Toward a platinum standard for evidence-based assessment by 2020

Public Administration Review

Volumn 70, Issue SUPPL. 1, 2010, Pages S100-S106

  Khagram, Sanjeev ^a   Thomas, Craig W ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 78650161164     PISSN: 00333352     EISSN: 15406210     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1540-6210.2010.02251.x     Document Type: Article

References (56)

1. Bennett, Andrew. 2008. Process Tracing: A Bayesian Perspective. In The Oxford Handbook of Political Methodology, edited by Janet M. Box-Steffensmeier, Henry E. Brady, and David Collier, 702-21. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
2. Bouckaert, Geert, and John Halligan 2008. Managing Performance: International Comparisons. London: Routledge.
3. Boyne, George A. 2002. Concepts and Indicators of Local Authority Performance: An Evaluation of the Statutory Framework in England and Wales. Public Money and Management 22(2): 17-24.
4. Boyne, George A., Kenneth J. Meier, Laurence J. O'Toole, Jr., and Richard M. Walker 2006. Public Service Performance: Perspectives Measurement and Management. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
5. Brady, Henry E., and David Collier 2004. Rethinking Social Inquiry: Diverse Tools, Shared Standards. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
6. Center for Global Development (CGD). 2006 When Will We Ever Learn? Improving Lives through Impact Evaluation. [accessed August 22, 2010].
7. Collier, David, and James E. Mahon, Jr 1993. Conceptual Stretching Revisited: Adapting Categories in Comparative Analysis. American Political Science Review 87(4): 845-55.
8. Donaldson, Stewart I., Christina A. Christie, and Melvin M. Mark 2009. What Counts as Credible Evidence in Applied Research and Evaluation Practice?, Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications.
9. Duflo, Esther, and Michael Kremer 2003. Use of Randomization in the Evaluation of Development Effectiveness. Paper prepared for the World Bank Operations Evaluation Department Conference on Evaluation and Development Effectiveness, July 15-16, Washington, DC.
10. Dull, Matthew. 2006. Why PART? The Institutional Politics of Presidential Budget Reform. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 16(2): 187-215.
11. Dull, Matthew. 2009. Results-Model Reform Leadership: Questions of Credible Commitment. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 19(2): 255-84.
12. European Evaluation Society (EES). 2007. The Importance of a Methodologically Diverse Approach to Impact Evaluation-Specifically with Respect to Development Aid and Development Interventions. Nijnerk: EES Secretariat.
13. Fearon, James D. 1991. Counterfactuals and Hypothesis Testing in Political Science. World Politics 43(2): 169-95.
14. Frederickson, David G., and H. George Frederickson 2006. Measuring the Performance of the Hollow State. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
15. Gaarder, Marie, and Howard White 2009. The International Initiative for Impact Evaluation: An Introduction. Journal of Development Effectiveness 1(3): 378-386.
16. Geddes, Barbara. 2003. How the Cases You Choose Affect the Answers You Get. In Paradigms and Sand Castles: Theory Building and Research Design in Comparative Politics, edited by Barbara Geddes, 89-129. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
17. George, Alexander L., and Andrew Bennett 2005. Case Studies and Theory Development in the Social Sciences. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
18. Gerring, John. 2001. Social Science Methodology: A Criterial Framework. New York: Cambridge University Press.
19. Gerring, John. 2007. Case Study Research: Principles and Practices. New York: Cambridge University Press.
20. Gerring, John, and Craig W. Thomas .Forthcoming. Qualitative versus Quantitative Methods: A Question of Comparability. In Sage International Encyclopedia of Political Science, edited by Nathaniel Beck. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
21. Gilmour, John B. 2006. Implementing OMB's Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART): Meeting the Challenges of Integrating Budget and Performance. Washington, DC: IBM Center for the Business of Government.
22. Gilmour, John B., and David E. Lewis 2006. Does Performance Budgeting Work? An Examination of the Office of Management and Budget's PART Scores. Public Administration Review 66(5): 742-52.
23. Goertz, Gary. 2006. Social Science Concepts: A User's Guide. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
24. Greene, Jennifer. 2000. Challenges in Practicing Deliberative Democratic Evaluation. New Directions for Evaluation, no. 85: 13-26.
25. Hatry, Harry P. 2006. Performance Measurement: Getting Results. 2nd ed. Washington, DC: Urban Institute Press.
26. Heckman, James J., and Jeffrey A. Smith 1995. Assessing the Case for Social Experiments. Journal of Economic Perspectives 9(2): 85-110.
27. Kamensky, John M., and Albert Morales, eds 2005. Managing for Results. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
28. Jones, Nicola., Harry Jones, Liesbet Steer, and Ajoy Datta 2009. Improving Impact Evaluation Production and Use. Working Paper no. 300, Overseas Development Institute. [accessed August 22, 2010].
29. Khagram, Sanjeev, Kimberly Nicholas Cahill, et al. Forthcoming. Thinking about Knowing: Conceptual Foundations for Interdisciplinary Environmental Research. Environmental Conservation.
30. Khagram, Sanjeev., Craig W. Thomas, Catrina Lucero, and Subarna Mathes 2009. Evidence for Development Effectiveness. Journal of Development Effectiveness 1(3): 247-70.
31. Lakatos, Imre. 1970. Falsification and the Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes. In Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge, edited by Imre Lakatos and Alan Musgrave, 91-146. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
32. Mahoney, James, and Gary Goertz 2004. The Possibility Principle: Choosing Negative Cases in Comparative Research. American Political Science Review 98(4): 653-69.
33. Maynard, Rebecca. 2006. Evidence-Based Decision Making: What Will It Take for the Decision Makers to Care? Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 25(2): 249-65.
34. Mayoux, Linda, and Robert Chambers 2005. Reversing the Paradigm: Quantification, Participatory Methods, and Pro-Poor Impact. Journal of International Development 17(2): 271-98.
35. Moore, Mark A. 1995. Creating Public Value: Strategic Management in Government. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
36. Moynihan, Donald P. 2008. The Dynamics of Performance Management: Constructing Information and Reform. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
37. Moynihan, Donald P., and Sanjay K. Pandey 2010. The Big Question for Performance Management: Why Do Managers Use Performance Information? Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory. [accessed August 22, 2010].
38. Network of Networks on Impact Evaluation (NONIE). 2009 Impact Evaluations and Development. [accessed August 22, 2010].
39. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). 2005 Paris Declaration of Aid Effectiveness and the Accra Agenda for Action. [accessed August 23, 2010].
40. Patton, Michael Quinn. 2008. State of the Art in Measuring Development Assistance. Unpublished speech, April 10.
41. Pierson, Paul. 2000. Increasing Returns, Path Dependence, and the Study of Politics. American Political Science Review 94(2): 251-67.
42. Pritchett, Lant. 2009. Political Economy of Aid Evaluation: How to Build Effective and Sustainable Movements. Paper presented at New York University.
43. Radin, Beryl A. 2006. Challenging the Performance Movement: Accountability, Complexity and Democratic Values. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
44. Ragin, Charles C. 1987. The Comparative Method: Moving Beyond Qualitative and Quantitative Strategies. Berkeley: University of California Press.
45. Ragin, Charles C. 2000. Fuzzy-Set Social Science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
46. Riccucci, Norma M. 2010. Public Administration: Traditions of Inquiry and Philosophies of Knowledge. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
47. Rodrik, Dani. 2008. The New Development Economics: We Shall Experiment, But How Shall We Learn? Paper presented at the Brookings Development Conference, May 29-30, Washington, DC.
48. Rogers, Patricia J. 2009. Matching Impact Evaluation Design to the Nature of the Intervention and the Purpose of the Evaluation. Journal of Development Effectiveness 1(3): 217-26.
49. Skocpol, Theda, and Margaret Somers 1980. The Uses of Comparative History in Macrosocial Inquiry. Comparative Studies in Society and History 22(2): 174-97.
50. Steinberg, Paul F. 2007. Causal Assessment in Small-N Policy Studies. Policy Studies Journal 35(2): 181-204.
51. Tetlock, Philip E., and Aaron Belkin, eds 1996. Counterfactual Thought Experiments in World Politics: Logical, Methodological, and Psychological Perspectives. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
52. Thomas, Craig W., Tomas M. Koontz, and Danielle Fumia 2009. How Should OMB's PART Process be Modified by the Obama Administration? An Assessment of Output and Outcome Measures in 113 Environmental and Natural Resource Programs. Paper presented at the 31st Annual Research Conference of the Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management, November 5-7, Washington, DC.
53. U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO). 2009. Program Evaluation: A Variety of Rigorous Methods Can Help Identify Effective Interventions. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. GAO-10-30.
54. U.S. Office of Management and Budget (OMB). 2007 Program Assessment Rating Tool Guidance no. 2007-7. Washington, DC: Office of Management and Budget.
55. U.S. Office of Management and Budget (OMB). 2008. Guide to the Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART). Washington, DC: Office of Management and Budget.
56. White, Howard. 2008. Of Probits and Participation: The Use of Mixed Methods in Quantitative Impact Evaluation. [accessed August 22, 2010].