IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/riskan/v36y2016i11p2120-2135.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Improving the Impact and Implementation of Disaster Education: Programs for Children Through Theory‐Based Evaluation

Author

Listed:
  • Victoria A. Johnson
  • Kevin R. Ronan
  • David M. Johnston
  • Robin Peace

Abstract

A main weakness in the evaluation of disaster education programs for children is evaluators’ propensity to judge program effectiveness based on changes in children's knowledge. Few studies have articulated an explicit program theory of how children's education would achieve desired outcomes and impacts related to disaster risk reduction in households and communities. This article describes the advantages of constructing program theory models for the purpose of evaluating disaster education programs for children. Following a review of some potential frameworks for program theory development, including the logic model, the program theory matrix, and the stage step model, the article provides working examples of these frameworks. The first example is the development of a program theory matrix used in an evaluation of ShakeOut, an earthquake drill practiced in two Washington State school districts. The model illustrates a theory of action; specifically, the effectiveness of school earthquake drills in preventing injuries and deaths during disasters. The second example is the development of a stage step model used for a process evaluation of What's the Plan Stan?, a voluntary teaching resource distributed to all New Zealand primary schools for curricular integration of disaster education. The model illustrates a theory of use; specifically, expanding the reach of disaster education for children through increased promotion of the resource. The process of developing the program theory models for the purpose of evaluation planning is discussed, as well as the advantages and shortcomings of the theory‐based approaches.

Suggested Citation

  • Victoria A. Johnson & Kevin R. Ronan & David M. Johnston & Robin Peace, 2016. "Improving the Impact and Implementation of Disaster Education: Programs for Children Through Theory‐Based Evaluation," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(11), pages 2120-2135, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:riskan:v:36:y:2016:i:11:p:2120-2135
    DOI: 10.1111/risa.12545
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.12545
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/risa.12545?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. Lipsey, Mark W. & Pollard, John A., 1989. "Driving toward theory in program evaluation: More models to choose from," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 12(4), pages 317-328, January.
    2. Cooksy, Leslie J. & Gill, Paige & Kelly, P. Adam, 2001. "The program logic model as an integrative framework for a multimethod evaluation," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 24(2), pages 119-128, May.
    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. Yingying Sun & Katsuya Yamori, 2018. "Risk Management and Technology: Case Studies of Tsunami Evacuation Drills in Japan," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(9), pages 1-14, August.
    2. Eunyoung Jung & Go‐Un Kim & Eun Kyoung Choi, 2020. "Factors affecting home‐based disaster preparedness among school‐aged children's parents: A cross‐sectional study," Nursing & Health Sciences, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 22(2), pages 138-148, June.

    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. Park, Chul Hyun & Welch, Eric W. & Sriraj, P.S., 2016. "An integrative theory-driven framework for evaluating travel training programs," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 7-20.
    2. 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.
    3. Ullrich-French, Sarah & Cole, Amy N. & Montgomery, Anna K., 2016. "Evaluation development for a physical activity positive youth development program for girls," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 55(C), pages 67-76.
    4. Kent, Douglas R. & Donaldson, Stewart I. & Wyrick, Phelan A. & Smith, Peggy J., 2000. "Evaluating criminal justice programs designed to reduce crime by targeting repeat gang offenders," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 23(1), pages 115-124, February.
    5. 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.
    6. Shu-Ping Chen & Wen-Pin Chang & Bryan Fleet & Santoch Rai & Steve Panteluk & Alberto Choy & DeAnn Hunter, 2021. "Is a Forensic Cohabitation Program Recovery-Oriented? A Logic Model Analysis," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(1), pages 1-11, December.
    7. Sanou, Aboubakary & Kouyaté, Bocar & Bibeau, Gilles & Nguyen, Vinh-Kim, 2011. "Evaluability Assessment of an immunization improvement strategy in rural Burkina Faso: Intervention theory versus reality, information need and evaluations," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 34(3), pages 303-315, August.
    8. Judy Smeed & Terri Bourke & Julie Nickerson & Tracy Corsbie, 2015. "Testing Times for the Implementation of Curriculum Change," SAGE Open, , vol. 5(2), pages 21582440155, April.
    9. Fletcher-Hildebrand, Shaneice & Williamson, Linzi & Lawson, Karen & Dell, Colleen, 2023. "Remotely and collaboratively evaluating a campus-based therapy dog program during the COVID-19 pandemic," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 98(C).
    10. Adler, Marina A., 2002. "The utility of modeling in evaluation planning: the case of the coordination of domestic violence services in Maryland," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 25(3), pages 203-213, August.
    11. Saunders, Ruth P. & Ward, Dianne & Felton, Gwen M. & Dowda, Marsha & Pate, Russell R., 2006. "Examining the link between program implementation and behavior outcomes in the lifestyle education for activity program (LEAP)," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 29(4), pages 352-364, November.
    12. Anthony Petrosino, 2000. "Mediators and Moderators in the Evaluation of Programs for Children," Evaluation Review, , vol. 24(1), pages 47-72, February.
    13. Bozeman, Barry & Rimes, Heather & Youtie, Jan, 2015. "The evolving state-of-the-art in technology transfer research: Revisiting the contingent effectiveness model," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(1), pages 34-49.
    14. Johnson, Knowlton & Hays, Carol & Center, Hayden & Daley, Charlotte, 2004. "Building capacity and sustainable prevention innovations: a sustainability planning model," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 27(2), pages 135-149, May.
    15. Asghari, Shabnam & Heeley, Thomas & Bethune, Cheri & Graham, Wendy & MacLellan, Cameron & Button, Cathryn & Porter, Nicole & Parsons, Sandra, 2021. "Evaluation plan of the 6for6 research skills program for rural and remote physicians," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 87(C).
    16. McLinden, Daniel, 2017. "And then the internet happened: Thoughts on the future of concept mapping," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 60(C), pages 293-300.
    17. Saunders, Ruth P. & Wilcox, Sara & Baruth, Meghan & Dowda, Marsha, 2014. "Process evaluation methods, implementation fidelity results and relationship to physical activity and healthy eating in the Faith, Activity, and Nutrition (FAN) study," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 43(C), pages 93-102.
    18. Geoffrey J. Syme & Brian S. Sadler, 1994. "Evaluation of Public Involvement in Water Resources Planning," Evaluation Review, , vol. 18(5), pages 523-542, October.
    19. Kalpazidou Schmidt, Evanthia & Graversen, Ebbe Krogh, 2020. "Developing a conceptual evaluation framework for gender equality interventions in research and innovation," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 79(C).
    20. Carol H. Weiss, 1997. "How Can Theory-Based Evaluation Make Greater Headway?," Evaluation Review, , vol. 21(4), pages 501-524, August.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:wly:riskan:v:36:y:2016:i:11:p:2120-2135. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1539-6924 .

    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.