Salīdzināt metodes

	Theory of Change Evaluation	Process Evaluation
Nozare	Public Policy	Public Policy
Saime	Process / pipeline	Process / pipeline
Izcelsmes gads	1995	2015
Autors	Carol Weiss; Connell & Kubisch; Funnell & Rogers	Health-promotion & MRC evaluation tradition (Saunders et al.; Moore et al.)
Tips	Theory-based program evaluation framework	Implementation-focused program evaluation
Pirmavots	Weiss, C. H. (1995). Nothing as practical as good theory: Exploring theory-based evaluation for comprehensive community initiatives for children and families. In J. P. Connell, A. C. Kubisch, L. B. Schorr, & C. H. Weiss (Eds.), New Approaches to Evaluating Community Initiatives: Concepts, Methods, and Contexts (pp. 65–92). Washington, DC: The Aspen Institute. ISBN: 9780898431674	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.
Citi nosaukumi	Theory-Based Evaluation, ToC Evaluation, Theory-of-Change Approach, Outcomes Pathway Evaluation	Implementation Evaluation, Implementation Fidelity Evaluation, Program Process Evaluation
Saistītās	3	3
Kopsavilkums	Theory of change evaluation is a theory-based approach that evaluates a program against an explicit map of how and why it is expected to produce its intended outcomes. Rooted in Carol Weiss's work on theory-based evaluation and the Aspen Institute's community-initiatives projects of the 1990s, it requires evaluators to articulate the full causal pathway from activities through short- and intermediate-term outcomes to a long-term goal, make the underlying assumptions explicit, and then collect evidence to test whether each link in that chain holds in practice. The theory of change serves simultaneously as a planning tool and as the framework against which the program's progress and plausibility are judged.	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.