Flashcards

Its purpose, priority population, setting, and scope. These determine which questions and data are useful; choosing a convenient tool first can miss the actual need.

Primary data are collected for the current assessment, such as new interviews. Secondary data already exist, such as surveillance reports. Check whether either source fits the population, period, and question.

Participation is self-selected and excludes some people without access. A large convenience sample can still be biased; probability sampling gives eligible members known, nonzero selection probabilities.

Yes. Reliability concerns consistency; validity concerns measuring the intended construct. A tool can give repeatable results while consistently measuring something else.

30 ÷ 600 × 100 = 5%. It is the proportion initially at risk who become new cases during six months, not a person-time incidence rate.

80 ÷ 1,000 × 100 = 8%. Point prevalence counts all existing cases in that population on that date, regardless of when the condition began.

It identifies strengths and usable capacity—trusted groups, skills, spaces, and existing services—alongside problems. Planning can build on these resources instead of describing only deficits.

Priority also depends on severity, inequity, community concerns, available capacity, and feasibility. Agree on criteria with stakeholders, then apply them consistently.

(12 ÷ 200) ÷ (6 ÷ 200) = 2.0. The exposed group has twice the observed risk; that association alone does not establish causation.

It specifies the population and desired change, a measurable target, an achievable and relevant result, and a deadline. Example: by June 30, 80% of workshop participants will correctly demonstrate the taught skill.

A goal gives the broad desired direction, such as better injury prevention. An objective defines a specific, measurable result for a population within a stated period.

No. Sessions held are outputs of program activities; improved skills are an outcome. A logic model describes expected links between activities and changes, but does not itself prove those changes occurred.

Perceived barriers. Understanding those obstacles helps tailor support; repeating the health benefit alone may leave the barrier unchanged.

Offer manageable practice steps, successful performance experiences, and useful feedback. Confidence in being able to act is different from simply knowing why the action matters.

PRECEDE diagnoses the situation and factors that shape desired change. PROCEED moves into implementation and evaluation. The model starts with desired outcomes and works back to what must change.

Its essential functions and mechanisms. Adapt language, examples, or delivery context with community input while checking that the changes preserve what is expected to produce the outcome.

Before exposure to the intervention. It describes starting conditions so later changes can be interpreted; a baseline alone does not provide a comparison group or prove causation.

Demonstrate the skill, let the participant practice it, and give specific feedback. Listening to a lecture or recalling the steps does not show competent performance.

Remove participation barriers, provide usable formats and language support, and make practice and questions respectful. Check actual learner needs rather than assuming one format works for everyone.

Keep essential intervention functions intact, document what changed and why, and monitor delivery and results. Adaptation should be deliberate, not an undocumented drift from the program.

Offering sessions does not mean participants attended or engaged. Track delivered activities and actual exposure separately to identify implementation gaps before interpreting outcomes.

Where participation breaks down: whether the intended audience receives the invitation, understands it, can enroll, and can attend. Use participant feedback to identify the barrier before repeating the same outreach.

Continuing community value, reliable resources, capable partners, and delivery quality. Sustaining useful functions may require adaptation as needs and resources change; simply repeating activities is not enough.

Process evaluation examines implementation, such as whether activities reached intended participants and were delivered as planned. Outcome evaluation examines intended changes, such as skills or behavior; delivery counts alone do not establish those changes.

Other influences—such as an outside campaign, maturation, or changes in measurement—could explain the improvement. Report the observed change and the design's limitations rather than attributing all change to the program.

Random sampling selects people from a population and supports generalization when the sampling and response process are sound. Random assignment allocates participants to groups and helps reduce confounding between those groups; it does not make the sample representative.

It is associated with the exposure and independently with the outcome, and is not a consequence of the exposure. Its unequal distribution can distort the observed relationship.

Selection bias comes from systematic differences in who enters or remains in the study. Information bias comes from systematic error in measuring or classifying exposure, outcomes, or other data. A larger sample does not automatically remove either.

The increase is 50 − 40 = 10 percentage points. Relative to the starting value, (50 − 40) ÷ 40 × 100 = 25%. These describe the same change using different denominators.

It changes rules, organizational practices, or conditions that shape choices across a population. Individual education builds knowledge or skills; both approaches can complement one another.

The request must reach the person or body able to authorize the desired change. Also identify implementers and influential stakeholders so the proposal can move from approval to action.

Their interests, concerns, constraints, and influence. Understanding opposition supports a credible response and possible common ground; labeling opponents without listening can undermine engagement.

A clearly defined problem, credible evidence, a feasible recommendation, and a specific request to the decision-maker. State important limitations and practical implications in language the audience can use.

Media advocacy uses public attention to support policy or system change. It connects the issue to conditions and decision-makers responsible for change, rather than stopping at individual awareness.

Whether it is implemented, reaches intended groups, and produces the intended changes without widening inequities. Approval is an intermediate result; use evaluation findings to adjust further advocacy.

Grouping people by relevant needs, behaviors, barriers, and preferences permits useful tailoring. Verify these characteristics with the audience rather than assuming everyone in a demographic group is alike.

The audience's access, preferences, trust, and actual channel use, together with the message's purpose. A popular platform is ineffective if the intended audience cannot or does not use it.

Make the important message and requested action easy to find, understand, and use. Organize for the audience and use familiar words; shortening text alone does not ensure clarity.

It checks how clearly the educator explained the information by asking the person to explain the plan in their own words. Use a non-shaming approach, explain differently if needed, and check again.

Whether intended users understand the message, recognize its relevance, and know what action to take. Test with the intended audience and revise confusing content before wider delivery.

No. Distribution is a delivery measure. Assess comprehension separately, for example by asking intended users to explain the message and next action; exposure alone is not evidence of understanding.

Its relevant strengths, capacity, interest, and ability to fulfill the proposed role. A respected name alone does not establish the resources or commitment needed for meaningful involvement.

The skills required for their tasks, relevant qualifications, and ability to work respectfully with the community. Match people to responsibilities and identify support needs before delivery.

Review participation, completion of agreed responsibilities, communication, and progress toward shared goals. Seek partners' feedback and address unclear roles or unmet commitments while the work continues.

Combinations of details or very small groups can still identify people. Minimize unnecessary detail, check re-identification risk, and restrict access to identifiable information under applicable requirements.

The person understands the purpose, procedures, important risks and benefits, and available choices, and can decide without coercion. A signed form alone does not establish understanding or voluntary participation.

Ongoing reflection on personal assumptions and power, willingness to learn from people, and respectful shared decisions. It is a continuing practice, not a claim to have mastered every culture.

People face different barriers and starting conditions. Equitable practice identifies those barriers and provides appropriate support so people have a fair opportunity to benefit.

Disclose the interest and manage the conflict so evidence and public welfare guide the decision. Appropriate safeguards may include independent review or stepping out of the decision; disclosure alone may not resolve the conflict.

Identify the gap, choose relevant learning and practice, seek feedback, and check improvement in performance. Accumulating attendance credits alone does not demonstrate competence.