Ascertaining causality in theory-based evaluation

New Directions for Evaluation

Volumn 2000, Issue 87, 2000, Pages 17-26

  Davidson, E Jane ^a  

^a ALLIANT INTERNATIONAL UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 85013143209     PISSN: 10976736     EISSN: 1534875X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/ev.1178     Document Type: Article

References (21)

1. Bickman, L., “The Functions of Program Theory.“In L. Bickman., (ed.), Using Program Theory in Evaluation.New Directions for Program Evaluation, no. 33. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1987.
2. Chen, H. T., Theory-Driven Evaluations.Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage, 1990.
3. Cohen, J. and Cohen, C., Applied Multiple Regression/Correlation Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences.(2nd ed.)Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum, 1983.
4. Cook, T. D., and Campbell, D. T., Quasi-Experimentation: Design and Analysis Issues for Field Settings.Skokie, Ill.: Rand McNally, 1979.
5. Cooksy, L. J., “The Meta-Evaluand: The Evaluation of Project Technology Enhancing Achievement in Middle School.“American Journal of Evaluation, 1999, 20, 123-136.
6. Donaldson, S. I., Graham, J. W., and Hansen, W. B., “Testing the Generalizability of Intervening Mechanism Theories: Understanding the Effects of Adolescent Drug Use Prevention Interventions.“Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 1994, 17, 195-216.
7. Ford, J. K., and others.“Process Tracing Methods: Contributions, Problems, and Neglected Research Questions.“Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 1989, 43, 75-117.
8. Huberman, A. M., and Miles, M. B., “Data Management and Analysis Methods.“In N. K.Denzinand Y. S.Lincoln (eds.), Collecting and Interpreting Qualitative Materials.Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage, 1998.
9. Lipsey, M., “Theory as Method: Small Theories of Treatments.“In L. Sechrest., and A. Scott., (eds.), Understanding Causes and Generalizing About Them.New Directions for Program Evaluation, no. 57. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1993.
10. Miles, M. B., and Huberman, A. M., Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook.(2nd ed.)Thousand Oaks: Calif.: Sage, 1994.
11. Reynolds, A. J., “Confirmatory Program Evaluation: A Method for Strengthening Causal Inference.“American Journal of Evaluation, 1998, 19, 203-221.
12. Rogers, P. J., and McDonald, B., “Three Achilles Heels of Program Theory Evaluation.“Paper presented at the international conference of the Australasian Evaluation Society, Perth, Australia, Oct. 1999.
13. Saxe, L., and Tighe, E., “The View from Main Street and the View from 40, 000 Feet: Can a National Evaluation Understand Local Communities?“In J. Telfair., L. C. Leviton., and J. S. Merchant., (eds.), Evaluating Health and Human Service Programs in Community Settings.New Directions for Evaluation, no. 83. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1999.
14. Sayer, A., Method in Social Science: A Realist Approach.London: Routledge, 1992.
15. Scriven, M., “Maximizing the Power of Causal Investigation: The Modus Operandi Method.“In W. J.Popham (ed.), Evaluation in Education: Current Applications.Berkeley, Calif.: McCutchan, 1974a.
16. Scriven, M., “Prose and Cons About Goal-Free Evaluation.“In W. J.Popham (ed.), Evaluation in Education: Current Applications.Berkeley, Calif.: McCutchan, 1974b.
17. Scriven, M., Evaluation Thesaurus.(4th ed.)Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage, 1991.
18. Sosa, E., and Tooley, M. (eds.).Causation.New York: Oxford University Press, 1993.
19. Suchman, E. A., Evaluative Research: Principles and Practice in Public Service and Social Action Programs.New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1967.
20. Weiss, C. H., Evaluation Research: Methods of Assessing Program Effectiveness.Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall, 1972.
21. Weiss, C. H., “Theory-Based Evaluation: Past, Present, and Future.“In D. J. Rog., and D. Fournier., (eds.), Progress and Future Directions in Evaluation: Perspectives on Theory, Practice, and Methods.New Directions for Evaluation, no. 76. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1997.