ScholarGate
Asystent

Porównaj metody

Przeglądaj wybrane metody obok siebie; wiersze, które się różnią, są wyróżnione.

Process Evaluation×Realist Evaluation×
DziedzinaPublic PolicyPublic Policy
RodzinaProcess / pipelineProcess / pipeline
Rok powstania20151997
TwórcaHealth-promotion & MRC evaluation tradition (Saunders et al.; Moore et al.)Ray Pawson & Nick Tilley
TypImplementation-focused program evaluationTheory-driven, generative evaluation approach
Źródło pierwotneMoore, 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 ↗Pawson, R., & Tilley, N. (1997). Realistic Evaluation. London: SAGE Publications. ISBN: 9780761950097
Inne nazwyImplementation Evaluation, Implementation Fidelity Evaluation, Program Process EvaluationRealistic Evaluation, Theory-Driven Realist Evaluation, CMO Configuration Analysis, Pawson-Tilley Evaluation
Pokrewne34
PodsumowanieProcess 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.Realist 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.
ScholarGateZbiór danych
  1. v1
  2. 2 Źródła
  3. PUBLISHED
  1. v1
  2. 2 Źródła
  3. PUBLISHED

Przejdź do wyszukiwania Pobierz slajdy

ScholarGatePorównaj metody: Process Evaluation · Realist Evaluation. Pobrano 2026-06-24 z https://scholargate.app/pl/compare