Depicting the logic of three evaluation theories

Evaluation and Program Planning

Volumn 38, Issue , 2013, Pages 34-43

  Hansen, Mark ^a   Alkin, Marvin C ^a   Wallace, Tanner LeBaron ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH   (United States)

Author keywords

Emergent realist evaluation; Evaluation theory; Logic modeling; Practical participatory evaluation; Values engaged evaluation

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; COUSIN; LOGIC; PRESCRIPTION; THEORETICAL STUDY; WISCONSIN; HEALTH CARE QUALITY; HUMAN; METHODOLOGY; REPRODUCIBILITY; THEORETICAL MODEL;

HUMANS; LOGIC; MODELS, THEORETICAL; PROGRAM EVALUATION; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; RESEARCH DESIGN;

MLCS; MLOWN;

EID: 85027945011     PISSN: 01497189     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2012.03.012     Document Type: Article

References (39)

1. Alkin, M.C., Evaluation theory development: II. McLaughlin, M.W., Phillips, D.C., (eds.) Evaluation and education: At quarter century, 1991, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL, 91–112.
2. Alkin, M.C., Christie, C.A., An evaluation theory tree. Alkin, M.C., (eds.) Evaluation roots, 2004, SAGE Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA, 12–65.
3. Box, G.E.P., Draper, N.R., Empirical model-building and response surfaces. 1987, Wiley, Oxford.
4. Christie, C.A., Alkin, M.C., Evaluation theory tree re-examined. Studies in Educational Evaluation 34 (2008), 131–135.
5. Christie, C.A., Alkin, M.C., An evaluation theory tree. Alkin, M.C., (eds.) Evaluation roots, 2nd ed., 2012, SAGE Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.
6. *Cousins, J.B., Consequences of researcher involvement in participatory evaluation. Studies in Educational Evaluation 22 (1996), 3–27.
7. *Cousins, J.B., Earl, L.M., The case for participatory evaluation. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 14 (1992), 397–418.
8. *Cousins, J.B., Earl, L.M., When the boat gets missed: Response to M. F. Smith. American Journal of Evaluation 20 (1999), 309–317.
9. Cousins, J.B., Utilization effects of participatory evaluation. Kellaghan, T., Stufflebeam, D., (eds.) International Handbook of Educational Evaluation, 2003, Klewer, Boston, MA, 245–266.
10. *Cousins, J.B., Whitmore, E., Framing participatory evaluation. New Directions for Evaluation 80 (1998), 5–23.
11. Dillman, L., Comparing evaluation activities across multiple theories of practice. Evaluation and Program Planning 38 (2013), 53–60.
12. *Greene, J.C., Evaluation as advocacy. Evaluation Practice 18 (1997), 25–35.
13. *Greene, J.C., Evaluation extrapolations. American Journal of Evaluation 22 (2001), 397–402.
14. *Greene, J.C., A value-engaged approach for evaluating the Bunche-Da Vinci Learning Academy. New Directions for Evaluation 106 (2005), 27–45.
15. Greene, J.C., Evaluators as stewards of the public good. Hood, S., Hopson, R.K., Frierson, H.T., (eds.) The role of culture and cultural context: A mandate for inclusion, truth, and understanding in evaluation theory and practice, 2005, Information Age Publishing, Greenwich, CT, 7–20.
16. Greene, J.C., DeStefano, L., Burgon, H., Hall, J., An educative, values-engaged approach to evaluating STEM educational programs. New Directions for Evaluation 109 (2006), 53–71.
17. Greene, J.C., Millett, R.A., Hopson, R.H., Evaluation as a democratizing practice. Braverman, M.T., Constantine, N.A., Slater, J.K., (eds.) Foundations and evaluation: Contexts and practices for effective philanthropy, 2004, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA, 96–118.
18. *Henry, G.T., Using evaluation findings for policy: A realist perspective. Paper presented at the European Evaluation Society Conference, Lausanne, Switzerland, October, 2000.
19. *Henry, G.T., Julnes, G., Values in realist evaluation. New Directions for Evaluation 78 (1998), 53–71.
20. Joint Committee on Standard for Educational Evaluation, The Program Evaluation Standards. 2nd ed., 1999, SAGE Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.
21. Leeuw, F.L., Reconstructing program theories: Methods available and problems to be solved. American Journal of Evaluation 24 (2003), 5–20.
22. Luskin, R.J.C., Ho, T., Comparing the intended consequences of three theories of evaluation. Evaluation and Program Planning 38 (2013), 61–66.
23. Mark, M.M., Building a better evidence base for evaluation theory: Beyond general calls to a framework of types of research on evaluation. Smith, N.L., Brandon, P., (eds.) Fundamental issues in evaluation, 2008, Guilford Press, New York, NY, 111–134.
24. Mark, M.M., Henry, G.T., The mechanisms and outcomes of evaluation influence. Evaluation 10 (2004), 35–57.
25. *Mark, M.M., Henry, G.T., Julnes, G., A realist theory of evaluation practice. New Directions for Evaluation 78 (1998), 3–32.
26. *Mark, M.M., Henry, G.T., Julnes, G., Toward an integrative framework for evaluation practice. American Journal of Evaluation 20 (1999), 177–198.
27. *Mark, M.M., Henry, G.T., Julnes, G., Evaluation: An integrated framework for understanding, guiding, and improving policies and programs. 2000, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.
28. McLaughlin, J.A., Jordan, G.B., Logic models: A tool for telling your program's performance story. Evaluation and Program Planning 22 (1999), 65–72.
29. Miller, R.L., Developing standards for empirical examinations of evaluation theory. American Journal of Evaluation 31 (2010), 390–399.
30. *Ryan, K., Greene, J.C., Lincoln, Y., Mathison, S., Mertens, D.M., Advantages and challenges of using inclusive evaluation approaches in evaluation practice. American Journal of Evaluation 19 (1998), 101–122.
31. Shadish, W.R., Cook, T.D., Leviton, L.A., Foundations of program evaluation: Theories of practice. 1991, Sage, Newbury Park, CA pp. 36–67.
32. Newman, D., Scheirer, M.A., Shadish, W.R., Wye, C., (eds.) The American Evaluation Association's guiding principles. New Directions in Evaluation, 66, 1995, 19–26.
33. Shadish, W.R., Evaluation theory is who we are. American Journal of Evaluation 19 (1998), 1–19.
34. Smith, N.L., Empowerment evaluation as evaluation ideology. American Journal of Evaluation 28 (2007), 169–178.
35. Taylor-Powell, E., & Henert, E. (2008). Developing a logic model: Teaching and training guide. Madison: University of Wisconsin-Extension. Retrieved from http://www.uwex.edu/ces/pdande/evaluation/pdf/lmguidecomplete.pdf.
36. United Way of America, Measuring program outcomes: A practical approach. 1996, United Way of America, Arlington, VA.
37. Vo, A.T., Visualizing context through theory deconstruction: A content analysis of three bodies of evaluation theory literature. Evaluation and Program Planning 38 (2013), 44–52.
38. Wallace, T.L., Alkin, M.C., Identifying critical processes and outcomes across evaluation approaches. Paper presented at the annual conference of the American Evaluation Association, Baltimore, MD, November, 2007.
39. W.K. Kellogg Foundation, Logic model development guide: Logic models to bring together planning, evaluation & action. 2001, W.K. Kellogg Foundation, Battle Creek, MI.