Cited by 383Evaluation and Performance AssessmentAdvanced Causal Inference TechniquesHealth Policy Implementation Science

Theories of Change and Realistic Evaluation: Peas in a Pod or Apples and Oranges?

Blamey, Avril, Mackenzie, Mhairi·2007·Evaluation

Abstract

Two proponents of theory-based approaches to evaluation that have found favour in the UK in recent years are Theories of Change and Realistic Evaluation. In this article we share our evolving views on the points of connection and digression between the approaches based on our reading of the theory-based evaluation literature and our practice experience. We provide a background to the two approaches that emphasizes the importance of programme context in understanding how complex programmes lead to changes in outcomes.We then explore some of the differences in how `theory' is conceptualized and used within the two approaches and consider how knowledge is generated and cumulated in subtly different ways depending on the approach that is taken. Finally, we offer our thoughts on what this means for evaluators on the ground seeking an appropriate framework for their practice.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/1356389007082129

Cites

27 of 27 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Realist approaches have a different theoretical basis to ToC and differ in several ways including how they articulate and generate theory, the degree to which stakeholders are involved and the types of knowledge they seek to generate.

    “Realist approaches have a different theoretical basis to ToC and differ in several ways including how they articulate and generate theory, the degree to which stakeholders are involved and the types of knowledge they seek to generate [20].”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Blamey, A., & Mackenzie, M.
Affiliations
  • National Health Service Scotland (GB)
  • University of Glasgow (GB)
Venue
Evaluation
Published
2007-10
Volume
13
Issue
4
Pages
439-455
ISSN
  • 1356-3890 (ISSN-L)
  • 1461-7153
OpenAlex
W2145892273
Cited by
383
References
27
Citations by year
2026: 13 · 2025: 16 · 2024: 20 · 2023: 18 · 2022: 26 · 2021: 23 · 2020: 41 · 2019: 45 · 2018: 21 · 2017: 26 · 2016: 34 · 2015: 20 · 2014: 15 · 2013: 14 · 2012: 23
FWCI
9.03
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Evaluation (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Evaluation and Performance Assessment
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Advanced Causal Inference Techniques
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Policy Implementation Science
Keywords
theory of change, realist evaluation, theory-based evaluation, program outcomes, knowledge production, evaluator practice, evaluation framework

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