IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/epplan/v56y2016icp31-42.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Let’s get technical: Enhancing program evaluation through the use and integration of internet and mobile technologies

Author

Listed:
  • Materia, Frank T.
  • Miller, Elizabeth A.
  • Runion, Megan C.
  • Chesnut, Ryan P.
  • Irvin, Jamie B.
  • Richardson, Cameron B.
  • Perkins, Daniel F.

Abstract

Program evaluation has become increasingly important, and information on program performance often drives funding decisions. Technology use and integration can help ease the burdens associated with program evaluation by reducing the resources needed (e.g., time, money, staff) and increasing evaluation efficiency. This paper reviews how program evaluators, across disciplines, can apply internet and mobile technologies to key aspects of program evaluation, which consist of participant registration, participant tracking and retention, process evaluation (e.g., fidelity, assignment completion), and outcome evaluation (e.g., behavior change, knowledge gain). In addition, the paper focuses on the ease of use, relative cost, and fit with populations. An examination on how these tools can be integrated to enhance data collection and program evaluation is discussed. Important limitations of and considerations for technology integration, including the level of technical skill, cost needed to integrate various technologies, data management strategies, and ethical considerations, are highlighted. Lastly, a case study of technology use in an evaluation conducted by the Clearinghouse for Military Family Readiness at Penn State is presented and illustrates how technology integration can enhance program evaluation.

Suggested Citation

  • Materia, Frank T. & Miller, Elizabeth A. & Runion, Megan C. & Chesnut, Ryan P. & Irvin, Jamie B. & Richardson, Cameron B. & Perkins, Daniel F., 2016. "Let’s get technical: Enhancing program evaluation through the use and integration of internet and mobile technologies," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 56(C), pages 31-42.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:epplan:v:56:y:2016:i:c:p:31-42
    DOI: 10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2016.03.004
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S014971891530063X
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2016.03.004?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. Franklin, Patricia D. & Ploutz-Snyder, Robert & Rosenbaum, Paula F. & Carey, Michael P. & Smith, Nancy & Roizen, Michael F., 2006. "Worksite e-mail health promotion trial: Early lessons," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 29(4), pages 405-412, November.
    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. Bujold, M. & El Sherif, R. & Bush, P.L. & Johnson-Lafleur, J. & Doray, G. & Pluye, P., 2018. "Ecological content validation of the Information Assessment Method for parents (IAM-parent): A mixed methods study," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 66(C), pages 79-88.
    2. Schalock, Robert L. & Verdugo, Miguel Angel & van Loon, Jos, 2018. "Understanding organization transformation in evaluation and program planning," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 67(C), pages 53-60.

    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.

      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:56:y:2016:i:c:p:31-42. 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.