Suchergebnisse

AbstractIn a 2014 AEA session, Stewart I. Donaldson shared his surprise that in his approach to evaluation of his own evaluands, he tends to be emotionally intuitive in addition to following the rational approaches he advocates to students and colleagues. He explores this discovery through reflection on experiences bridging multiple cultures in informal and formal settings. See the interview document here: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/wol1/doi/10.1002/ev.20284/suppinfo. Read only. This should not be used in any form without explicit permission from the author.

AbstractThe evaluator in this chapter provides a realistic account of the actions he would take to provide external evaluation services using the program theory–
driven evaluation science approach.

AbstractThis chapter describes a concrete process that stakeholders can use to make predictions about the future performance of programs in local contexts. Within the field of evaluation, the discussion of validity as it relates to outcome evaluation seems to be focused largely on questions of internal validity (Did it work?) with less emphasis on external validity (Will it work?). However, recent debates about the credibility of evaluation evidence have called attention to how evaluations can inform predictions about future performance. Using this as a starting point, we expand upon the traditional framework regarding external validity that is closely associated with Donald Campbell. The result is a process for making predictions and taking action that is collaborative, systematic, feasible, and transparent. © Wiley Periodicals, Inc., and the American Evaluation Association.

While there is little disagreement about the need for, and value of, program evaluation, there remain major disagreements in the field about best practices. An exchange about the role of randomized control trials in program evaluation practice in educational settings set the stage for the 2004 Claremont Debate. In an effort to seek a deeper understanding of the current dispute, and to possibly discover a middleground or productive resolution, Claremont Graduate University hosted a debate between representatives from both sides.

One of the goals of the journal Evaluation was to advance theoretical and methodological understandings of evaluation. Twenty years later theory as understood in the field of evaluation is fragmented, a problem widely recognized in the evaluation community. The goal of this article is to make a modest contribution to clarifying this situation. We first present two typologies of evaluation theory and invite readers to join us in a discussion of the pros and cons of these typologies. We then present an impressionistic picture, mainly qualitative, of how 'theory' has featured in past issues of this journal. Many articles with a theoretical orientation have been published in Evaluation providing a rich though somewhat diffuse picture in which many of the types identified in our typologies are represented. Finally several suggestions are put forward to further strengthen the development of theoretical work in the evaluation profession. These are 'theory knitting', 'theory layering' and 'theory-driven evaluation science'.

AbstractThis chapter begins with an analysis of the prior status of the preparation of evaluators and what is going on currently in that regard. The varied, noticeably diverse, and growing options for individuals to enter the field are explained with some recent studies highlighted. The discussion goes beyond traditional university‐based programs to include those delivered by evaluation associations, distance education, and other mechanisms. One of the conclusions is a recommendation to more fully delve into what is now taking place and to dig more deeply into how evaluators enter the profession. © Wiley Periodicals, Inc., and the American Evaluation Association.

The second wave of devastating consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic has been linked to dramatic declines in well-being. While much of the well-being literature is based on descriptive and correlational studies, this paper evaluates a growing body of causal evidence from high-quality randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that test the efficacy of positive psychology interventions (PPIs). This systematic review analyzed the findings from 25 meta-analyses, 42 review papers, and the high-quality RCTs of PPIs designed to generate well-being that were included within those studies. Findings reveal PPIs have the potential to generate well-being even during a global pandemic, with larger effect sizes in non-Western countries. Four exemplar PPIs—that have been tested with a high-quality RCT, have positive effects on well-being, and could be implemented during a global pandemic—are presented and discussed. Future efforts to generate well-being can build on this causal evidence and emulate the most efficacious PPIs to be as effective as possible at generating well-being. However, the four exemplars were only tested in WEIRD (Western, Educated, Industrial, Rich, and Democratic) countries but seem promising for implementation and evaluation in non-WEIRD contexts. This review highlights the overall need for more rigorous research on PPIs with more diverse populations and in non-WEIRD contexts to ensure equitable access to effective interventions that generate well-being for all.