IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/epplan/v38y2013icp34-43.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Depicting the logic of three evaluation theories

Author

Listed:
  • Hansen, Mark
  • Alkin, Marvin C.
  • Wallace, Tanner LeBaron

Abstract

Here, we describe the development of logic models depicting three theories of evaluation practice: Practical Participatory (Cousins & Whitmore, 1998), Values-engaged (Greene, 2005a, 2005b), and Emergent Realist (Mark et al., 1998). We begin with a discussion of evaluation theory and the particular theories that were chosen for our analysis. We then outline the steps involved in constructing the models. The theoretical prescriptions and claims represented here follow a logic model template developed at the University Wisconsin-Extension (Taylor-Powell & Henert, 2008), which also closely aligns with Mark's (2008) framework for research on evaluation.

Suggested Citation

  • Hansen, Mark & Alkin, Marvin C. & Wallace, Tanner LeBaron, 2013. "Depicting the logic of three evaluation theories," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 34-43.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:epplan:v:38:y:2013:i:c:p:34-43
    DOI: 10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2012.03.012
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0149718912000316
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2012.03.012?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    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. Vo, Anne T., 2013. "Visualizing context through theory deconstruction: A content analysis of three bodies of evaluation theory literature," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 44-52.
    2. Dillman, Lisa M., 2013. "Comparing evaluation activities across multiple theories of practice," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 53-60.
    3. Luskin, Rebecca J.C. & Ho, Timothy, 2013. "Comparing the intended consequences of three theories of evaluation," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 61-66.
    4. 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. 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.
    2. Jacobson, Miriam R. & Azzam, Tarek, 2018. "The effects of stakeholder involvement on perceptions of an evaluation’s credibility," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 64-73.
    3. Schalock, Robert L. & Lee, Tim & Verdugo, Miguel & Swart, Kees & Claes, Claudia & van Loon, Jos & Lee, Chun-Shin, 2014. "An evidence-based approach to organization evaluation and change in human service organizations evaluation and program planning," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 45(C), pages 110-118.
    4. Teasdale, Rebecca M., 2022. "Representing the values of program participants: Endogenous evaluative criteria," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 94(C).
    5. Dillman, Lisa M., 2013. "Comparing evaluation activities across multiple theories of practice," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 53-60.
    6. Schalock, Robert L. & Verdugo, Miguel & Lee, Tim, 2016. "A systematic approach to an organization’s sustainability," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 56(C), pages 56-63.
    7. Miller, Robin Lin, 2013. "Logic models: A useful way to study theories of evaluation practice?," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 77-80.
    8. Bergsmann, Evelyn & Schultes, Marie-Therese & Winter, Petra & Schober, Barbara & Spiel, Christiane, 2015. "Evaluation of competence-based teaching in higher education: From theory to practice," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 52(C), pages 1-9.
    9. Vo, Anne T., 2013. "Visualizing context through theory deconstruction: A content analysis of three bodies of evaluation theory literature," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 44-52.
    10. Gargani, John, 2013. "What can practitioners learn from theorists’ logic models?," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 81-88.
    11. Cousins, J. Bradley, 2013. "When does a conceptual framework become a theory? Reflections from an accidental theorist," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 67-70.
    12. Luskin, Rebecca J.C. & Ho, Timothy, 2013. "Comparing the intended consequences of three theories of evaluation," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 61-66.
    13. Mark, Melvin M. & Henry, Gary T., 2013. "Logic models and content analyses for the explication of evaluation theories: The case of emergent realist evaluation," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 74-76.

    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. 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.
    2. Miller, Robin Lin, 2013. "Logic models: A useful way to study theories of evaluation practice?," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 77-80.
    3. Cousins, J. Bradley, 2013. "When does a conceptual framework become a theory? Reflections from an accidental theorist," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 67-70.
    4. Mark, Melvin M. & Henry, Gary T., 2013. "Logic models and content analyses for the explication of evaluation theories: The case of emergent realist evaluation," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 74-76.
    5. Gargani, John, 2013. "What can practitioners learn from theorists’ logic models?," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 81-88.
    6. Dillman, Lisa M., 2013. "Comparing evaluation activities across multiple theories of practice," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 53-60.
    7. 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.
    8. 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.
    9. 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.
    10. 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.
    11. 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.
    12. 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.
    13. 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.
    14. Wifo, 2021. "WIFO-Monatsberichte, Heft 10/2021," WIFO Monatsberichte (monthly reports), WIFO, vol. 94(10), October.
    15. 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.
    16. 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.
    17. 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.
    18. 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.
    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.

    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:38:y:2013:i:c:p:34-43. 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.