Vertaile menetelmiä
Tarkastele valitsemiasi menetelmiä rinnakkain; eroavat rivit korostetaan.
| Asiakirjoihin perustuva ohjelma-arviointi× | Ohjelman arviointi× | |
|---|---|---|
| Tieteenala | Kenttämenetelmät | Kenttämenetelmät |
| Menetelmäperhe | Process / pipeline | Process / pipeline |
| Syntyvuosi≠ | 1960s–1970s (program evaluation field); document review as formal strategy codified in 1980s–1990s | 1960s–1970s (Scriven 1967; Stufflebeam CIPP model 1971) |
| Kehittäjä≠ | Daniel Stufflebeam; Peter Rossi and Howard Freeman (systematic program evaluation tradition) | Michael Scriven; Daniel Stufflebeam; Peter Rossi |
| Tyyppi≠ | Evaluation research design | Applied evaluation methodology |
| Alkuperäislähde≠ | Stufflebeam, D. L., & Shinkfield, A. J. (2007). Evaluation Theory, Models, and Applications. Jossey-Bass. ISBN: 978-0787908331 | Rossi, P. H., Lipsey, M. W., & Freeman, H. E. (2004). Evaluation: A Systematic Approach (7th ed.). Sage. ISBN: 978-0761908944 |
| Rinnakkaisnimet | documentary program evaluation, records-based evaluation, document review evaluation, archival program evaluation | evaluation research, program assessment, educational evaluation, systematic program evaluation |
| Liittyvät≠ | 6 | 3 |
| Tiivistelmä≠ | Document-based program evaluation is a systematic approach to assessing a program's design, implementation, and outcomes using existing documentary evidence — such as policy statements, implementation reports, budgets, meeting minutes, and program artifacts — rather than primary data collection through interviews or observation. It is particularly suited to retrospective evaluations, accountability reviews, and contexts where direct fieldwork is impractical or infeasible. | 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. |
| ScholarGateAineisto ↗ |
|
|