Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 1,430

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Validity and generalization in future case study evaluations

Yin, Robert K.·2013·Evaluation
DOI 10.1177/1356389013497081
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Validity and generalization continue to be challenging aspects in designing and conducting case study evaluations, especially when the number of cases being studied is highly limited (even limited to a single case). To address the challenge, this article highlights current knowledge regarding the use of: (1) rival explanations, triangulation, and logic models in strengthening validity, and (2) analytic generalization and the role of theory in seeking to generalize from case studies. To ground the discussion, the article cites specific practices and examples from the existing literature as well as from the six preceding articles assembled in this special issue. Throughout, the article emphasizes that current knowledge may still be regarded as being at its early stage of development, still leaving room for more learning. The article concludes by pointing to three topics worthy of future methodological inquiry, including: (1) examining the connection between the way that initial evaluation questions are posed and the selection of the appropriate evaluation method in an ensuing evaluation, (2) the importance of operationally defining the ‘complexity’ of an intervention, and (3) raising awareness about case study evaluation methods more generally.

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.

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

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/1356389013497081

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

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.

Citations

Cites

Show all 3 references

Research works printed but not linked: 45

  1. Allison GT, 1971, Essence of Decision: Explaining the Cuban Missile Crisis
  2. Allison GT, 1999, Essence of Decision: Explaining the Cuban Missile Crisis
  3. Andrews M, Pritchett L, Woolcock M (2012) Escaping capability traps through problem-driven iterative adaptation (PDIA). Working Paper 299. Washington, DC: Center for Global Development. · DOI
  4. 10.1177/1474022213493839 · DOI · Paper page
  5. Bennett A, 2004, Workshop on Scientific Foundations of Qualitative Research, 49
  6. 10.1177/1356389013493840 · DOI
  7. Bromley DB, 1986, The Case-Study Method in Psychology and Related Disciplines
  8. Burawoy M, 1991, Ethnography Unbound: Power and Resistance in the Modern Metropolis, 271
  9. 10.1177/1356389013495617 · DOI
  10. 10.1111/1471-0528.13149 · doi:10.1111/1471-0528.13149
  11. Creswell JW, 2007, Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research
  12. 10.1037/h0076829 · DOI · Paper page
  13. Denzin NK, 1978, The Research Act: A Theoretical Introduction to Sociological Methods
  14. Donmoyer R, 1990, Qualitative Inquiry in Education: The Continuing Debate, 175
  15. Emerson RM, 2001, Contemporary Field Research: Perspectives and Formulations
  16. 10.1177/1077800412454834 · DOI
  17. Geertz C, 1973, The Interpretation of Cultures
  18. Goffman E, 1963, Stigma: Notes on the Management of Spoiled Identity
  19. Gomm R, 2000, Case Study Method, 98
  20. 10.1177/1077800411423194 · DOI
  21. 10.1016/0147-1767(85)90062-8 · DOI · Paper page
  22. 10.1177/1525822X04266831 · DOI · Paper page
  23. 10.1177/1077800412452856 · DOI
  24. Miles M, 1994, Qualitative Data Analysis: A Sourcebook for New Methods
  25. 10.1111/j.1467-954X.1983.tb00387.x · DOI · Paper page
  26. 10.1177/1356389013495212 · DOI · Paper page
  27. Patton M, 2002, Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods
  28. Prescott HM, 2002, Journal of the History of Medicine, 57, 3
  29. Ragin CC, 1987, The Comparative Method: Moving beyond Qualitative and Quantitative Strategies
  30. Ragin CC, 2000, Fuzzy Set Social Science
  31. 10.4135/9781446249413.n32 · DOI
  32. 10.1177/000312240807300405 · DOI
  33. 10.1007/978-1-4757-3692-2 · DOI · Paper page
  34. Shavelson RJ, 2002, Scientific Research in Education
  35. 10.1177/1466138108099586 · DOI · Paper page
  36. Stufflebeam DL, 2007, Evaluation Theory, Models, and Applications
  37. Teddlie C, 2009, Foundations of Mixed Methods Research: Integrating Quantitative and Qualitative Approaches in the Social and Behavioral Sciences
  38. 10.1177/1356389013493841 · DOI
  39. Wholey J, 1979, Evaluation: Performance and Promise
  40. 10.1177/1356389013495210 · DOI
  41. Yin RK, 2000, Evaluation Models: Viewpoints on Educational and Human Services Evaluation, 185
  42. Yin RK, 2000, Validity & Social Experimentation: Donald Campbell’s Legacy, 239
  43. Yin RK, 2007, New Directions for Program Evaluation: Informing Federal Policies for Evaluation Methodology, 113, 75, 10.1002/ev.216 · DOI
  44. 10.4000/books.pum.5989 · doi:10.4000/books.pum.5989
  45. Yin RK, 2014, Case Study Research: Design and Methods

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Yin, R. K.
Venue
Evaluation
Publisher
SAGE Publications
Published
2013-07
Volume
19
Issue
3
Pages
321-332
ISSN
  • 1356-3890 (ISSN-L)
  • 1461-7153
DOI
10.1177/1356389013497081
OpenAlex
W2317804006
Cited by
1,430
References
3
FWCI
48.51
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
journals.sagepub.com/page/policies/text-and-data-mining-license (tdm)

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.