IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/epplan/v38y2013icp71-73.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Logic and evaluation theory

Author

Listed:
  • Greene, Jennifer C.

Abstract

With this series of papers, evaluators are being called to substantiate the rationale and warrant for their own evaluative actions in ways parallel to how evaluators question the logic of program interventions, both as designed and as implemented. This endeavor is timely, appropriate, and important. In these comments, I raise modest questions about the logical constitution of an evaluation theory and about what is missing from a textual reading alone of such theory.

Suggested Citation

  • Greene, Jennifer C., 2013. "Logic and evaluation theory," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 71-73.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:epplan:v:38:y:2013:i:c:p:71-73
    DOI: 10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2012.03.017
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0149718912000365
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2012.03.017?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.

    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. Hudon, Catherine & Chouinard, Maud-Christine & Brousselle, Astrid & Bisson, Mathieu & Danish, Alya, 2020. "Evaluating complex interventions in real context: Logic analysis of a case management program for frequent users of healthcare services," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 79(C).
    3. Tremblay, Marie-Claude & Brousselle, Astrid & Richard, Lucie & Beaudet, Nicole, 2013. "Defining, illustrating and reflecting on logic analysis with an example from a professional development program," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 40(C), pages 64-73.
    4. 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.

    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:71-73. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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.