Contribution analysis applied: Reflections on scope and methodology

Canadian Journal of Program Evaluation

Volumn 25, Issue 2, 2010, Pages 29-57

  Dybdal, Line ^a   Nielsen, Steffen Bohni ^a   Lemire, Sebastian ^a  

^a RAMBOLL   (Denmark)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 80054707979     PISSN: 08341516     EISSN: 00077720     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (42)

1. Bickman, L. (1987). The function of program theory: Using program theory in evaluation. New Directions for Evaluation, 33, 5-18.
2. Bickman, L. (2000). Summing up program theory. New Directions for Evaluation, 87, 103-112.
3. Chen, H.-T. (1990). Issues in constructing program theory. New Directions for Evaluation, 47, 7-18.
4. Chen, H.-T. (1994). Theory-driven evaluation: Needs, difficulties, and options. American Journal of Evaluation, 15(1), 79-82.
5. Chen, H.-T., & Rossi, P. H. (1983). Evaluating with sense: The theory-driven approach. Evaluation Review, 7(3), 283-302.
6. Chen, H.-T., & Rossi, P. H. (1987). The theory-driven approach to validity. Evaluation and Program Planning, 10(1), 95-103.
7. Connell, J. P., & Kubisch, A. C. (1998). Applying a theory of change approach to the evaluation of comprehensive community initiatives: Progress, prospects, and problems. In K. Fulbright-Anderson, A. C. Kubisch, & J. P. Connell (Eds.), New approaches to evaluating community initiatives, Vol. 2: Theory, measurement, and analysis (pp. 15-44). Aspen, CO: Aspen Institute.
8. Cook, T. D., Scriven, M., Coryn, C. L. S., & Evergreen, S. D. H. (2010). Contemporary thinking about causation in evaluation: A dialogue with Tom Cook and Michael Scriven. American Journal of Evaluation, 31(1), 105-117.
9. Coryn, C. L. S., Noakes, L. A., Westine, C. D., & Schröter, D. C. (2011). A systematic review of theory driven evaluations practice from 1990 to 2009. American Journal of Evaluation, 32(2), 199-226.
10. Dahler-Larsen, P. (2001). From programme theory to constructivism: On tragic, magic and competing programmes. Evaluation, 7(3), 331-349.
11. Davidson, E. J. (2000). Ascertaining causality in theory-based evaluation. New Directions for Evaluation, 87, 17-26.
12. Donaldson, S. I. (2010). Program theory driven evaluation science: Strategies and applications. New York, NY: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
13. Fixsen, D., Naoom, S. L., Blasé, K. A., Friedman, R. M., & Wallace, F. (2005). Implementation research: A synthesis of the literature. Tampa, FL: University of South Florida.
14. Hofmann, C.-A., Roberts, L., Shoham, J., & Harvey, P. (2004). Measuring the impact of humanitarian aid: A review of current practice (HP Report 17). London, UK: Overseas Development Institute.
15. House, E. (2001). Unfinished business: Causes and values. American Journal of Evaluation, 22(3), 309-315. (Pubitemid 33387809)
16. Hunter, D. (2006). Daniel and the rhinoceros. Evaluation and Program Planning, 29(2), 180-185. (Pubitemid 43812045)
17. Imas, L. M., & Rist, R. C. (2009). Road to results: Conducting effective development evaluations. Washington, DC: World Bank.
18. Kotvojs, F. (2006, September). Contribution analysis: A new approach to evaluation in international development. Paper presented at the international conference of the Australasian Evaluation Society, Darwin. Retrieved from http://www.aes.asn.au/conferences/2006/papers/ 022%20Fiona%20Kotvojs.pdf
19. Kotvojs, F., & Shrimpton, B. (2007). Contribution analysis: A new approach to evaluation in international development. Evaluation Journal of Australasia, 7(1), 27-35.
20. Lipski, U., & Ignagni, E. (2001). Evaluation of nutritional interventions: A background document (Report # 3). Toronto, ON: Prevention Unit, Division of Preventive Oncology, Cancer Care Ontario. Retrieved at https://ospace.scholarsportal.info/bitstream/1873/4888/1/10309032.pdf
21. Mackay, R., Horton, D., Dupleich, L., & Anderson, A. (2002). Evaluating organizational capacity development. Canadian Journal of Program Evaluation, 17(2), 121-150.
22. Mark, M. M. (1990). From program theory to test of program theory. New Directions for Evaluation, 47, 37-51.
23. Marquart, J. M. (1990). A pattern-matching approach to link program theory and evaluation data. New Directions for Evaluation, 47, 93-107.
24. Mayne, J. (1999). Addressing attribution through contribution analysis: Using performance measures sensibly (discussion paper). Ottawa, ON: Office of the Auditor General of Canada. Retrieved at http://dsp-psd.pwgsc.gc.ca/ Collection/FA3-31-1999E.pdf
25. Mayne, J. (2001). Addressing attribution through contribution analysis: Using performance measures sensibly. Canadian Journal of Program Evaluation, 16(1), 1-24.
26. Mayne, J. (2008). Contribution analysis: An approach to exploring cause and effect (IL AC Brief 16). Rome, Italy: Institutional Learning and Change (IL AC) Initiative. Retrieved at http://www.inteval-group.org/IMG/pdf/ILAC- Contribution-Analysis-2.pdf
27. Mayne, J. (2009). Improving HRSDC evaluations of G&C program: Using theory-based approaches. Unpublished manuscript.
28. Mayne, J. (2011). Addressing cause and effect in simple and complex settings through contribution analysis. In R. Schwartz, K. Forss, & M. Marra (Eds.), Evaluating the complex: Attribution, contribution and beyond. New York, NY: Transaction.
29. Newcomer, K. E., & Schreirer, M. A. (2001). Using evaluation to support performance management: A guide for federal managers. Arlington, VA: The Pricewaterhouse Coopers Endowment for The Business of Government. Retrieved from http://www.businessofgovernment.org/report/using-evaluation-support- performance-management-guidefederal-executives
30. Nielsen, S. B., & Ejler, N. (2008). Improving performance? Exploring the complementarities between evaluation and performance. Evaluation, 14(2), 171-192.
31. Pawson, R., & Tilley, N. (1997). Realistic evaluation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
32. Ramboll Management Consulting. (2007). Evaluering af foræ ldrepålæ [Evaluation of the parental injunction program]. Odense, Denmark: Danish Board of Social Services. Retrieved at http://www. servicestyrelsen.dk/ om-os/filer/om-os/puljer-og-udbud/born-og-unge/57.pdf
33. Ramboll Management Consulting. (2010). Evaluering af de utrolige år: Delrapport II [Evaluation of the incredible years: Interim report II]. Odense, Denmark: Danish Board of Social Services. Retrieved at http://www.servicestyrelsen.dk/udgivelser/born-og-unge-alle-udgivelser/ rapporter-og-boger-born-unge/evaluering-af-de-utroligear-delrapport-2-effekten- af-programmet
34. Ramboll Management Consulting. (2011). Evaluering af de utrolige år: Endelig rapport [Evaluation of the incredible years: Final report]. Odense, Denmark: Danish Board of Social Services.
35. Rogers, P. (2007). Theory-based evaluation: Reflections ten years on. New Directions for Evaluation, 114, 63-67.
36. Rogers, P., et al. (2000). Program theory evaluation: Practice, promise, and problems. New Directions for Evaluation, 87, 5-13.
37. Schreirer, M. A. (1987). Program theory and implementation theory: Implications for evaluators. New Directions for Program Evaluation, 33, 59-76.
38. Scottish Government. (2009). Contribution analysis: Guide 6 in the Social Science Methods Briefings series. Retrieved from http://www.scotland.gov.uk/ Topics/Research/About/Social-Research/Methods-Guides/ Guide-6
39. Smith, N. L. (1990). Using path analysis to develop and evaluate program theory and impact. New Directions for Evaluation, 47, 53-57.
40. Weiss, C. H. (1997). How can theory-based evaluation make greater headway? Evaluation Review, 21, 501-524. (Pubitemid 127449324)
41. White, H. (2010). A contribution to current debates in impact evaluation. Evaluation, 16(2), 153-164.
42. Winther, S. (2001). Implementeringsforskningen og dens relation til evaluering [Implementation research and its relationship to evaluation]. In P. Dahler-Larsen & H. Krogstrup (Eds.), Tendenser i evaluering [Trends in Evaluation] (pp. 61-78). Odense, Denmark: Odense Universitetsforlag.