CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 15Evaluation and Performance AssessmentHealth Policy Implementation ScienceSocial Work Education and Practice

Advancing Social Intervention Research Through Program Theory Reconstruction

Open access
Olsson, Tina M., Kapetanovic, Sabina, Hollertz, Katarina, Starke, Mikaela, Skoog, Therése·2023·Research on Social Work Practice
DOI 10.1177/10497315221149976
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Program theory reconstruction is an often-overlooked aspect of social intervention research. In this paper, we argue that intervention research benefits if the research design is informed by the specific intervention's program theory (i.e., the idea of how the intervention is supposed to lead to the intended outcomes). The purpose of this paper is to offer a comprehensive and accessible guide to program theory reconstruction in research on social interventions and to provide arguments as to how program theory reconstruction can be used to benefit intervention studies. First, we summarize what program theory is and its role in intervention research. Second, we provide a direct “how-to” for researchers, practitioners, and students who may be unfamiliar with the methods of program theory reconstruction but are interested in undertaking a program theory reconstruction. Finally, we conclude with how program theory reconstruction can benefit intervention research.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/10497315221149976

Cites

Statistics

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 59 · Cited by 15

Research works printed but not linked: 56

  1. Astbury, B., & Leeuw, F. L. (2000). Unpacking black boxes: Mechanisms and theory building in evaluation. American Journal of Evaluation , 31 (3), 363 -381. https://doi.org/10. 1177/1098214010371972
  2. Bowen, G. A. (2009). Document analysis as a qualitative research method. Qualitative Research Journal , 9 (2), 27 -40. https:// doi.org/https://doi-org.ezproxy.ub.gu.se/10.3316/QRJ0902027 · DOI · Paper page
  3. Brousselle, A., & Champagne, F. (2011). Program theory evaluation: Logic analysis. Evaluation and Program Planning , 34 (1), 69 -78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2010.04.001 · DOI
  4. Brown, A. J., & Koettl, J. (2015). Active labor market programs-employment gain or fi scal drain? IZA Journal of Labor Economics , 4 (1), 1 -36. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40172015-0025-5 · DOI
  5. Card, D., Kluve, J., & Weber, A. (2018). What works? A meta analysis of recent active labor market program evaluations. Journal of the European Economic Association , 16 (3), 894 -931. https:// doi.org/10.1093/jeea/jvx028 · DOI
  6. Chen, H. T. (1989). The conceptual framework of the theory-driven perspective. Evaluation and Program Planning , 12 (4), 391 -396. https://doi.org/10.1016/0149-7189. (89)90057-8 · DOI
  7. Chen, H. T. (1990). Theory driven evaluation . Sage Publications.
  8. Chen, H. T., & Garbe, P. (2011). Assessing program outcomes from the bottom-up approach: An innovative perspective to outcome evaluation. New Directions for Evaluation , 2011 (130), 93 -106. https://doi.org/10.1002/ev.368 · DOI
  9. Ciesielska, M., Wolanik Boström, K., & Öhlander, M. (2018). Observation methods. In Ciesielska, M., & Jemielniak, D. (Eds.), Qualitative methodologies in organizational studies (pp. 33 -52). Palgrave Macmillan Cham.
  10. Davies, J. T., & Peters, E. (2014). Relationships between gatekeepers and researchers: The experience of conducting evaluations into parenting programmes in community and penal settings. In Lumsden, K., & Winter, A. (Eds.), Reflexivity in criminological research (pp. 35 -46). Palgrave Macmillan.
  11. Donaldson, S., & Lipsey, M. (2006). Roles for theory in contemporary evaluation practice: Developing practical knowledge . Sage Publications Ltd.
  12. Fereday, J., & Muir-Cochrane, E. (2006). Demonstrating rigor using thematic analysis: A hybrid approach of inductive and deductive coding and theme development. International Journal of Qualitative Methods , 5 (1), 80 -92. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 160940690600500107
  13. Flynn, R., Schick-Makaroff, K., Levay, A., & Greenhalgh, J. (2020). Developing an initial program theory to explain how patientreported outcomes are used in health care settings: Methodological process and lessons learned. International Journal of Qualitative Methods , 19 (Apr), 160940692091629. https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406920916299 · DOI
  14. Fraser, M. W., & Galinsky, M. J. (2010). Steps in intervention research: Designing and developing social programs. Research on Social Work Practice , 20 (5), 459 -466. https:// doi.org/10.1177/1049731509358424 · DOI
  15. Fraser, M. W., Richman, J. M., Galinsky, M. J., & Day, S. H. (2009). Intervention Research: Developing Social Programs . Oxford University Press.
  16. Funnell, S., & Rogers, P. (2011). Purposeful program theory: Effective use of theories of social change and logic models . Jossey-Bass/Wiley.
  17. Funnell, S. C. (2000). Developing and using a program theory matrix for program evaluation and performance monitory. New Directions for Evaluation , 2000 (87), 91 -101. https:/ /doi.org/10.1002/ev.1185 · DOI
  18. Gorman, D. M., & Conde, E. (2007). Con fl ict of interest in the evaluation and dissemination of ' model ' school-based drug and violence prevention programs. Evaluation and Program Planning , 30 (4), 422 -429. https:/ /doi.org/10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2007.06.004 · DOI
  19. Guise, J.-M., O ' Haire, C., McPheeters, M., Most, C., LaBrant, L., Lee, K., Barth Cottrell, E. K., & Graham, E. (2013). A practicebased tool for engaging stakeholders in future research: A synthesis of current practices. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology , 66 (6), 666 -674. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2012.12.010 · DOI
  20. Hong, P. Y. P. (2009). A bottom-up de fi nition of self-suf fi ciency: Voices from low-income jobseekers. Qualitative Social Work , 8 (3), 357 -376. https://doi.org/10.1177/1473325009337844 · DOI
  21. Hong, P. Y. P. (2013). Toward a client-centered benchmark for selfsuf fi ciency: Evaluating the ' process ' of becoming job ready. Journal of Communicy Practice , 21 (4), 356 -378. https://doi. org/10.1080/10705422.2013.852147 · DOI
  22. Hong, P. Y. P., Choi, S., & Key, W. (2018). Psychological selfsuf fi ciency: A bottom-up theory of change in workforce development. Social Work Research , 42 (1), 22 -32. https://doi.org/ 10.1093/swr/svx025 · DOI
  23. Hong, R., Northcut, T. B., Spira, M., & Hong, P. Y. P. (2019). Facilitating transformation in workforce training: Using clinical theory to understand psychological self-suf fi ciency. Smith College Studies in Social Work , 89 (1), 1 -17. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/00377317.2019.1577046 · DOI
  24. Hsieh, H.-F., & Shannon, S. (2018). Content analysis. In Frey, B. B. (Ed.), The SAGE encyclopedia of educational research, measurement, and evaluation (pp. 393 -394). Sage Publications, Inc.
  25. Hsieh, H.-F., & Shannon, S. E. (2005). Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative Health Research , 15 (9), 1277 -1288. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732305276687 · DOI · Paper page
  26. Huff, A. S. (1990). Mapping strategic thought . Wiley & Sons.
  27. Leeuw, F. L. (2003). Reconstructing program theories: Methods available and problems to be solved. American Journal of Evaluation , 24 (1), 5 -20. https:/ /doi.org/10.1177/109821400302400102 · DOI
  28. Maden, M., Cunliffe, A., McMahonb, N., Booth, A., Carey, G. M., Paisley, S., Dickson, R., & Gabbay, M. (2017). Use of programme theory to understand the differential effects of interventions across socio-economic groups in systematic reviews-a systematic methodology review. Systematic Reviews , 6 , 266. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-017-0638-9 · DOI
  29. Marx, M. H., & Godson, F. E. (1976). Theories in contemporary psychology (2nd edition) . Macmillan.
  30. Mrazek, P. J., & Haggerty, R. (1994). Reducing risks for mental disorders: Frontiers for preventive intervention research . National Academy Press.
  31. O ' Connell, M. E., Boat, T., & Warner, K. E. (2009). Preventing mental, emotional, and behavioral disorders among young people: Progress and possibilities . The National Academies Press.
  32. O ' Cathain, A., Croot, L., Sworn, K., Duncan, E., Rousseau, N., Turner, K., Yardley, L., & Hoddinott, P. (2019). Taxonomy of approaches to developing interventions to improve health: A systematic methods review. Pilot and Feasibility Studies , 54 (41), 1 -27. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40814-019-0425-6 · DOI
  33. Olofsson, V., Skoog, T., & Tillfors, M. (2016). Implementing group based parenting programs: A narrative review. Children and Youth Services Review , 69 (1), 67 -81. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.childyouth.2016.07.004
  34. Olsson, T. M., Hollertz, K., & Starke, M. (2020). Pathways to employment: Study protocol for a theory-based nonrandomized controlled trial of active labor market programs designed to move the long-term unemployed closer to the labor market. Social Science Protocols , 3 (2020), 1 -12. https:// doi.org/10.7565/ssp.2020.2810 · DOI
  35. Oosthuizen, C., & Louw, J. (2013). Developing program theory for purveyor programs. Implementation Science , 8 (23), 1 -10. https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-8-23 · DOI
  36. Payne, M. (2014). Modern social work theory (4th ed.). MacMillan Education.
  37. Renger, R., & Titcomb, A. (2002). A three-step approach to teaching logic models. American Journal of Evaluation , 23 (4), 493 -503. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098214002023 00409 · DOI
  38. Rey, L., Brousselle, A., & Dedobbeleer, N. (2011). Logic analysis: Testing program theory to better evaluate complex interventions. The Canadian Journal of Program Evaluation = La Revue Canadienne D ' evaluation de Programme , 26 (3), 61 -89. PMCID: PMC4882160 .
  39. Rogers, P. J., Petrosino, A., Huebner, T. A., & Hacsi, T. A. (2000). Program theory evaluation: Practice, promise, and problems. New Directions for Evaluation , 2000 (87), 5 -13. https://doi. org/10.1002/ev.1177 · DOI · Paper page
  40. Rossi, P. H., Lipsey, M. W., & Freeman, H. E. (2004). Evaluation: A systematic approach (7th ed.). Sage.
  41. Rothman, J., & Thomas, E. J. (1994). Intervention research: Design and development for human services . Haworth Press.
  42. Savas, S. A., Fleming, W. M., & Bolig, E. E. (1998). Program speci fi cation: A precursor to program monitoring and quality improvement. A case study from Boysville of Michigan. The Journal of Behavioral Health Services & Research , 25 (2), 208 -216. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02287481 · DOI
  43. Shaw, I., Greene, J. C., & Mark, M. M. (2006). The SAGE handbook of evaluation . Sage Publications Ltd.
  44. Shearn, K., Allmark, P., Piercy, H., & Hirst, J. (2017). Building realist program theory for large complex and messy interventions. International Journal of Qualitative Methods , 16 (1), 160940691774179. https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406917741796 · DOI
  45. Singh, S., & Wassenaar, D. (2016). Contextualising the role of the gatekeeper in social science research. South African Journal of Bioethics and Law , 9 (1), 42. https://doi.org/10.7196/SAJBL. 2016.v9i1.465 · DOI
  46. Skoog, T., Kapetanovic, S., & Sorbring, E. (2022). Study protocol for a mixed-design evaluation of self-assured parents -A parenting support program for immigrant parents living in deprived areas in Sweden with teenage children. Public Health in Practice , 3 (2022), 100270. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.puhip.2022.100270 · DOI
  47. Soloman, B. (2002). Accountability in public child welfare: Linking program theory, program speci fi cation and program evaluation. Children and Youth Services Review , 24 (6/7), 385 -407. https:// doi.org/10.1016/S0190-7409(02)00193-7 · DOI
  48. Starke, M., & Hollertz, K. (2022). Theoretical underpinnings of active labour market programmes implemented by municipal and non-governmental organisations in Sweden. European Journal of Social Work, Ahead of Print , 1 -15. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/13691457.2022.2063809 · DOI
  49. Sundell, K., & Olsson, T. M. (2017). Social Intervention Research. Oxford Bibliographies . https:/ /doi.org/10.1093/OBO/97801953896 78-0254 · DOI
  50. Trochim, W. M. K. (1989). Outcome pattern matching and program theory. Evaluation and Program Planning , 12 (4), 355 -366. https://doi.org/10.1016/0149-7189(89)90052-9 · DOI
  51. Trochim, W. M. K. (1985). Pattern matching, validity, and conceptualization in program evaluation. Evaluation Review , 9 (5), 575 -604. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/0193841X85 00900503 · DOI
  52. Weiss, C. H. (1972). Evaluation . Prentice Hall.
  53. Weiss, C. H. (1995). Nothing as practical as good theory. In Connell, J., Kubisch, A., Schorr, L. B., & Weiss, C. H. (Eds.), New approaches to evaluating community initiatives (pp. 65 -92). Aspen Institute.
  54. Weiss, C. H. (1997). Theory-based evaluation: Past, present, and future. New Directions for Evaluation , 1997 (76), 41 -55. https://doi.org/10.1002/ev.1086 · DOI
  55. Weiss, C. H. (1998). Evaluation . Prentice Hall.
  56. Worthen, B. R. (1996). Editor ' s note: The origins of theory-based evaluation. Evaluation Practice , 17 (2), 169 -171. https://doi. org/10.1177/109821409601700209 · DOI

Authors
Olsson, T. M., Kapetanovic, S., Hollertz, K., Starke, M., & Skoog, T.
Affiliations
  • University of Gothenburg (SE)
  • University West (SE)
Corresponding author
Olsson, Tina M.
ORCID
Venue
Research on Social Work Practice
Publisher
SAGE Publications
Published
2023-01-07
Volume
33
Issue
6
Pages
642-655
ISSN
  • 1049-7315 (ISSN-L)
  • 1552-7581
DOI
10.1177/10497315221149976
OpenAlex
W4313680017
Cited by
15
References
59
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 1
FWCI
2.77
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Research on Social Work Practice (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Diva portal (Dalarna University Library) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
Swedish Research Council for Health, Working Life and Welfare (2018-01324, 2020-05-20)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Evaluation and Performance Assessment
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Policy Implementation Science
  • Social Sciences › Public Administration › Social Work Education and Practice
Keywords
program theory, social intervention, research design, social work practice

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