The user-oriented evaluator's role in formulating a program theory: Using a theory-driven approach

American Journal of Evaluation

Volumn 24, Issue 3, 2003, Pages 373-385

  Christie, Christina A ^a   Alkin, Marvin C ^b  

^a CLAREMONT GRADUATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0142087819     PISSN: 10982140     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S1098-2140(03)00054-7     Document Type: Article

References (18)

1. Adelson M. Alkin M.C. Carey C. Helmer O. Planning education for the future: Comments on a pilot study American Behavioral Scientist 107 1967 1-29
2. Alkin, M. C. (1991). Evaluation theory development II. In M. McLaughlin & D. Phillips (Eds.), Evaluation and education at quarter century (pp. 91-112). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
3. Chen, H. (1990). Theory-driven evaluations. Newbury, CA: Sage.
4. Chen H. Rossi P.H. The multi-goal, theory-driven approach to evaluation: A model linking basic and applied social science Social Forces 59 1980 106-122
5. Chen H. Rossi P.H. Evaluating with sense: The theory-driven approach Evaluation Review 7 1983 283-302
6. Chen, H., & Rossi, P. H. (1992). Introduction: Integrating theory into evaluation practice. In H. Chen & P. H. Rossi (Eds.), Using theory to improve program and policy evaluations (pp. 2-11). Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.
7. Christie, C. A. (2003). What guides evaluation? A study of how evaluation practice maps onto evaluation theory. In C. A. Christie (Ed.), The practice-theory relationship in evaluation. New directions for evaluation, No. 97 (pp. 7-35). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
8. Dalkey, N., Rourke, D. L., Lewis, R., & Snyder, D. (1972). Studies in the quality of life: Delphi and decision-making. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
9. Datta L.-E. Coming attractions American Journal of Evaluation 22 2001 403-408
10. Donaldson, S. I. (2002). Theory-driven program evaluation in the new millennium. In S. I. Donaldson & M. Scriven (Eds.), Evaluating social programs and problems (pp. 109-141). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
11. Mark M. Evaluation's future: Furor, futile or fertile American Journal of Evaluation 22 2001 457-479
12. Mark, M. (2002). Toward a integrative view of the theory and practice of program and policy evaluation. In S. I. Donaldson & M. Scriven (Eds.), Evaluating social programs and problems (pp. 183-204). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
13. Oakes, J. (2001). Six conditions for college going: Research guiding UCLA outreach partnership work. UC ACCORD Technical Report.
14. Patton, M. Q. (1997). Utilization-focused evaluation: A new century text (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
15. Rogers, P. J., Petrosino, A., Huebner, T. A., & Hacsi, T. A. (2000). Program theory evaluation: Practice, promise, and problems. In P. J. Rogers, T. A. Hacsi, A. Petrosino, & T. A. Huebner (Eds.), Program theory in evaluation: Challenges and opportunities. New directions for evaluation, No. 87 (pp. 5-13). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
16. Scriven, M. (1991). Evaluation thesaurus (4th ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
17. Stufflebeam, D. (2000). Evaluation models. New directions for evaluation, No. 89. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
18. Weiss, C. H. (1998). Evaluation: Methods for studying programs and policies (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.