Salīdzināt metodes
Apskatiet izvēlētās metodes blakus; rindas, kas atšķiras, ir izceltas.
| Novērtējumu orientēts kvalitatīvi prioritārs jaukto metožu dizains× | Programmu novērtēšana× | |
|---|---|---|
| Nozare≠ | Pētījuma dizains | Lauka metodes |
| Saime | Process / pipeline | Process / pipeline |
| Izcelsmes gads≠ | 1989–2007 (formalized in evaluation and mixed methods literature) | 1960s–1970s (Scriven 1967; Stufflebeam CIPP model 1971) |
| Autors≠ | Jennifer C. Greene; John W. Creswell & Vicki L. Plano Clark | Michael Scriven; Daniel Stufflebeam; Peter Rossi |
| Tips≠ | Mixed methods research design | Applied evaluation methodology |
| Pirmavots≠ | 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 |
| Citi nosaukumi | qualitative-dominant evaluation mixed methods, QUAL-priority evaluation design, qualitative-led program evaluation, mixed methods evaluation with qualitative strand | evaluation research, program assessment, educational evaluation, systematic program evaluation |
| Saistītās≠ | 1 | 3 |
| Kopsavilkums≠ | An evaluation-oriented qualitative-priority mixed methods design places qualitative data collection and analysis at the center of a program or policy evaluation, while selectively incorporating quantitative data to corroborate, contextualize, or extend qualitative findings. The design is guided by an evaluative purpose — assessing merit, worth, or significance of a program — with the qualitative strand carrying the primary interpretive weight and quantitative evidence serving a supplementary role. | 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. |
| ScholarGateDatu kopa ↗ |
|
|