Сравнение на методи
Прегледайте избраните методи един до друг; редовете с разлики са откроени.
| Ориентирани към оценяване прагматични смесени методи× | Оценка на програми× | |
|---|---|---|
| Област≠ | Дизайн на изследването | Полеви методи |
| Семейство | Process / pipeline | Process / pipeline |
| Година на възникване≠ | 1990s–2000s | 1960s–1970s (Scriven 1967; Stufflebeam CIPP model 1971) |
| Създател≠ | Jennifer C. Greene; Abbas Tashakkori & Charles Teddlie | Michael Scriven; Daniel Stufflebeam; Peter Rossi |
| Тип≠ | Mixed methods research design | Applied evaluation methodology |
| Основополагащ източник≠ | Greene, J. C. (2007). Mixed Methods in Social Inquiry. Jossey-Bass. ISBN: 978-0787984090 | Rossi, P. H., Lipsey, M. W., & Freeman, H. E. (2004). Evaluation: A Systematic Approach (7th ed.). Sage. ISBN: 978-0761908944 |
| Други названия | pragmatic evaluation mixed methods, program evaluation mixed methods, applied pragmatic mixed methods, mixed methods program evaluation | evaluation research, program assessment, educational evaluation, systematic program evaluation |
| Свързани≠ | 2 | 3 |
| Резюме≠ | Evaluation-oriented pragmatic mixed methods is a research design that combines quantitative and qualitative data collection within a pragmatist philosophical stance, expressly to evaluate programs, policies, or interventions. Rather than adhering rigidly to a single paradigm, it selects methods for their fitness to answer evaluation questions about program effectiveness, outcomes, and stakeholder experiences. The design is widely applied in education, public health, social services, and development evaluation contexts. | Program evaluation is a systematic, empirically grounded process of collecting and analyzing information about a program to determine its merit, worth, or significance. Applied across education, public health, social services, and policy, it addresses questions such as whether a program is reaching its target population, whether it is being implemented as designed, and whether it is producing the intended outcomes. It draws on both quantitative and qualitative methods and serves accountability, improvement, or knowledge-generation purposes. |
| ScholarGateНабор от данни ↗ |
|
|