Theory in Evaluation

  • Apollo M. Nkwake


This chapter distinguishes among social science theory, evaluation theory, evaluators’ theory, and program theory and between results chains and theories of change. It demonstrates that logic models are incomplete if they do not spell out the assumptions (implicit or behind-the-scenes concepts, conditions, and qualifications) within the linkages or arrows in a results chain that explains why one result is expected to lead to another.


Evaluation purpose  Evaluation theory  Social science theory  Program theory  Causative theory  Theory-driven evaluation 


  1. Anderson, A. (2004). Theory of change as a tool for strategic planning: A report on early experiences. Washington DC: Aspen Institute.Google Scholar
  2. Astbury, B., & Leeuw, F. L. (2010). Unpacking black boxes: Mechanisms and theory building in evaluation. American Journal of Evaluation, 31(3), 363–381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ball, S. J. (1995). Intellectuals or technicians? The urgent role of theory in educational studies. British Journal of Educational Studies, 43(3), 255–271.Google Scholar
  4. Birckmayer, J. D., & Weiss, C. H. (2000). Theory-based evaluation in practice: What do we learn? Evaluation Review, 24(4), 407–431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Carvalho, S., & White, H. (2004). Theory-based evaluation: The case of social funds. American Journal of Evaluation, 25(2), 141–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chen, H. T. (1990). Theory-driven evaluations. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE Publications.Google Scholar
  7. Chen, H. T. (2005). Practical program evaluation: Assessing and improving planning, implementation, and effectiveness. London, UK: Sage Publications.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chen, H-T., & Rossi, P. H. (1989). Issues in the theory-driven perspective. Evaluation and Program Planning, 12(4), 299–306.Google Scholar
  9. Coryn, C. L. S., Noakes, L. A., Westine, C. D., & Schroter, D. C. (2011). A systematic review of theory-driven evaluation practice from 1990 to 2009. American Journal of Evaluation, 2(2), 199–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Donaldson, S. I., & Lipsey, M. W. (2006). Roles for theory in evaluation practice. In I. Shaw, J. Greene, & M. Mark (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of evaluation (pp. 56–75). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.Google Scholar
  11. Fitzpatrick, S., Pleace, N., & Wallace, A. (2010). Evidence analysis for the triennial review: Homelessness. London, UK: Equality and Human Rights Commission.Google Scholar
  12. Green, B. L., & McAllister, C. (1998). Theory-based, participatory evaluation: A powerful tool for evaluating family support programs. The Bulletin of the National Center for Zero to Three, Feb/March, pp. 30–36.Google Scholar
  13. Greene, J. C., Lipsey, M. W., & Schwandt, T. A. (2007). Method choice: Five discussant commentaries. New Directions for Evaluation, 113(Spring), 111–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hansen, M. B., & Vedung, E. (2010). Theory-based stakeholder evaluation. American Journal of Evaluation, 31(3), 295–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hendricks, M. (1996). Performance monitoring: how to measure effectively the results of our efforts. Paper presented at the American Evaluation Association Annual Conference, Atlanta, Georgia, November 1996.Google Scholar
  16. Leeuw, F. L. (2003). Reconstructing program theories: Methods available and problems to be solved. American Journal of Evaluation, 24(1), 5–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Mason, P., & Barnes, M. (2007). Constructing theories of change: Methods and sources. Evaluation, 13(2), 151–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Mayne, J. (2001). Addressing attribution through contribution analysis: using performance measures sensibly. Canadian Journal of Program Evaluation, 16(1), 1–24.Google Scholar
  19. Mayne, J. (2011). Contribution analysis: Addressing cause effect. In K. Forss, M. Marra, & R. Schwartz (Eds.), Evaluating the complex: Attribution, contribution, and beyond (pp. 53–96). New Brunswick, NJ: Transactional Publishers.Google Scholar
  20. Mercier, C., Piat, M., Peladeau, N., & Dagenais, C. (2000). An application of theory-driven evaluation to a drop-in youth center. Evaluation Review, 1, 73–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Organisation of Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). (2002). Glossary of key terms in evaluation and results-based management. Retrieved from
  22. Renger, R., & Titcomb, A. (2002). A three-step approach to teaching logic models. American Journal of Evaluation, 23(4), 493–503.Google Scholar
  23. Scriven, M. (1998). Minimalist theory: The least theory that practice requires. American Journal of Evaluation, 19(1), 57–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Smith, N. L. (2010). Characterizing the evaluand in evaluating theory. American Journal of Evaluation, 31(3), 383–389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Stame, N. (2004). Theory-based evaluation and types of complexity. Evaluation, 10(1), 58–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Trochim, W. (2000). The research methods knowledge base (2nd ed.). Cincinnati, OH: Atomic Dog Publishing.Google Scholar
  27. Weiss, C. H. (1972). Evaluation research: Methods for assessing program effectiveness. Englewood Cliffs, NY: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  28. Weiss, C. H. (1993). Where politics and evaluation research meet. American Journal of Evaluation, 14(1), 93–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • Apollo M. Nkwake
    • 1
  1. 1.Questions LLCMarylandUSA

Personalised recommendations