IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/epplan/v72y2019icp88-96.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Evaluating program effects: Conceptualizing and demonstrating a typology

Author

Listed:
  • Gao, Xingyuan
  • Shen, Jianping
  • Wu, Huang
  • Krenn, Huilan Y.

Abstract

Outcome evaluation is very important for program evaluation and has been becoming increasingly so in the age of accountability. Typically, outcome evaluation is conducted for a single program from a single perspective. However, in a real-life situation, many programs exist in a system, and the effects could be viewed from various perspectives. The authors illustrate a typology of program effects in a system. It moves from the paradigm of a single program’s single effect to that of a set of programs’ multiple effects. Methodological implications are discussed.

Suggested Citation

  • Gao, Xingyuan & Shen, Jianping & Wu, Huang & Krenn, Huilan Y., 2019. "Evaluating program effects: Conceptualizing and demonstrating a typology," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 72(C), pages 88-96.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:epplan:v:72:y:2019:i:c:p:88-96
    DOI: 10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2018.10.008
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0149718918302106
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2018.10.008?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. Schumacker, Randall & Hua, Cheng, 2016. "Synthesis of articles in Evaluation and Program Planning: 2010–2016," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 58(C), pages 194-198.
    2. Dixon-Ibarra, Alicia & Driver, Simon & VanVolkenburg, Haley & Humphries, Kathleen, 2017. "Formative evaluation on a physical activity health promotion program for the group home setting," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 60(C), pages 81-90.
    3. Ng, Irene Y.H. & Ho, Kong Weng & Nesamani, Tharmalingam & Lee, Alex & Liang, Ngiam Tee, 2012. "Designing and implementing an evaluation of a national work support program," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 35(1), pages 78-87.
    4. Chen, Huey T., 2010. "The bottom-up approach to integrative validity: A new perspective for program evaluation," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 33(3), pages 205-214, August.
    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. Jing Ma & Liangwei Yang & Zhineng Hu, 2022. "A Counterfactual Assessment of Poverty Alleviation Sustainability on Multiple Non-equivalent Household Groups," Population Research and Policy Review, Springer;Southern Demographic Association (SDA), vol. 41(5), pages 1975-2000, October.
    2. 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.
    3. Prentice, Dawn & Engel, Joyce & Boggs, Jeff, 2020. "Does it make a difference? Evaluation of a Canadian poverty reduction initiative," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 80(C).

    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. Archibald, Thomas, 2015. "“They Just Know”: The epistemological politics of “evidence-based” non-formal education," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 48(C), pages 137-148.
    2. Urban, Jennifer Brown & Hargraves, Monica & Trochim, William M., 2014. "Evolutionary Evaluation: Implications for evaluators, researchers, practitioners, funders and the evidence-based program mandate," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 45(C), pages 127-139.
    3. Teasdale, Rebecca M. & Strasser, Mikayla & Moore, Ceily & Graham, Kara E., 2023. "Evaluative criteria in practice: Findings from an analysis of evaluations published in Evaluation and Program Planning," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 97(C).
    4. Pearl Anne Ante-Testard & Francois Rerolle & Anna T. Nguyen & Sania Ashraf & Sarker Masud Parvez & Abu Mohammed Naser & Tarik Benmarhnia & Mahbubur Rahman & Stephen P. Luby & Jade Benjamin-Chung & Ben, 2024. "WASH interventions and child diarrhea at the interface of climate and socioeconomic position in Bangladesh," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 15(1), pages 1-13, December.
    5. Bik C. Chow & Peggy Hiu Nam Choi & Wendy Yajun Huang & Chien-yu Pan, 2020. "Promoting Physical Activity in Group Home Settings: Staff Perspectives through a SWOT Analysis," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(16), pages 1-15, August.
    6. Majczyk, Julita & Dubel, Przemysław, 2024. "Human resources development: Evaluating perceptions against policy," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 105(C).
    7. Chen, Huey T., 2016. "Interfacing theories of program with theories of evaluation for advancing evaluation practice: Reductionism, systems thinking, and pragmatic synthesis," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 109-118.
    8. Riches, Brian R. & Benavides, Celina M. & Dubon, Valeska X., 2020. "Development of a fostering purpose intervention," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 83(C).
    9. Sarah A. Avellar & Jaime Thomas & Rebecca Kleinman & Emily Sama-Miller & Sara E. Woodruff & Rebecca Coughlin & T’Pring R. Westbrook, 2017. "External Validity: The Next Step for Systematic Reviews?," Evaluation Review, , vol. 41(4), pages 283-325, August.
    10. Horton, Douglas & Rotondo, Emma & Paz Ybarnegaray, Rodrigo & Hareau, Guy & Devaux, André & Thiele, Graham, 2013. "Lapses, infidelities, and creative adaptations: Lessons from evaluation of a participatory market development approach in the Andes," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 39(C), pages 28-41.
    11. Irene Y.H. Ng & Jian Qi Tan, 2021. "Economic distress and health: A fixed effects analysis of low‐income persons in Singapore," International Journal of Social Welfare, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 30(1), pages 17-29, January.
    12. Cerezo, M. Angeles & Dasi, Carmen & Ruiz, Juan Carlos, 2013. "Supporting parenting of infants: Evaluating outcomes for parents and children in a community-based program," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 37(C), pages 12-20.
    13. Chen, Huey T. & Yip, Fuyuen & Lavonas, Eric J. & Iqbal, Shahed & Turner, Nannette & Cobb, Bobby & Garbe, Paul, 2014. "Using the exhibited generalization approach to evaluate a carbon monoxide alarm ordinance," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 47(C), pages 35-44.
    14. Schalock, Robert L. & Verdugo, Miguel Angel & Gomez, Laura E., 2011. "Evidence-based practices in the field of intellectual and developmental disabilities: An international consensus approach," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 34(3), pages 273-282, August.
    15. Laura C. Leviton & Mathew D. Trujillo, 2017. "Interaction of Theory and Practice to Assess External Validity," Evaluation Review, , vol. 41(5), pages 436-471, October.
    16. Jacob Alex Klerman, 2017. "Editor in Chief’s Comment: External Validity in Systematic Reviews," Evaluation Review, , vol. 41(5), pages 391-402, October.
    17. Downes, Jenni & Gullickson, Amy M., 2022. "What does it mean for an evaluation to be ‘valid’? A critical synthesis of evaluation literature," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 91(C).
    18. Antonia Mauro & Dirk Bruland & Änne-Dörte Latteck, 2021. "“With Enthusiasm and Energy throughout the Day”: Promoting a Physically Active Lifestyle in People with Intellectual Disability by Using a Participatory Approach," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(23), pages 1-15, November.
    19. Inrig, Stephen J. & Higashi, Robin T. & Tiro, Jasmin A. & Argenbright, Keith E. & Lee, Simon J. Craddock, 2017. "Assessing local capacity to expand rural breast cancer screening and patient navigation: An iterative mixed-method tool," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 113-124.

    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:72:y:2019:i:c:p:88-96. 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.