IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/b/ecr/col014/2058.html
   My bibliography  Save this book

Evaluación de Quito

Author

Listed:
  • -

Abstract

No abstract is available for this item.

Suggested Citation

  • -, 1998. "Evaluación de Quito," Copublicaciones, Naciones Unidas Comisión Económica para América Latina y el Caribe (CEPAL), number 2058.
    • Handle: RePEc:ecr:col014:2058
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://repositorio.cepal.org/handle/11362/2058
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Walton, Mat, 2014. "Applying complexity theory: A review to inform evaluation design," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 45(C), pages 119-126.
    2. Yerko Rojas, 2017. "Evictions and short-term all-cause mortality: a 3-year follow-up study of a middle-aged Swedish population," International Journal of Public Health, Springer;Swiss School of Public Health (SSPH+), vol. 62(3), pages 343-351, April.
    3. Jolley, Gwyneth, 2014. "Evaluating complex community-based health promotion: Addressing the challenges," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 45(C), pages 71-81.
    4. Jabeen, Sumera, 2016. "Do we really care about unintended outcomes? An analysis of evaluation theory and practice," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 55(C), pages 144-154.
    5. Patterson, Laurie B. & Backhouse, Susan H. & Duffy, Patrick J., 2016. "Anti-doping education for coaches: Qualitative insights from national and international sporting and anti-doping organisations," Sport Management Review, Elsevier, vol. 19(1), pages 35-47.
    6. Gates, Emily F., 2016. "Making sense of the emerging conversation in evaluation about systems thinking and complexity science," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 62-73.
    7. Azzam, Tarek & Levine, Bret, 2015. "Politics in evaluation: Politically responsive evaluation in high stakes environments," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 53(C), pages 44-56.

    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:ecr:col014:2058. 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: Biblioteca CEPAL (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/eclaccl.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.