विधियों की तुलना करें
चुनी हुई विधियों की आमने-सामने समीक्षा करें; भिन्नता वाली पंक्तियाँ रेखांकित हैं।
| Formative Evaluation× | Process Evaluation× | |
|---|---|---|
| क्षेत्र | Public Policy | Public Policy |
| परिवार | Process / pipeline | Process / pipeline |
| उद्भव वर्ष≠ | 1967 | 2015 |
| प्रवर्तक≠ | Michael Scriven | Health-promotion & MRC evaluation tradition (Saunders et al.; Moore et al.) |
| प्रकार≠ | Improvement-oriented evaluation function | Implementation-focused program evaluation |
| मौलिक स्रोत≠ | Scriven, M. (1967). The methodology of evaluation. In R. W. Tyler, R. M. Gagné, & M. Scriven (Eds.), Perspectives of Curriculum Evaluation (pp. 39–83). Chicago: Rand McNally. ISBN: 9780528616600 | Moore, G. F., Audrey, S., Barker, M., Bond, L., Bonell, C., Hardeman, W., et al. (2015). Process evaluation of complex interventions: Medical Research Council guidance. BMJ, 350, h1258. DOI ↗ |
| उपनाम≠ | Improvement-Oriented Evaluation, Developmental Improvement Evaluation | Implementation Evaluation, Implementation Fidelity Evaluation, Program Process Evaluation |
| संबंधित≠ | 4 | 3 |
| सारांश≠ | Formative evaluation is evaluation conducted to improve a program, policy or product while it is still being developed or refined. The term was coined by Michael Scriven in his 1967 essay 'The Methodology of Evaluation', alongside its counterpart summative evaluation. Where summative evaluation renders a final verdict on a completed intervention, formative evaluation feeds timely information back to designers and implementers so they can fix problems, adjust components and strengthen the intervention before it is finalised or scaled. | Process evaluation examines how a program or policy was actually implemented, rather than only whether it achieved its outcomes. It documents what was delivered, to whom, how much, how well and in what context, so that outcome findings can be interpreted correctly. By assessing implementation fidelity, dose, reach, and the mechanisms and contextual factors at work, process evaluation explains why an intervention succeeded or failed and distinguishes a flawed program theory from a sound theory that was poorly delivered. The UK Medical Research Council's 2015 guidance and earlier health-promotion frameworks consolidated it as a core component of evaluating complex interventions. |
| ScholarGateडेटासेट ↗ |
|
|