Roles for program templates in evaluation: A broader look

New Directions for Evaluation

Volumn 1996, Issue 72, 1996, Pages 89-97

  Ann Scheirer, Mary ^a  

^a NONE   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0347650687     PISSN: 10976736     EISSN: 1534875X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/ev.1051     Document Type: Article

References (23)

1. Basch, C., Sliepcevich, E. M., Gold, R. S., Duncan, D. F., and Kolbe, L. J. “Avoiding Type III Errors in Health Education Program Evaluations: A Case Study.” Health Education Quarterly, 1985, 12, 315–331.
2. Bickman, L. (ed.). Using Program Theory in Evaluation. New Directions for Program Evaluation, no. 33. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1987.
3. Campbell, D. T., and Stanley, J. C. Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Designs for Research. Skokie, Ill.: Rand McNally, 1963.
4. Charters, W. W., Jr., and Jones, J. E. “On the Risk of Appraising Non-Events in Program Evaluation.” Educational Researcher, 1973, 2 (11), 5–7.
5. Chen, H. T. “Special Issue: The Theory-Driven Perspective.” Evaluation and Program Planning, 1989, 12, 297–398.
6. Chen, H. T. Theory-Driven Evaluations. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage, 1990.
7. Chen, H. T., and Rossi, P. H. “Evaluating with Sense: The Theory-Driven Approach.” Evaluation Review, 1983, 7, 283–302.
8. Cook, T. D., and Campbell, D. T. Quasi-Experimentation: Design and Analysis Issues for Field Settings. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin, 1979.
9. Cook, T. D., and Reichardt, C. S. (eds.). Qualitative and Quantitative Methods in Evaluation Research. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage, 1979.
10. Fetterman, D. M. “Qualitative Approaches to Evaluating Education.” Educational Researcher, 1988, 17 (8), 17–22.
11. Fetterman, D. M., Kaftarian, S. J., and Wandersman, A. Empowerment Evaluation. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage, 1996.
12. Guba, E. G. “The Failure of Educational Evaluation.” In C. H. Weiss (ed.), Evaluating Action Programs. Needham Heights, Mass.: Allyn & Bacon, 1972.
13. Guba, E. G., and Lincoln, Y. S. Fourth-Generation Evaluation. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage, 1989.
14. Judd, C. M. “Combining Process and Outcome Evaluation.” In M. M. Mark, and R. L. Shot-land (eds.), Multiple Methods in Program Evaluation. New Directions for Program Evaluation, no. 35. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1987.
15. McGraw, S. A., and others. “Using Process Data to Explain Outcomes.” Evaluation Review, 1996, 20 (3), 291–312.
16. Miles, M. B., and Huberman, A. M. Analyzing Qualitative Data: A Source Book for New Methods. (2nd ed.) Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage, 1994.
17. Patton, M. Q. Utilization-Focused Evaluation. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage, 1978.
18. Reicken, H. W., and Boruch, R. F. (eds.). Social Experimentation: A Method for Planning and Evaluating Social Intervention. Orlando: Academic Press, 1974.
19. Scheirer, M. A. “Designing and Using Process Evaluation.” In J. A. Wholey, H. P. Hatry, and K. E. Newcomer (eds.), Handbook of Practical Program Evaluation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1994.
20. Scriven, M. “The Methodology of Evaluation.” In R. W. Tyler, R. M. Gagne, and M. Scriven (eds.), Perspectives on Curriculum Evaluation. AERA Monograph Series on Curriculum Evaluation, no. 1. Skokie, III: Rand McNally, 1967.
21. Shadish, W. R., Cook, T. D., and Leviton, L. C. Foundations of Program Evaluation: Theories of Practice. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage, 1991.
22. Williams, D. D. (ed.). Naturalistic Evaluation. New Directions for Program Evaluation, no. 30. San Francisco: Jossey Bass, 1986.
23. Yin, R. K. Case Study Research: Design and Methods. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage, 1984.