IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/rbs/ijbrss/v9y2020i5p179-191.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Examining stakeholder involvement in the evaluation process for program improvement

Author

Listed:
  • Edwin Ochieng Okul

    (The University of Nairobi, KenyaP.O Box 84 -40123, Kisumu, Kenya)

  • Raphael Ondeko Nyonje

    (School of Open, Distance and eLearning, The University of Nairobi, KenyaP.O Box 30197-00100,Nairobi, Kenya)

Abstract

The results of an evaluation should be used for the envisioned goal and the evaluation process and/or outcomes should be used in practice and decision making. This article presents research whose objective was to establish the extent to which stakeholder involvement in evaluations impacts the utilization of evaluation findings for program improvement. Guided by the pragmatic paradigm and supported by the Utilization-Focused Evaluation Model and Knowledge Use Theory, the researchers assumed a descriptive and correlational design using mixed methods. The sample size for this study was 232 project staff from Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) in Kisumu Central Sub-County, Kenya. To analyze qualitative data, the open-ended responses from key informant interviews were recorded and coded appropriately for further analysis for themes through content analysis and comparative analysis. Frequencies and percentages were calculated to describe the basic characteristics of the quantitative data. To ensure the validity and reliability of the research instruments, pilot testing was conducted. Cronbach’s alpha at α = 0.908 was attained as the reliability coefficient of the pre-test instruments. Tests of statistical assumptions were carried out before data analysis to avoid invalidation. A hypothesis was tested at the α = .05 level of significance and was rejected. The findings demonstrate that there is a significant relationship between stakeholder involvement in evaluations and the utilization of evaluation results. This research, therefore, reinforces literature and helps to understand the ways in which stakeholder involvement in evaluations influences the utilization of evaluation results. It informs the evaluation field of study, fills gaps in the evaluation use literature, and contributes to the appreciation of factors that predict and enhance the utilization of evaluation results. Key Words: Project Evaluation, Evaluation Utilization, Stakeholder Involvement.

Suggested Citation

  • Edwin Ochieng Okul & Raphael Ondeko Nyonje, 2020. "Examining stakeholder involvement in the evaluation process for program improvement," International Journal of Research in Business and Social Science (2147-4478), Center for the Strategic Studies in Business and Finance, vol. 9(5), pages 179-191, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:rbs:ijbrss:v:9:y:2020:i:5:p:179-191
    DOI: 10.20525/ijrbs.v9i5.835
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.ssbfnet.com/ojs/index.php/ijrbs/article/view/835/651
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://doi.org/10.20525/ijrbs.v9i5.835
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.20525/ijrbs.v9i5.835?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. José A Nájera & Matiana González-Silva & Pedro L Alonso, 2011. "Some Lessons for the Future from the Global Malaria Eradication Programme (1955–1969)," PLOS Medicine, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(1), pages 1-7, January.
    2. Patton, Michael Quinn & Horton, Douglas, 2008. "Utilization-focused evaluation for agricultural innovation," ILAC Briefs 52533, Institutional Learning and Change (ILAC) Initiative.
    Full references (including those not matched with items 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. Abdul-Manan, Amir F.N. & Baharuddin, Azizan & Chang, Lee Wei, 2015. "Application of theory-based evaluation for the critical analysis of national biofuel policy: A case study in Malaysia," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 52(C), pages 39-49.
    2. Harman, Elena & Azzam, Tarek, 2018. "Incorporating public values into evaluative criteria: Using crowdsourcing to identify criteria and standards," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 71(C), pages 68-82.
    3. Romero-Gutierrez, Miguel & Jimenez-Liso, M. Rut & Martinez-Chico, Maria, 2016. "SWOT analysis to evaluate the programme of a joint online/onsite master's degree in environmental education through the students’ perceptions," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 54(C), pages 41-49.
    4. Ofek, Yuval, 2017. "Evaluating social exclusion interventions in university-community partnerships," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 60(C), pages 46-55.
    5. Rorrer, Audrey S., 2016. "An evaluation capacity building toolkit for principal investigators of undergraduate research experiences: A demonstration of transforming theory into practice," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 55(C), pages 103-111.
    6. Abboud, Rida & Claussen, Caroline, 2016. "The use of Outcome Harvesting in learning-oriented and collaborative inquiry approaches to evaluation: An example from Calgary, Alberta," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 47-54.
    7. Pleasant, Andrew & O’Leary, Catina & Carmona, Richard H., 2020. "Using formative research to tailor a community intervention focused on the prevention of chronic disease," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 78(C).
    8. Martens, Krystin S.R., 2018. "How program evaluators use and learn to use rubrics to make evaluative reasoning explicit," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 25-32.
    9. repec:sae:envval:v:27:y:2018:i:1:p:81-102 is not listed on IDEAS
    10. Bean, Corliss N. & Kendellen, Kelsey & Halsall, Tanya & Forneris, Tanya, 2015. "Putting program evaluation into practice: Enhancing the Girls Just Wanna Have Fun program," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 49(C), pages 31-40.
    11. Purkus, Alexandra & Lüdtke, Jan, 2020. "A systemic evaluation framework for a multi-actor, forest-based bioeconomy governance process: The German Charter for Wood 2.0 as a case study," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 113(C).
    12. Salabarría-Peña, Yamir & Robinson, William T., 2022. "Going beyond performance measures in HIV-prevention: A funder-recipient expedition," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 90(C).
    13. Moura e Sá, Patrícia & Fernandes, Carolina, 2020. "An assessment of a municipal physical activity programme for seniors based on the EFQM model: Integrating the views of internal and external stakeholders," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 80(C).
    14. Jamie Guth & Marie Lamy & Nikhil Murali & Patil Pankaj & Yongyuth Yuthavong, 2022. "Meeting malaria elimination targets and remaining challenges: Qualitative research on perceptions of stakeholders in India and Southeast Asia," Asia and the Pacific Policy Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 9(2), pages 178-195, May.
    15. Hakkola, Leah & Allan, Elizabeth J. & Kerschner, Dave, 2019. "Applying utilization-focused evaluation to high school hazing prevention: A pilot intervention," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 75(C), pages 61-68.
    16. Rider W. Foley & Leanna M. Archambault & Annie E. Hale & Hsiang-Kai Dong, 2017. "Learning Outcomes in Sustainability Education Among Future Elementary School Teachers," Journal of Education for Sustainable Development, , vol. 11(1), pages 33-51, March.
    17. Froncek, Benjamin & Mazziotta, Agostino & Piper, Verena & Rohmann, Anette, 2018. "Evaluator competencies in the context of diversity training: The practitioners’ point of view," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 67(C), pages 122-128.
    18. Bourgeois, Isabelle & Whynot, Jane, 2018. "The influence of evaluation recommendations on instrumental and conceptual uses: A preliminary analysis," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 13-18.
    19. Lifshitz, Chen Chana, 2017. "Fostering employability among youth at-risk in a multi-cultural context: Insights from a pilot intervention program," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 76(C), pages 20-34.
    20. Fahad Al Basir & Teklebirhan Abraha, 2023. "Mathematical Modelling and Optimal Control of Malaria Using Awareness-Based Interventions," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 11(7), pages 1-25, March.
    21. Bundi, Pirmin, 2018. "Parliamentarians’ strategies for policy evaluations," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 130-138.

    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:rbs:ijbrss:v:9:y:2020:i:5:p:179-191. 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: Umit Hacioglu (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/ssbffea.html .

    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.