Designing an effective evaluation plan: A tool for understanding and planning evaluations for complex nursing contexts

Contemporary Nurse

Volumn 25, Issue 1-2, 2007, Pages 136-145

  Walsh, Kenneth ^a,b   Duke, Jan ^b   Foureur, Maralyn ^c   MacDonald, Lesley ^d  

^a WAIKATO DISTRICT HEALTH BOARD   (New Zealand)

^b VICTORIA UNIVERSITY OF WELLINGTON   (New Zealand)

^c UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY SYDNEY   (Australia)

^d WAIKATO INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY   (New Zealand)

Author keywords

Complex contexts; Evaluation; Nursing; Practice development

Indexed keywords

EID: 34547593309     PISSN: 10376178     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.5172/conu.2007.25.1-2.136     Document Type: Article

References (23)

1. Aiken L, Sochalski J and Lake E (1997) Studying outcomes of organizational change in health services, Medical Care 35: 6-18.
2. Billings J (2000) Community Development: A critical review of approaches to evaluation, Journal of Advanced Nursing 32 (2): 472-480.
3. Boog B (2003) The emancipatory character of action research, its history and the present state of the art, Journal of Community and Applied Social Psychology 13: 426-438.
4. Carpenter M (2004) Book Reviews: Guba E and Lincoln Y: Fourth Generation Evaluation, Everitt A and Hardiker P: Evaluating for Good Practice, Pawson R and Tilley N: Realistic Evaluation, and Clarke A: Evaluation Research: An Introduction to Principles, Methods and Practices, Concepts and Transformation 9(3): 305-310.
5. Clarke A (2001) Evaluation research in nursing and health care, Nurse Researcher 8(3): 4-14.
6. Davidson C (2003) The mix of methods: common research techniques used in evaluation, in Lunt N, Davidson C and McKegg K (Eds) Evaluating Policy and Practice: A New Zealander Reader, Pearson, Auckland.
7. Duignan P (2003) Approaches and terminology in programme and policy evaluation, in Lunt N Davidson C and McKegg K (Eds) Evaluating Policy and Practice: A New Zealand Reader, Pearson, Auckland.
8. Everitt A and Hardiker P (1996) Evaluating for Good Practice, Palgrave, Basingstoke.
9. Fetterman D (2000) Empowerment Evaluation, Sage, Thousand Oaks.
10. Green J (2000) The role of theory in evidence-based health promotion practice, Health Education Research 15(2): 125-129.
11. Hall J (2004) Pluralistic Evaluation: a situational approach to service evaluation, Journal of Nursing Management 12: 22-27.
12. Koch T (1994) Beyond measurement: fourthgeneration evaluation in nursing, Journal of Advanced Nursing 20: 1148-1155.
13. Lazenbatt A (2002) The Evaluation Handbook for Health Professionals, Routledge, London.
14. Lincoln Y and Guba E (1989) Fourth Generation Evaluation, Sage, Newbury Park.
15. Patton M (1997) Towards distinguishing empowerment evaluation and placing it in a larger context, Evaluation Practice 18(2): 147-163.
16. Pawson R and Tilley N (1997) Realistic Evaluation, Sage, London.
17. Scriven M (1997) Empowerment evaluation examined, Evaluation Practice 18(2): 165-175.
18. Sidani S, Doran D and Mitchell P (2004) A theory-driven approach to evaluating quality of nursing care, Journal of Nursing Scholarship 36(1): 60-65.
19. Sullivan H, Barnes M and Matka E (2002) Building collaborative capacity through theories of change: early lessons from the evaluation of Health Action Zones in England, Evaluation 8(2): 205-226.
20. Victora C, Habicht J-P and Bryce J (2004) Evidence based public health moving beyond randomised trials, American Journal of Public Health 94: 400-405.
21. Walsh K, Lawless J, Moss C and Allbon C (2005) The development of an engagement tool for practice development, Practice Development in Health Care 4(3): 124-130.
22. Warburton B and Black M (2002) Evaluating processes for evidence-based health care in the National Health Service, British Journal of Clinical Governance 7(3): 158-164.
23. Webster D,Vaughn K and Martinez R (1994) Introducing solution focused approaches to staff in inpatient psychiatric settings, Archives of Psychiatric Nursing 8(4): 254-261.