Vertaile menetelmiä
Tarkastele valitsemiasi menetelmiä rinnakkain; eroavat rivit korostetaan.
| Longitudinal Program Evaluation× | Ohjelman arviointi× | |
|---|---|---|
| Tieteenala | Kenttämenetelmät | Kenttämenetelmät |
| Menetelmäperhe | Process / pipeline | Process / pipeline |
| Syntyvuosi≠ | 1960s–1970s (program evaluation); longitudinal designs formalized 1970s–1980s | 1960s–1970s (Scriven 1967; Stufflebeam CIPP model 1971) |
| Kehittäjä≠ | Peter Rossi, Michael Scriven, Donald Campbell (program evaluation tradition) | Michael Scriven; Daniel Stufflebeam; Peter Rossi |
| Tyyppi≠ | Applied evaluation research design | Applied evaluation methodology |
| Alkuperäislähde≠ | Rossi, P. H., Lipsey, M. W., & Freeman, H. E. (2004). Evaluation: A Systematic Approach (7th ed.). Sage Publications. ISBN: 978-0761908944 | Rossi, P. H., Lipsey, M. W., & Freeman, H. E. (2004). Evaluation: A Systematic Approach (7th ed.). Sage. ISBN: 978-0761908944 |
| Rinnakkaisnimet | LPE, longitudinal evaluation, long-term program evaluation, prospective program evaluation | evaluation research, program assessment, educational evaluation, systematic program evaluation |
| Liittyvät | 3 | 3 |
| Tiivistelmä≠ | Longitudinal program evaluation is an applied research design that tracks the outcomes and processes of a program or intervention across multiple time points — from pre-implementation baseline through medium- and long-term follow-up. Unlike single-point evaluations, it captures how program effects emerge, fade, or evolve over time, enabling evaluators and funders to judge sustained impact, cost-effectiveness, and unintended consequences that would be invisible in a snapshot assessment. | 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 ↗ |
|
|