Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
Planning a program evaluation can be broken up into four parts: focusing the evaluation, collecting the information, using the information, and managing the evaluation. [28] Program evaluation involves reflecting on questions about evaluation purpose, what questions are necessary to ask, and what will be done with information gathered.
Theory-driven evaluation (also theory-based evaluation) is an umbrella term for any approach to program evaluation that develops a theory of change and uses it to design, implement, analyze, and interpret findings from an evaluation. [1] [2] [3] More specifically, an evaluation is theory-driven if it: [4]
Participatory evaluation is an approach to program evaluation. It provides for the active involvement of stakeholder in the program: providers, partners, beneficiaries, and any other interested parties. All involved decide how to frame the questions used to evaluate the program, and all decide how to measure outcomes and impact.
An emerging and growing practice of program design is program evaluation. Evaluation can be seen as a cycle which involves the ongoing systematic assessment of a community-based program by collecting data from it, reviewing the data, changing the program as the data recommends, and then collecting data again.
The CIPP evaluation model is a program evaluation model which was developed by Daniel Stufflebeam and colleagues in the 1960s. CIPP is an acronym for context, input, process and product. CIPP is a decision-focused approach to evaluation and emphasizes the systematic provision of information for program management and operation. [1]
This approach enables to evaluate the educational and other programs by comparing the program activity, the program uniqueness, and the social diversity of the people. The most important feature in the responsive evaluation is the responsiveness to main issues and problems, in particular those cases where people recognize at the site. [2]
Empowerment evaluation was introduced in 1993 by David Fetterman during his presidential address at the American Evaluation Association’s (AEA) annual meeting. [1]The approach was initially well received by some researchers who commented on the complementary relationship between EE and community psychology, social work, community development and adult education.
Intervention mapping is characterized by three perspectives: an ecological approach, participation of all stakeholders, and the use of theories and evidence. Although intervention mapping is presented as a series of steps, the authors see the planning process as iterative rather than linear. [ 1 ]