Abstract
Examining the assumptions that hold a program theory together is a vital part of evaluating program outcomes. Examining implicit or explicit program assumptions facilitates understanding of program results-both intended and unintended. Evaluation approaches for testing program assumptions are outlined. The best place to start integrating assumptions in an evaluation is at the conceptualizing stage, when evaluation questions are being formulated, not in data collection or methodologies. Tools are but a servant of methods and methods a servant of questions, which should be the servant of objectives and/or purpose. Ideally, by framing the questions well, the methods, tools, and data will produce highly useful answers and solutions. But examining assumptions is without doubt a necessary element in the process.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Chen, H. T. (2005). Practical program evaluation: assessing and improving planning, implementation, and effectiveness. Newbury Park: Sage publications.
Chen, H. T. (2006). A Theory-driven evaluation perspective on mixed methods research. Research In the Schools (Mid-South Educational Research Association), 13(1), 75–83.
Chen, H. T., & Rossi, P. H. (1980). The multi-goal, theory-driven approach to evaluation: A model linking basic and applied social science. Social Forces, 59(1), 106–122.
Connell, J. P. & Kubisch, A.C. (1998). Applying a theory of change approach to the evaluation of comprehensive community initiatives: Progress, prospects, and problems. In K. Fulbright-Anderson, A. C. Kubrisch & J. P. Connell (Eds.), New approaches to evaluating community initiatives ,theory, measurement and analysis (vol. 2). Washington: Aspen Institute.
Davies, R. (2010). Counter-factual and counter-theories. Retrieved 01/29/2012 http://mandenews.blogspot.com/2010/10/counter-factuals-and-counter-theories.html.
Donaldson, S. I., & Gooler, L. E. (2002). Theory-driven evaluation of the work and health initiative: A focus on winning new jobs. American Journal of Evaluation, 23(3), 341–347.
Funnel, S. C. (2000). Developing and using a program theoryprogram theory matrix for program evaluation and performance monitoring. New Directions for Evaluation, 87(Fall), 91–101.
Green, B. L. & McAllister, C. (1998) Theory-based, participatory evaluation: A powerful tool for evaluating family support programs. In The bulletin of the national center for zero to three (pp. 30–36) Feb/March 1998.
Janssens, F. J. G., & De Wolf, I. F. (2010). Analyzing the assumptions of a policy program: An ex-ante evaluation of ‘‘educational governance’’ in the Netherlands. American Journal of Evaluation, 30(3), 330–348.
Kelloway, E. K. (1998). Using LISREL for structural equation modeling. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Leviton, L. C. (1994). Program theory and evaluation theory in community-based programs. American Journal of Evaluation, 15(1), 89–92.
Marquart, J. M. (1990). A pattern-matching approach to link program theoryprogram theory and evaluation data. New Directions for Program Evaluation, 47, 93–107.
Maruyama, G. M. (1998). Basics of structural equation modeling. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
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: Transactional Publishers.
McLaughlin, J. A., & Jordan, G. B. (1999). Logic models: A tool for telling your performance story. Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier Science, 22(1), 65–72.
McLinden, D. J., & Trochim, W. M. K. (1998). Getting to parallel: Assessing the return on expectations of training. Performance Improvement, 37(1998), 21–26.
Mitchell, R.J. (1993). Path analysis: pollination. In S. M. Scheiner & J. Gurevitch (Eds.), Design and analysis of ecological experiments (pp. 211–231).New York: Chapman and Hall.
Morell, J. A. (2005). Why are there unintended consequences of program action, and what are the implications for doing evaluation? American Journal of Evaluation, 26(4), 444–463.
Pawson, R., & Tilley, N. (1997). Realistic evaluation. London: Sage.
Schalock, R. L., & Bonham, G. S. (2003). Measuring outcomes and managing for results. Evaluation and Program Planning, 26(3), 229–235.
Schumacker, R. E., & Lomax, R. G. (1996). A beginner’s guide to structural equation modeling. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Scriven, M. (2008). A summative evaluation of RCT methodology: & an alternative approach to causal research. Journal of Multi Disciplinary Evaluation, 5(9), 15–24.
Shaw, I., & Crompton, I. A. (2003). Theory like mist on spectacles, obscures vision. Evaluation, 9(2), 192–204.
Stame, N. (2010). What doesn’t work? three failures, many answers. Evaluation, 16(4), 371–387.
Tilley, N. (2004). Applying theory-driven evaluation to the british crime reduction program: The theories of the program and of its evaluations. Criminology and Criminal Justice, 4(3), 255–276.
Trochim, W. (1989). Outcome pattern matching and program theoryprogram theory. Evaluation and Program Planning, 12(4), 355–366.
Trochim, W., & Cook, J. (1992). Pattern matching in theory-driven evaluation: a field example from psychiatric rehabilitation. In H. Chen & P. H. Rossi (Eds.), Using theory to improve program and policy evaluations (pp. 49–69). New York: Greenwood Press.
University of Oxford (2010). Inventory of measures, typology of non-intentional effects and a framework for policy packaging. Retrieved 11/13/11 http://optic.toi.no/mmarchive_getfile.php?mmfileid=14934&CPMMFILEID_URL_WYSIWYG_TOKEN=1.
Weiss, C. H. (1993). Where politics and evaluation research meet. American Journal of Evaluation, 14(1), 93–106.
Weiss, C. (1997a). Theory-based evaluation: Past, present, and future. New Directions for Evaluation, 76, 41–55.
Weiss, C. (1997b). How can theory-based evaluation make greater headway? Evaluation Review, 21(4), 501–524.
Weiss, C. (2000). Which links in which theories shall we evaluate? New Directions for Evaluation, 87, 35–45.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2013 Springer Science+Business Media New York
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Nkwake, A.M. (2013). Evaluating Assumptions . In: Working with Assumptions in International Development Program Evaluation. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-4797-9_11
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-4797-9_11
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, New York, NY
Print ISBN: 978-1-4614-4796-2
Online ISBN: 978-1-4614-4797-9
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawSocial Sciences (R0)