Shoestring evaluation: Designing impact evaluations under budget, time and data constraints

American Journal of Evaluation

Volumn 25, Issue 1, 2004, Pages 5-37

  Bamberger, Michael ^a   Rugh, Jim ^a   Church, Mary ^a   Fort, Lucia ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0842290659     PISSN: 10982140     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.ameval.2003.11.001     Document Type: Article

References (42)

1. Baker J. (2000). Evaluating the impacts of development projects on poverty: A handbook for practitioners. Directions in Development Series. Washington, DC: The World Bank.
2. Bamberger M. (Ed.). (2000a). Integrating quantitative and qualitative research in development projects. Directions in Development Series. Washington, DC: The World Bank
3. Bamberger M. The evaluation of international development programs: A view from the front American Journal of Evaluation 21 2000b 95-102
4. Bamberger M. Blackden M. Fort L. & Manoukian V. (2001). Gender. In J. Klugman (Ed.), A sourcebook for poverty reductions strategies (Vol. 1, pp. 333-376). Washington, DC: The World Bank. Available on the web at www.worldbank.org/poverty.
5. Caldwell, J. (1985). Strengths and limitations of the survey method approach for measuring and understanding fertility change: Alternative possibilities. In J. Cleland & J. Hobcraft (Eds.), Reproductive change in developing countries: Insights from the World Fertility Survey (pp 45-63). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
6. Cook T. & Campbell D. (1978). Quasi-experimentation: Design and analysis issues for field settings. Chicago: Rand McNally
7. Dayal R. van Wijk C. & Mukherjee N. (2000). Methodology for participatory assessments with communities, institutions and policy makers: Linking sustainability with demand, gender and poverty. Water and sanitation program. Washington, DC: The World Bank.
8. Deaton A. & Grosh M. (2002). Consumption. In M. Grosh & P. Glewwe (Eds.), Designing household survey questionnaires for developing countries: Lessons from 15 years of the Living Standards Measurement Study. Washington, DC: World Bank.
9. Dimitrov T. (in press). Enhancing the performance of a major environmental project through a focused mid-term evaluation: The Kombinat Za Cvetni Metali environmental improvement project in Bulgaria.
10. Gomez L. (2000). Gender analysis of two components of the World Bank transport projects in Lima. Peru: Bikepaths and busways. www.worldbank.org/gender/transport/grantseru1P/handout.
11. Grosh M. & Glewwe P. (Eds.). (2002). Designing household survey questionnaires for developing countries: Lessons from 15 years of the living standards measurement study. Washington, DC: World Bank.
12. Guba E. & Lincoln Y. (1989) Fourth generation evaluation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
13. Hashemi S. Schuler S.R. Riley A.P. Rural credit programs and women's empowerment in Bangladesh World Development 24 1996 635-653
14. Hentschel J. Contextuality and data collection methods: A framework and application to health service utilization The Journal of Development Studies 35 4 1999 64-94
15. Justice J. (1986). Policies, plans and people: Culture and health development in Nepal. Berkeley: University of California Press.
16. Kim J. Alderman H. Orazem P. Can private school subsidies increase schooling for the poor? The Quetta Urban Fellowship Program World Bank Economic Review 13 1999 443-466
17. Khandker S. (1998). Fighting poverty with microcredit: Experience in Bangladesh. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
18. Kumar K. (Ed.). (1993). Rapid appraisal methods: Regional and sectoral studies. Washington, DC: The World Bank.
19. Leeuw F. Reconstructing program theories: Methods available and problems to be solved American Journal of Evaluation 24 2003 5-20
20. Lipsey M.W. (1990). Design sensitivity: Statistical power for experimental research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
21. Lipsey M.W. (1993). Theory as method: Small theories of treatment. In L. Sechrest & A. Scott (Eds.), Understanding causes and generalizing about them. New Directions for Program Evaluation, No. 57. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
22. Lipsey M.W. Wilson D. The efficacy of psychological, educational and behavioral treatment: Confirmation from meta-analysis American Psychologist 48 1993 1181-1209
23. Miles M. & Huberman M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
24. Moore D. & McCabe G. (1999). Introduction to the practice of statistics. New York: Freeman.
25. Newman C. (2001, February). Gender, time use, and change: Impacts of agricultural export employment in Ecuador. Policy research report on gender and development working paper series no. 18. Poverty Reduction and Economic Management Network/Development Research Group. The World Bank. Available on the web at www.worldbank.org/gender/prr.
26. Patton M.Q. (1997). Utilization-focused evaluation (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
27. Patton M.Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
28. Paul S. (2002). Holding the state to account: Citizen monitoring in action. Bangalore: Books for Change ActionAid.
29. Pebley A. Noreen N. Choe M.K. Evaluation of contraceptive history data in the Republic of Korea Studies in Family Planning 17 1986 22-35
30. Pratt C. McGuigan W. Katzev A. Measuring program outcomes: Using retrospective pretest methodology American Journal of Evaluation 21 2002 341-350
31. Rietberger-McCracken J. & Narayan D. (1997). Participatory rural appraisal. Module III of Participatory tools and techniques: A resource kit for participation and social assessment. Environment Department. Washington, DC: The World Bank.
32. Rogers P. Hacsi T. Petrosino A. & Huebner T. (Eds.). (2000). Program theory in evaluation: Challenges and opportunities. New Directions for Evaluation, No. 87. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
33. Rogers P. Petrosino A. Huebner T. & Hacsi T. (2000). Program theory evaluation: Practice, promise and problems. In P. Rogers, T. Hacsi, A. Petrosino, & T. Huebner (Eds.), Program theory in evaluation: Challenges and opportunities. New Directions for Evaluation, No. 87. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
34. Schwandt T.A. (1990). On judging trustworthiness in interpretivist methodologies. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Boston.
35. Schwarz N. Oyserman D. Asking questions about behavior: Cognition, communication, and questionnaire construction American Journal of Evaluation 22 2001 127-160
36. Shadish W. Cook T.D. & Campbell D. (2002). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for generalized causal inference. Boston: Houghton Miflin.
37. Shadish W. Newman D. Scheirer M.A. & Wye C. (1995). Guiding principles for evaluators. New Directions for Program Evaluation, No. 66. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
38. Valadez J. & Bamberger M. (1994). Monitoring and evaluating social programs in developing countries: A handbook for policymakers, managers and researchers. Washington, DC: World Bank.
39. Weiss C. How can theory-based evaluation make greater headway? Evaluation Review 21 1997 501-524
40. Weitzman B. Silver D. Dillman K.N. Integrating a comparison group design into a theory of change evaluation: The case of the Urban Health Initiative American Journal of Evaluation 23 2002 371-386
41. World Bank. (1993). Early experience with involuntary resettlement: Impact evaluation on India: Maharashtra Irrigation Project. Operations Evaluation Department. Washington, DC: The World Bank.
42. Yin, R. (2003) Case study research: Design and methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.