IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/epplan/v30y2007i4p339-350.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Semi-structured interview protocol for constructing logic models

Author

Listed:
  • Gugiu, P. Cristian
  • Rodriguez-Campos, Liliana

Abstract

No abstract is available for this item.

Suggested Citation

  • Gugiu, P. Cristian & Rodriguez-Campos, Liliana, 2007. "Semi-structured interview protocol for constructing logic models," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 30(4), pages 339-350, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:epplan:v:30:y:2007:i:4:p:339-350
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0149-7189(07)00071-7
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Cozzens, Susan E., 1997. "The knowledge pool: Measurement challenges in evaluating fundamental research programs," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 20(1), pages 77-89, February.
    2. Julian, David A. & Jones, Ann & Deyo, Diana, 1995. "Open systems evaluation and the logic model: Program planning and evaluation tools," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 18(4), pages 333-341.
    3. McLaughlin, John A. & Jordan, Gretchen B., 1999. "Logic models: a tool for telling your programs performance story," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 22(1), pages 65-72.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Deane, Kelsey L. & Harré, Niki, 2014. "Program theory-driven evaluation science in a youth development context," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 45(C), pages 61-70.
    2. Aliza Ramli* & Fadzlina Fahmi & Faizah Darus & Mustaffa Mohamed Zain, 2018. "Corporate Social Responsibility in Malaysian Organisations: Community Environmental Dimensions and Islamic Perspective," The Journal of Social Sciences Research, Academic Research Publishing Group, pages 1051-1057:5.
    3. Gervais, Christine & de Montigny, Francine & Lacharité, Carl & Dubeau, Diane, 2015. "The Father Friendly Initiative within Families: Using a logic model to develop program theory for a father support program," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 52(C), pages 133-141.
    4. Zhao, Guoqing & Xie, Xiaotian & Wang, Yi & Liu, Shaofeng & Jones, Paul & Lopez, Carmen, 2024. "Barrier analysis to improve big data analytics capability of the maritime industry: A mixed-method approach," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 203(C).
    5. Cullen, Patricia & Clapham, Kathleen & Byrne, Jake & Hunter, Kate & Senserrick, Teresa & Keay, Lisa & Ivers, Rebecca, 2016. "The importance of context in logic model construction for a multi-site community-based Aboriginal driver licensing program," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 57(C), pages 8-15.
    6. Clapham, Kathleen & Manning, Claire & Williams, Kathryn & O’Brien, Ginger & Sutherland, Margaret, 2017. "Using a logic model to evaluate the Kids Together early education inclusion program for children with disabilities and additional needs," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 96-105.
    7. Andrea Schaller & Carina Hoffmann, 2021. "Impact Model-Based Physical-Activity Promotion at the Workplace: Study Protocol for a Mixed-Methods Study in Germany (KomRueBer Study)," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(11), pages 1-15, June.
    8. repec:arp:tjssrr:2019:p:184-190 is not listed on IDEAS

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Renger, Ralph & Hurley, Carolyn, 2006. "From theory to practice: Lessons learned in the application of the ATM approach to developing logic models," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 29(2), pages 106-119, May.
    2. Lenihan, Helena, 2011. "Enterprise policy evaluation: Is there a 'new' way of doing it?," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 34(4), pages 323-332, November.
    3. Tim Benijts, 2014. "A Business Sustainability Model for Government Corporations. A Belgian Case Study," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 23(3), pages 204-216, March.
    4. Fielden, Sarah J. & Rusch, Melanie L. & Masinda, Mambo Tabu & Sands, Jim & Frankish, Jim & Evoy, Brian, 2007. "Key considerations for logic model development in research partnerships: A Canadian case study," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 30(2), pages 115-124, May.
    5. Ebenso, Bassey & Manzano, Ana & Uzochukwu, Benjamin & Etiaba, Enyi & Huss, Reinhard & Ensor, Tim & Newell, James & Onwujekwe, Obinna & Ezumah, Nkoli & Hicks, Joe & Mirzoev, Tolib, 2019. "Dealing with context in logic model development: Reflections from a realist evaluation of a community health worker programme in Nigeria," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 97-110.
    6. Hart, Diane & Paucar-Caceres, Alberto, 2017. "A utilisation focussed and viable systems approach for evaluating technology supported learning," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 259(2), pages 626-641.
    7. Wasserman, Deborah L., 2010. "Using a systems orientation and foundational theory to enhance theory-driven human service program evaluations," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 33(2), pages 67-80, May.
    8. Voeten, J.J., 2012. "Understanding responsible innovation in small producers’ clusters in Northern Vietnam : A grounded theory approach to globalization and poverty alleviation," Other publications TiSEM e01da02b-ef2b-47c9-8d06-4, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    9. Peyton, David J. & Scicchitano, Michael, 2017. "Devil is in the details: Using logic models to investigate program process," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 65(C), pages 156-162.
    10. Hung, Chia-Liang & Chou, Jerome Chih-Lung & Roan, Hung-Wei, 2010. "Evaluating a national science and technology program using the human capital and relational asset perspectives," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 33(4), pages 487-497, November.
    11. Matt Andrews, 2022. "This is How to Think About and Achieve Public Policy Success," CID Working Papers 413, Center for International Development at Harvard University.
    12. Wifo, 2021. "WIFO-Monatsberichte, Heft 10/2021," WIFO Monatsberichte (monthly reports), WIFO, vol. 94(10), October.
    13. Sobelson, Robyn K. & Young, Andrea C., 2013. "Evaluation of a federally funded workforce development program: The Centers for Public Health Preparedness," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 37(C), pages 50-57.
    14. Wu, Huang & Shen, Jianping & Jones, Jeffrey & Gao, Xingyuan & Zheng, Yunzheng & Krenn, Huilan Y., 2019. "Using logic model and visualization to conduct portfolio evaluation," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 69-75.
    15. O'Keefe, Christine M. & Head, Richard J., 2011. "Application of logic models in a large scientific research program," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 34(3), pages 174-184, August.
    16. Vinícius P. Rodrigues & Daniela C. A. Pigosso & Jakob W. Andersen & Tim C. McAloone, 2018. "Evaluating the Potential Business Benefits of Ecodesign Implementation: A Logic Model Approach," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(6), pages 1-26, June.
    17. Chanel Bjanca V. Balinbin & Krystina Trizia R. Balatbat & Alyssa Nicolette B. Balayan & Maria Isabel C. Balcueva & Mary Grace B. Balicat & Thea Arabelle S. Balidoy & John Rey B. Macindo & Gian Carlo S, 2020. "Occupational determinants of compassion satisfaction and compassion fatigue among Filipino registered nurses," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 29(5-6), pages 955-963, March.
    18. Yawen Zou & Manfred D Laubichler, 2018. "From systems to biology: A computational analysis of the research articles on systems biology from 1992 to 2013," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(7), pages 1-16, July.
    19. Janger, Jürgen & Schubert, Torben & Andries, Petra & Rammer, Christian & Hoskens, Machteld, 2017. "The EU 2020 innovation indicator: A step forward in measuring innovation outputs and outcomes?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(1), pages 30-42.
    20. Jürgen Janger & Agnes Kügler, 2018. "Innovationseffizienz. Österreich im internationalen Vergleich," WIFO Studies, WIFO, number 61111.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:epplan:v:30:y:2007:i:4:p:339-350. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/evalprogplan .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.