Comparer des méthodes
Examinez les méthodes sélectionnées côte à côte ; les lignes qui diffèrent sont mises en évidence.
| Évaluation Mixte Concurrentielle Embarquée Axée sur l'Évaluation× | Évaluation de programme× | |
|---|---|---|
| Domaine≠ | Conception de la recherche | Méthodes de terrain |
| Famille | Process / pipeline | Process / pipeline |
| Année d'origine≠ | 1989–2007 (Greene et al. 1989 for mixed evaluation; Creswell & Plano Clark 2007 for embedded design typology) | 1960s–1970s (Scriven 1967; Stufflebeam CIPP model 1971) |
| Auteur d'origine≠ | Jennifer C. Greene; John W. Creswell & Vicki L. Plano Clark | Michael Scriven; Daniel Stufflebeam; Peter Rossi |
| Type≠ | Mixed methods research design | Applied evaluation methodology |
| Source fondatrice≠ | Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2018). Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research (3rd ed.). Sage. ISBN: 978-1483344379 | Rossi, P. H., Lipsey, M. W., & Freeman, H. E. (2004). Evaluation: A Systematic Approach (7th ed.). Sage. ISBN: 978-0761908944 |
| Alias | concurrent embedded evaluation design, embedded mixed methods evaluation, nested concurrent evaluation design, mixed methods program evaluation | evaluation research, program assessment, educational evaluation, systematic program evaluation |
| Apparentées≠ | 2 | 3 |
| Résumé≠ | Evaluation-focused concurrent embedded mixed methods is a research design in which both quantitative and qualitative data are collected simultaneously within a program evaluation context, with one strand nested inside and playing a supporting role to the dominant strand. The design produces outcome evidence alongside embedded process or contextual evidence from the same evaluation cycle, without extending the timeline. | 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. |
| ScholarGateJeu de données ↗ |
|
|