ScholarGate
Асистент

Порівняння методів

Переглядайте обрані методи поруч; рядки з відмінностями підсвічено.

Realist Evaluation×Process Evaluation×
ГалузьPublic PolicyPublic Policy
РодинаProcess / pipelineProcess / pipeline
Рік появи19972015
Автор методуRay Pawson & Nick TilleyHealth-promotion & MRC evaluation tradition (Saunders et al.; Moore et al.)
ТипTheory-driven, generative evaluation approachImplementation-focused program evaluation
Основоположне джерелоPawson, 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 ↗
Інші назвиRealistic Evaluation, Theory-Driven Realist Evaluation, CMO Configuration Analysis, Pawson-Tilley EvaluationImplementation Evaluation, Implementation Fidelity Evaluation, Program Process Evaluation
Пов'язані43
ПідсумокRealist 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.
ScholarGateНабір даних
  1. v1
  2. 2 Джерела
  3. PUBLISHED
  1. v1
  2. 2 Джерела
  3. PUBLISHED

Перейти до пошуку Завантажити слайди

ScholarGateПорівняння методів: Realist Evaluation · Process Evaluation. Отримано 2026-06-24 з https://scholargate.app/uk/compare