Advanced Search
Display options
Filter resources
Text Availability
Article type
Publication date
Species
Language
Sex
Age
Showing 1 to 12 of 289 entries
Sorted by: Best Match Show Resources per page
Developing guidelines to enhance the evaluation of overseas development projects.

Evaluation and program planning

McDonald D.
PMID: 24011411
Eval Program Plann. 1999 May;22(2):163-74. doi: 10.1016/s0149-7189(99)00009-9.

This paper identifies some of the key factors which should be considered by those engaged in the evaluation of overseas development projects, in order that the evaluation process leads to the empowerment of local stakeholders. An extensive review of...

Cite
McDonald D. Developing guidelines to enhance the evaluation of overseas development projects. Eval Program Plann. 1999;22(2):163-74doi: 10.1016/s0149-7189(99)00009-9.
McDonald, D. (1999). Developing guidelines to enhance the evaluation of overseas development projects. Evaluation and program planning, 22(2), 163-74. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0149-7189(99)00009-9
McDonald, D. "Developing guidelines to enhance the evaluation of overseas development projects." Evaluation and program planning vol. 22,2 (1999): 163-74. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/s0149-7189(99)00009-9
McDonald D. Developing guidelines to enhance the evaluation of overseas development projects. Eval Program Plann. 1999 May;22(2):163-74. doi: 10.1016/s0149-7189(99)00009-9. PMID: 24011411.
Copy Download .nbib Format: NLM
The relative impact of treatment program 'robustness' and 'dosage' on client outcomes.

Evaluation and program planning

Jerrell JM, Ridgely MS.
PMID: 24011452
Eval Program Plann. 1999 Aug;22(3):323-30. doi: 10.1016/s0149-7189(99)00023-3.

The relationship between two aspects of program quality (robustness of model implementation and service dosage), client outcomes of self-reported and observer-rated psychosocial functioning, and intensive mental health service utilization costs was examined for 132 persons with dual mental and...

Cite
Jerrell JM, Ridgely MS. The relative impact of treatment program 'robustness' and 'dosage' on client outcomes. Eval Program Plann. 1999;22(3):323-30doi: 10.1016/s0149-7189(99)00023-3.
Jerrell, J. M., & Ridgely, M. S. (1999). The relative impact of treatment program 'robustness' and 'dosage' on client outcomes. Evaluation and program planning, 22(3), 323-30. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0149-7189(99)00023-3
Jerrell, J M, and Ridgely, M S. "The relative impact of treatment program 'robustness' and 'dosage' on client outcomes." Evaluation and program planning vol. 22,3 (1999): 323-30. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/s0149-7189(99)00023-3
Jerrell JM, Ridgely MS. The relative impact of treatment program 'robustness' and 'dosage' on client outcomes. Eval Program Plann. 1999 Aug;22(3):323-30. doi: 10.1016/s0149-7189(99)00023-3. PMID: 24011452.
Copy Download .nbib Format: NLM
Assumptions at the philosophical and programmatic levels in evaluation.

Evaluation and program planning

Mertens DM.
PMID: 27340047
Eval Program Plann. 2016 Dec;59:102-108. doi: 10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2016.05.010. Epub 2016 Jun 03.

Stakeholders and evaluators hold a variety of levels of assumptions at the philosophical, methodological, and programmatic levels. The use of a transformative philosophical framework is presented as a way for evaluators to become more aware of the implications of...

Cite
Mertens DM. Assumptions at the philosophical and programmatic levels in evaluation. Eval Program Plann. 2016;59:102-108doi: 10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2016.05.010.
Mertens, D. M. (2016). Assumptions at the philosophical and programmatic levels in evaluation. Evaluation and program planning, 59102-108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2016.05.010
Mertens, Donna M. "Assumptions at the philosophical and programmatic levels in evaluation." Evaluation and program planning vol. 59 (2016): 102-108. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2016.05.010
Mertens DM. Assumptions at the philosophical and programmatic levels in evaluation. Eval Program Plann. 2016 Dec;59:102-108. doi: 10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2016.05.010. Epub 2016 Jun 03. PMID: 27340047.
Copy Download .nbib Format: NLM
Taking stock of four decades of quantitative research on stakeholder participation and evaluation use: a systematic map.

Evaluation and program planning

Daigneault PM.
PMID: 24879310
Eval Program Plann. 2014 Aug;45:171-81. doi: 10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2014.04.003. Epub 2014 May 02.

Stakeholder participation and evaluation use have attracted a lot of attention from practitioners, theorists and researchers. A common hypothesis is that participation is positively associated with evaluation use. Whereas the number of empirical studies conducted on this topic is...

Cite
Daigneault PM. Taking stock of four decades of quantitative research on stakeholder participation and evaluation use: a systematic map. Eval Program Plann. 2014;45:171-81doi: 10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2014.04.003.
Daigneault, P. M. (2014). Taking stock of four decades of quantitative research on stakeholder participation and evaluation use: a systematic map. Evaluation and program planning, 45171-81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2014.04.003
Daigneault, Pierre-Marc. "Taking stock of four decades of quantitative research on stakeholder participation and evaluation use: a systematic map." Evaluation and program planning vol. 45 (2014): 171-81. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2014.04.003
Daigneault PM. Taking stock of four decades of quantitative research on stakeholder participation and evaluation use: a systematic map. Eval Program Plann. 2014 Aug;45:171-81. doi: 10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2014.04.003. Epub 2014 May 02. PMID: 24879310.
Copy Download .nbib Format: NLM
Betterment, undermining, support and distortion: A heuristic model for the analysis of pressure on evaluators.

Evaluation and program planning

Pleger L, Sager F.
PMID: 27686839
Eval Program Plann. 2018 Aug;69:166-172. doi: 10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2016.09.002. Epub 2016 Sep 18.

Evaluations can only serve as a neutral evidence base for policy decision-making as long as they have not been altered along non-scientific criteria. Studies show that evaluators are repeatedly put under pressure to deliver results in line with given...

Cite
Pleger L, Sager F. Betterment, undermining, support and distortion: A heuristic model for the analysis of pressure on evaluators. Eval Program Plann. 2016;69:166-172doi: 10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2016.09.002.
Pleger, L., & Sager, F. (2018). Betterment, undermining, support and distortion: A heuristic model for the analysis of pressure on evaluators. Evaluation and program planning, 69166-172. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2016.09.002
Pleger, Lyn, and Sager, Fritz. "Betterment, undermining, support and distortion: A heuristic model for the analysis of pressure on evaluators." Evaluation and program planning vol. 69 (2018): 166-172. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2016.09.002
Pleger L, Sager F. Betterment, undermining, support and distortion: A heuristic model for the analysis of pressure on evaluators. Eval Program Plann. 2018 Aug;69:166-172. doi: 10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2016.09.002. Epub 2016 Sep 18. PMID: 27686839.
Copy Download .nbib Format: NLM
A model for effective planning of SME support services.

Evaluation and program planning

Rakićević Z, Omerbegović-Bijelović J, Lečić-Cvetković D.
PMID: 26479837
Eval Program Plann. 2016 Feb;54:30-40. doi: 10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2015.09.004. Epub 2015 Oct 01.

This paper presents a model for effective planning of support services for small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). The idea is to scrutinize and measure the suitability of support services in order to give recommendations for the improvement of a...

Cite
Rakićević Z, Omerbegović-Bijelović J, Lečić-Cvetković D. A model for effective planning of SME support services. Eval Program Plann. 2015;54:30-40doi: 10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2015.09.004.
Rakićević, Z., Omerbegović-Bijelović, J., & Lečić-Cvetković, D. (2016). A model for effective planning of SME support services. Evaluation and program planning, 5430-40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2015.09.004
Rakićević, Zoran, et al. "A model for effective planning of SME support services." Evaluation and program planning vol. 54 (2016): 30-40. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2015.09.004
Rakićević Z, Omerbegović-Bijelović J, Lečić-Cvetković D. A model for effective planning of SME support services. Eval Program Plann. 2016 Feb;54:30-40. doi: 10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2015.09.004. Epub 2015 Oct 01. PMID: 26479837.
Copy Download .nbib Format: NLM
Do we really care about unintended outcomes? An analysis of evaluation theory and practice.

Evaluation and program planning

Jabeen S.
PMID: 26874233
Eval Program Plann. 2016 Apr;55:144-54. doi: 10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2015.12.010. Epub 2016 Jan 02.

The concept of 'unintended outcomes' has a long history. Contributions to the topic have appeared under the guise of various disciplinary lenses, including programme evaluation. There is now solid consensus among the international evaluation community regarding the need to...

Cite
Jabeen S. Do we really care about unintended outcomes? An analysis of evaluation theory and practice. Eval Program Plann. 2016;55:144-54doi: 10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2015.12.010.
Jabeen, S. (2016). Do we really care about unintended outcomes? An analysis of evaluation theory and practice. Evaluation and program planning, 55144-54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2015.12.010
Jabeen, Sumera. "Do we really care about unintended outcomes? An analysis of evaluation theory and practice." Evaluation and program planning vol. 55 (2016): 144-54. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2015.12.010
Jabeen S. Do we really care about unintended outcomes? An analysis of evaluation theory and practice. Eval Program Plann. 2016 Apr;55:144-54. doi: 10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2015.12.010. Epub 2016 Jan 02. PMID: 26874233.
Copy Download .nbib Format: NLM
Response to paper "Systems thinking" by D. Cabrera et al.: the unification of systems thinking: is there gold at the end of the rainbow?.

Evaluation and program planning

Midgley G.
PMID: 18547644
Eval Program Plann. 2008 Aug;31(3):317-21. doi: 10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2008.04.002. Epub 2008 Apr 22.

No abstract available.

Cite
Midgley G. Response to paper "Systems thinking" by D. Cabrera et al.: the unification of systems thinking: is there gold at the end of the rainbow?. Eval Program Plann. 2008;31(3):317-21doi: 10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2008.04.002.
Midgley, G. (2008). Response to paper "Systems thinking" by D. Cabrera et al.: the unification of systems thinking: is there gold at the end of the rainbow?. Evaluation and program planning, 31(3), 317-21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2008.04.002
Midgley, Gerald. "Response to paper "Systems thinking" by D. Cabrera et al.: the unification of systems thinking: is there gold at the end of the rainbow?." Evaluation and program planning vol. 31,3 (2008): 317-21. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2008.04.002
Midgley G. Response to paper "Systems thinking" by D. Cabrera et al.: the unification of systems thinking: is there gold at the end of the rainbow?. Eval Program Plann. 2008 Aug;31(3):317-21. doi: 10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2008.04.002. Epub 2008 Apr 22. PMID: 18547644.
Copy Download .nbib Format: NLM
Distinctions, systems, relationships, and perspectives (DSRP): a theory of thinking and of things.

Evaluation and program planning

Cabrera D, Colosi L.
PMID: 18554716
Eval Program Plann. 2008 Aug;31(3):311-7. doi: 10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2008.04.001. Epub 2008 Apr 22.

No abstract available.

Cite
Cabrera D, Colosi L. Distinctions, systems, relationships, and perspectives (DSRP): a theory of thinking and of things. Eval Program Plann. 2008;31(3):311-7doi: 10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2008.04.001.
Cabrera, D., & Colosi, L. (2008). Distinctions, systems, relationships, and perspectives (DSRP): a theory of thinking and of things. Evaluation and program planning, 31(3), 311-7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2008.04.001
Cabrera, Derek, and Colosi, Laura. "Distinctions, systems, relationships, and perspectives (DSRP): a theory of thinking and of things." Evaluation and program planning vol. 31,3 (2008): 311-7. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2008.04.001
Cabrera D, Colosi L. Distinctions, systems, relationships, and perspectives (DSRP): a theory of thinking and of things. Eval Program Plann. 2008 Aug;31(3):311-7. doi: 10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2008.04.001. Epub 2008 Apr 22. PMID: 18554716.
Copy Download .nbib Format: NLM
Development of a participatory monitoring and evaluation strategy.

Evaluation and program planning

Holte-McKenzie M, Forde S, Theobald S.
PMID: 17950864
Eval Program Plann. 2006 Nov;29(4):365-76. doi: 10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2006.08.007. Epub 2006 Oct 27.

This paper describes the process of developing a participatory monitoring and evaluation strategy for a Kenyan youth-based NGO. The iterative nature of the study including the process of narrowing down indicators to measure and methods to monitor/evaluate these is...

Cite
Holte-McKenzie M, Forde S, Theobald S. Development of a participatory monitoring and evaluation strategy. Eval Program Plann. 2006;29(4):365-76doi: 10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2006.08.007.
Holte-McKenzie, M., Forde, S., & Theobald, S. (2006). Development of a participatory monitoring and evaluation strategy. Evaluation and program planning, 29(4), 365-76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2006.08.007
Holte-McKenzie, Merydth, et al. "Development of a participatory monitoring and evaluation strategy." Evaluation and program planning vol. 29,4 (2006): 365-76. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2006.08.007
Holte-McKenzie M, Forde S, Theobald S. Development of a participatory monitoring and evaluation strategy. Eval Program Plann. 2006 Nov;29(4):365-76. doi: 10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2006.08.007. Epub 2006 Oct 27. PMID: 17950864.
Copy Download .nbib Format: NLM
Redesigning and aligning assessment and evaluation for a federally funded math and science teacher educational program.

Evaluation and program planning

Hardré PL, Slater J, Nanny M.
PMID: 20071029
Eval Program Plann. 2010 Nov;33(4):498-510. doi: 10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2009.12.004. Epub 2009 Dec 16.

This paper examines the redesign of evaluation components for a teacher professional development project funded by the National Science Foundation. It focuses on aligning evaluation instrumentation and strategies with program goals, research goals and program evaluation best practices. The...

Cite
Hardré PL, Slater J, Nanny M. Redesigning and aligning assessment and evaluation for a federally funded math and science teacher educational program. Eval Program Plann. 2009;33(4):498-510doi: 10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2009.12.004.
Hardré, P. L., Slater, J., & Nanny, M. (2010). Redesigning and aligning assessment and evaluation for a federally funded math and science teacher educational program. Evaluation and program planning, 33(4), 498-510. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2009.12.004
Hardré, Patricia L, et al. "Redesigning and aligning assessment and evaluation for a federally funded math and science teacher educational program." Evaluation and program planning vol. 33,4 (2010): 498-510. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2009.12.004
Hardré PL, Slater J, Nanny M. Redesigning and aligning assessment and evaluation for a federally funded math and science teacher educational program. Eval Program Plann. 2010 Nov;33(4):498-510. doi: 10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2009.12.004. Epub 2009 Dec 16. PMID: 20071029.
Copy Download .nbib Format: NLM
The bottom-up approach to integrative validity: a new perspective for program evaluation.

Evaluation and program planning

Chen HT.
PMID: 19931908
Eval Program Plann. 2010 Aug;33(3):205-14. doi: 10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2009.10.002. Epub 2009 Oct 20.

The Campbellian validity model and the traditional top-down approach to validity have had a profound influence on research and evaluation. That model includes the concepts of internal and external validity and within that model, the preeminence of internal validity...

Cite
Chen HT. The bottom-up approach to integrative validity: a new perspective for program evaluation. Eval Program Plann. 2009;33(3):205-14doi: 10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2009.10.002.
Chen, H. T. (2010). The bottom-up approach to integrative validity: a new perspective for program evaluation. Evaluation and program planning, 33(3), 205-14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2009.10.002
Chen, Huey T. "The bottom-up approach to integrative validity: a new perspective for program evaluation." Evaluation and program planning vol. 33,3 (2010): 205-14. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2009.10.002
Chen HT. The bottom-up approach to integrative validity: a new perspective for program evaluation. Eval Program Plann. 2010 Aug;33(3):205-14. doi: 10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2009.10.002. Epub 2009 Oct 20. PMID: 19931908.
Copy Download .nbib Format: NLM
Showing 1 to 12 of 289 entries