The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Evaluating With Sense: The Theory-Driven Approach
Abstract
Arguing for more serious theorizing in connection with evaluation, this article shows that although the randomized controlled experiment conceptualized as a "black box" approach has dominated the discussions of impact assessment since the classic statements of Campbell and Stanley (1966), the use of theoretical models in connection with impact assessment can both heighten the power of experimental designs and compensatefor some of the major deficiencies of quasi-experimental designs. The article also emphasizes the importance of theoretical models of implementation processes, arguing that this process often constitutes the major obstacle to the full realization of effective programs.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
An introduction to concept mapping for planning and evaluation
Trochim, W. M. K. (1989) · Evaluation and Program Planning · doi:10.1016/0149-7189(89)90016-5 · Cited by 1,512
Explaining Michigan: Developing an Ex Post Theory of a Quality Improvement Program
DIXON-WOODS, M., BOSK, C. L., AVELING, E. L., GOESCHEL, C. A., & PRONOVOST, P. J. (2011) · Milbank Quarterly · doi:10.1111/j.1468-0009.2011.00625.x · Cited by 603
A Systematic Review of Theory-Driven Evaluation Practice From 1990 to 2009
Coryn, C. L. S., Noakes, L. A., Westine, C. D., & Schröter, D. C. (2011) · American Journal of Evaluation · doi:10.1177/1098214010389321 · Cited by 531
Marchal, B., van Belle, S., van Olmen, J., Hoerée, T., & Kegels, G. (2012) · Evaluation · doi:10.1177/1356389012442444 · Cited by 476
A meta-analysis of corrections-based education, vocation, and work programs for adult offenders
WILSON, D. B., GALLAGHER, C. A., & MacKENZIE, D. L. (2000) · Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency · doi:10.1177/0022427800037004001 · Cited by 462
The functions of program theory
Bickman, L. (1987) · New Directions for Program Evaluation · doi:10.1002/ev.1443 · Cited by 347
Theory as method: small theories of treatments
Lipsey, M. W. (1993) · New Directions for Program Evaluation · doi:10.1002/ev.1637 · Cited by 322
Donaldson, S. I., Graham, J. W., & Hansen, W. B. (1994) · Journal of Behavioral Medicine · doi:10.1007/bf01858105 · Cited by 211
Phases of alcohol problem prevention research
Holder, H., Flay, B., Howard, J., Boyd, G., Voas, R., & Grossman, M. (1999) · Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research · doi:10.1111/j.1530-0277.1999.tb04043.x · Cited by 57
Johnson, V. A., Ronan, K. R., Johnston, D. M., & Peace, R. (2016) · Risk Analysis · doi:10.1111/risa.12545 · Cited by 49
Virtual reality exposure therapy on alcohol and nicotine: a systematic review
Trahan, M. H., Maynard, B. R., Smith, K. S., Farina, A. S. J., & Khoo, Y. M. (2019) · Research on Social Work Practice · doi:10.1177/1049731518823073 · Cited by 39
Using theory-based evaluation to build evidence-based health and social care policy and practice
Bonner, L. (2003) · Critical Public Health · doi:10.1080/0958159031000100224 · Cited by 33
Fidelity in After-School Program Intervention Research: A Systematic Review
Maynard, B. R., Peters, K. E., Vaughn, M. G., & Sarteschi, C. M. (2013) · Research on Social Work Practice · doi:10.1177/1049731513491150 · Cited by 30
Metadata
- Authors
- Chen, H.-T., & Rossi, P. H.
- Venue
- Evaluation Review
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 1983-06
- Volume
- 7
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 283-302
- ISSN
- 0145-4692 (ISSN-L)
- 0193-841X
- 1552-3926
- OpenAlex
- W2162585112
- Cited by
- 424
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 11.23
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
