Strategies to maximize generalization from multiple case studies: Lessons from the Africa Routine Immunization System Essentials (ARISE) project
Abstract
This article considers the challenges of generalizability related to case studies, and specifically for the in-depth case studies of the Africa Routine Immunization System Essentials (ARISE) project. The article describes how these challenges were addressed, by developing a Theory of Change to frame case selection strategies, data collection, and analysis, including synthesis of findings across multiple cases. The authors then consider: the importance of grounding generalizability in theory; balancing within-and cross-case analyses for synthesis; and using theory-based case selection, as ways to support generalizability of the case study findings. Multiple case studies should sequence analysis as: 1) within-case analysis; 2) identification of replicated findings and implementation variation across cases; and 3) synthesis across cases, pooling the data. Case selection should be a stand-alone, formative part of case study research. The lessons from the ARISE case studies suggest that these are important ways in which case study methodology can be strengthened.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Mookherji and Lafond used a case study approach to evaluate immunisation performance and then refined the ToC based on the results of this evaluation and a stakeholder workshop.
“They used a case study approach to evaluate immunisation performance and then refined the ToC based on the results of this evaluation and a stakeholder workshop.”
From Using theory of change to design and evaluate public health interventions: a systematic review (2015) · cites this paper as [64]
Many papers used multiple methods to develop ToCs; for example, Mookherji and Lafond used immunisation programme theory and discussion with programme stakeholders, including immunisation experts, to develop a ToC of routine immunisation performance.
“Many used multiple methods, for example, Mookheriji and Lafond used immunisation programme theory and discussion with programme stakeholders, including immunisation experts, to develop a ToC of routine immunisation performance [64].”
From Using theory of change to design and evaluate public health interventions: a systematic review (2015) · cites this paper as [64]
Some papers reported using the evaluation to validate the ToC.
“Others reported that they used the evaluation to develop [39], refine [40] or validate the ToC [64].”
From Using theory of change to design and evaluate public health interventions: a systematic review (2015) · cites this paper as [64]
There were some exceptions to the lack of exploration of context.
“There were some exceptions [40, 56, 64, 72].”
From Using theory of change to design and evaluate public health interventions: a systematic review (2015) · cites this paper as [64]
Cites
Case study research: design and methods
Phelan, S. (2011) · Evaluation & Research in Education · doi:10.1080/09500790.2011.582317 · Cited by 21,885 · see citing works
(1993) · Cited by 7,856 · see citing works
Case study research: principles and practices
Gerring, J. (2007) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.45-1530 · Cited by 4,196 · see citing works
Case Selection Techniques in Case Study Research: A Menu of Qualitative and Quantitative Options
Seawright, J., & Gerring, J. (2008) · Political Research Quarterly · doi:10.1177/1065912907313077 · Cited by 3,827 · see citing works
Validity in qualitative research
Whittemore, R., Chase, S. K., & Mandle, C. L. (2001) · Qualitative Health Research · doi:10.1177/104973201129119299 · Cited by 2,144 · see citing works
Using Programme Theory to Evaluate Complicated and Complex Aspects of Interventions
Rogers, P. J. (2008) · Evaluation · doi:10.1177/1356389007084674 · Cited by 999 · see citing works
Green, L. W., & Glasgow, R. E. (2006) · Evaluation & the Health Professions · doi:10.1177/0163278705284445 · Cited by 922 · see citing works
QUALITATIVE RESEARCH: Recent Developments in Case Study Methods
Bennett, A., & Elman, C. (2006) · Annual Review of Political Science · doi:10.1146/annurev.polisci.8.082103.104918 · Cited by 578 · see citing works
Toward a Unified Validation Framework in Mixed Methods Research
Dellinger, A. B., & Leech, N. L. (2007) · Journal of Mixed Methods Research · doi:10.1177/1558689807306147 · Cited by 349 · see citing works
Impact pathway evaluation: an approach for achieving and attributing impact in complex systems
Douthwaite, B., Kuby, T., van de Fliert, E., & Schulz, S. (2003) · Agricultural Systems · doi:10.1016/s0308-521x(03)00128-8 · Cited by 291 · see citing works
Program theory evaluation: Practice, promise, and problems
Rogers, P. J., Petrosino, A., Huebner, T. A., & Hacsi, T. A. (2000) · New Directions for Evaluation · doi:10.1002/ev.1177 · Cited by 274 · see citing works
Evaluating complex social interventions in a complex world
Byrne, D. (2013) · Evaluation · doi:10.1177/1356389013495617 · Cited by 207 · see citing works
A realist evaluation of the management of a well- performing regional hospital in Ghana
Marchal, B., Dedzo, M., & Kegels, G. (2010) · BMC Health Services Research · doi:10.1186/1472-6963-10-24 · Cited by 156 · see citing works
Strong theory, flexible methods: Evaluating complex community-based initiatives
Judge, K., & Bauld, L. (2001) · Critical Public Health · doi:10.1080/09581590010028237 · Cited by 135 · see citing works
Risley, J. S. (2005) · Journal of MultiDisciplinary Evaluation · doi:10.56645/jmde.v2i2.136 · Cited by 129 · see citing works
Burchett, H., Umoquit, M. J., & Dobrow, M. (2011) · Journal of Health Services Research & Policy · doi:10.1258/jhsrp.2011.010124 · Cited by 110 · see citing works
Lemire, S. T., Nielsen, S. B., & Dybdal, L. (2012) · Evaluation · doi:10.1177/1356389012450654 · Cited by 66 · see citing works
Enhancing Generalizability: Moving From an Intimate to a Political Voice
Groleau, D., Zelkowitz, P., & Cabral, I. E. (2009) · Qualitative Health Research · doi:10.1177/1049732308329851 · Cited by 49 · see citing works
Naimoli, J. F., Challa, S. R., Schneidman, M., et al. (2008) · Health Policy and Planning · doi:10.1093/heapol/czn028 · Cited by 29 · see citing works
Sridharan, S., & Nakaima, A. (2012) · Evaluation · doi:10.1177/1356389012453289 · Cited by 23 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Using theory of change to design and evaluate public health interventions: a systematic review
Breuer, E., Lee, L., De Silva, M., & Lund, C. (2015) · Implementation Science · doi:10.1186/s13012-016-0422-6 · Cited by 425 · see citing works
Belaid, L., & Ridde, V. (2015) · Health Policy and Planning · doi:10.1093/heapol/czu012 · Cited by 67 · see citing works
- Authors
- Mookherji, S., & LaFond, A.
- Affiliations
- George Washington University (US)
- John Snow (United States) (US)
- Venue
- Evaluation
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2013-07
- Volume
- 19
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 284-303
- ISSN
- 1356-3890 (ISSN-L)
- 1461-7153
- OpenAlex
- W2165052091
- Cited by
- 18
- References
- 20
- Citations by year
- 2024: 2 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 5 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 2 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 1
- FWCI
- 2.73
- 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
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Qualitative Comparative Analysis Research
- Social Sciences › Education › Qualitative Research Methods and Applications
- Keywords
- generalizability, multiple case study, theory of change, case selection, routine immunization, ARISE project, implementation variation, immunization program evaluation
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
