When background becomes foreground: Toward context-sensitive evaluation practice

New Directions for Evaluation

Volumn 2012, Issue 135, 2012, Pages 25-40

  Rog, Debra J ^a  

^a Rockville Institute   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84866304437     PISSN: 10976736     EISSN: 1534875X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/ev.20025     Document Type: Article

References (38)

1. Alkin, M. (2004). Context adapted utilization: A personal journey. In M. Alkin (Ed.), Evaluation roots: Tracing theorists' views and influences. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
2. Bamberger, M., Rugh, J., & Mabry, L. (2006). Real world evaluation: Working under bud get, time, data, and political constraints. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
3. Birnbaum, M., & Mickwitz, P. (Eds). (2009). Environmental program and policy evaluation: Addressing methodological challenges. New Directions for Evaluation, 122.
4. Braverman, M. T., Constantine, N. A., & Slater, J. K. (Eds.) (2004). Foundations and evaluation: Contexts and practices for effective philanthropy. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
5. Braverman, M. T., Engle, M., Arnold, M. E., & Rennekemp, R. A. (Eds.). (2008). Program evaluation in a complex organizational system: Lessons from cooperative extension. New Directions for Evaluation, 120.
6. Davidson, E. J. (2005). Evaluation methodology basics: The nuts and bolts of sound evaluation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
7. Durland, M. M., & Fredericks, K. A. (Eds.). (2006). Social network analysis in program evaluation. New Directions for Evaluation, 107.
8. Fitzpatrick, J. (1999). Dialogue with Debra J. Rog. American Journal of Evaluation, 20, 562-575.
9. Fitzpatrick, J., Christie, C., & Mark, M. (2009). Evaluation in action: Interviews with expert evaluators. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
10. Greene, J. (2005). Context. In S. Mathison (Ed.), Encyclopedia of evaluation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
11. Henry, G., Julnes, G. J., & Mark, M. (Eds.). (1998). Realist evaluation. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.
12. Iriti, J. E., Bickel, W. E., & Nelson, C. A. (2005). Using recommendations in evaluation: A decision-making framework for evaluators. American Journal of Evaluation, 26(4), 464-479.
13. Julnes, G., & Rog, D. J. (Eds.). (2007). Informing federal policies on evaluation methodology: Building the evidence base for method choice in government sponsored evaluations. New Directions for Evaluation, 113.
14. Lewin, K. (1943). Defining the "field at a given time." Psychological Review, 50, 292-310.
15. Mark, M. M. (2001). Evaluation's future: Furor, futile, or fertile? American Journal of Evaluation, 22, 457-479.
16. McKillip, J., Rycraft, J., Wernet, S., Patchner, M., & Mech, E. (2007). Using the pretest/post-test only design for evaluation of training. Presented at the annual meeting of the American Evaluation Association, Baltimore, MD.
17. Nagin, D. S. (2005). Group-based modeling of development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
18. Nagin, D. S., & Odgers, C. L. (2010). Group-based trajectory modeling in clinical research. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 6, 109-138.
19. Patton, M. Q. (2008). Utilization-focused evaluation (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
20. Patton, M. Q. (2011). Developmental evaluation: Appling complexity concepts to enhance innovation and use. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
21. Pawson, R., & Tilley, N. (1997). Realistic evaluation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
22. Rog, D. J. (2005, October). Evaluability assessment: Then and now. Presented at the Joint Meeting of the Canadian Evaluation Society and the American Evaluation Association, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
23. Rog, D. J., & Gutman, M. (1997). The Homeless Families Program: A summary of key findings. In S. L. Isaacs & J. R. Knickman (Eds.), The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation anthology: To improve health and health care (pp. 209-231). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
24. Rog, D. J., & Henry, G. T. (1987). An implementation evaluation of community corrections. Evaluation Review, 11, 337-354.
25. Rog, D. J., & Knickman, J. R. (2004). Strategies for comprehensive initiatives. In M. T. Braverman, N. A. Constantine, & J. K. Slater (Eds.), Foundations and evaluation: Contexts and practices for effective philanthropy. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
26. Rog, D. J., Mongelli, A. G., & Lundy, E. (1998). The Family Unification Program: Final evaluation report. Washington, DC: CWLA Press.
27. Rosenheck, R., Morrissey, J., Lam, J., Calloway, M., Stolar, M., Johnsen, M., Gold-man, H. (2001). Service delivery and community: Social capital, service systems integration, and outcomes among homeless persons with severe mental illness. Health Services Research, 36, 691-710.
28. Rossi, P. (1990). Down and out in America: The origins of homelessness. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
29. Rubin, D. (1997). Estimating causal effects from large data sets using propensity scores. Annals of Internal Medicine, 127, 757-763.
30. Scriven, M. (1974). Evaluation perspectives and procedures. In W. J. Popham (Ed.), Evaluation in education. Berkeley, CA: McCutchan.
31. SenGupta, S., Hopson, R., & Thompson-Robinson, M. (2004). Cultural competence in evaluation: An overview. In M. Thompson-Robinson, R. Hopson, & S. SenGupta (Eds.), In search of cultural competence in evaluation: Toward principles and practices. New Directions for Evaluation, 102, 5-19.
32. Shadish, W., & Rindskopf, D. M. (2007). Methods for evidence-based practice: Quantitative synthesis of single-subject designs. In G. Julnes & D. J. Rog (Eds.), Informing federal policies on evaluation methodology: Building the evidence base for method choice in government-sponsored evaluation. New Directions for Evaluation, 113, 75-94.
33. Summerfelt, T. (2003). Program strength and fidelity in evaluation. Applied Developmental Science, 7, 55-61.
34. Thurston, L. P., Smith, C. A., Genskow, K., Prokopy, L. S., & Hargrove, W. L. (2012). The social context of water quality improvement evaluation. In D. J. Rog, J. L. Fitzpatrick, & R. F. Conner (Eds.), Context: A framework for its influence on evaluation practice. New Directions for Evaluation, 135, 41-58.
35. Trevisan, M. S. (2005, October). The methodology and practice of evaluability assessment: 1985-2004. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Evaluation Association, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
36. Weiss, C. H. (1973). Where politics and evaluation research meet. Evaluation, 37-45.
37. Wholey, J. S. (1979). Evaluation: Promise and performance. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.
38. Yin, R. K., & Davis, D. (2007). Adding new dimensions to case study evaluations: The case of evaluating comprehensive reforms. In G. Julnes & D. J. Rog (Eds.), Informing federal policies on evaluation methodology: Building the evidence base for method choice in government-sponsored evaluation. New Directions for Evaluation, 113, 75-94.