ScholarGate
어시스턴트

방법 비교

선택한 방법을 나란히 검토하세요. 서로 다른 행은 강조 표시됩니다.

Realist Evaluation×Process Evaluation×
분야Public PolicyPublic Policy
계열Process / pipelineProcess / pipeline
기원 연도19972015
창시자Ray Pawson & Nick TilleyHealth-promotion & MRC evaluation tradition (Saunders et al.; Moore et al.)
유형Theory-driven, generative evaluation approachImplementation-focused program evaluation
원전Pawson, R., & Tilley, N. (1997). Realistic Evaluation. London: SAGE Publications. ISBN: 9780761950097Moore, 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 ↗
별칭Realistic Evaluation, Theory-Driven Realist Evaluation, CMO Configuration Analysis, Pawson-Tilley EvaluationImplementation Evaluation, Implementation Fidelity Evaluation, Program Process Evaluation
관련43
요약Realist evaluation is a theory-driven approach to evaluating programs and policies that asks not simply 'does it work?' but 'what works, for whom, in what circumstances, and why?'. Developed by Ray Pawson and Nick Tilley in their 1997 book Realistic Evaluation, it treats interventions as theories incarnate: programs offer resources or opportunities that trigger underlying mechanisms of reasoning and response in participants, and those mechanisms only fire in particular contexts. The unit of analysis is the Context-Mechanism-Outcome (CMO) configuration, and the goal is to build and refine middle-range theory that explains differential outcomes across settings.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.
ScholarGate데이터셋
  1. v1
  2. 2 출처
  3. PUBLISHED
  1. v1
  2. 2 출처
  3. PUBLISHED

검색으로 이동 슬라이드 다운로드

ScholarGate방법 비교: Realist Evaluation · Process Evaluation. 2026-06-24에 다음에서 검색함: https://scholargate.app/ko/compare