So sánh phương pháp

	Results-Based Accountability	Process Evaluation
Lĩnh vực	Public Policy	Public Policy
Họ	Process / pipeline	Process / pipeline
Năm ra đời	2005	2015
Người khởi xướng	Mark Friedman	Health-promotion & MRC evaluation tradition (Saunders et al.; Moore et al.)
Loại	Performance accountability and measurement framework	Implementation-focused program evaluation
Công trình gốc	Friedman, M. (2005). Trying Hard Is Not Good Enough: How to Produce Measurable Improvements for Customers and Communities. Victoria, BC: Trafford Publishing. ISBN: 9781439237861	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.
Tên gọi khác	RBA, Outcomes-Based Accountability, OBA, Friedman Results-Based Accountability	Implementation Evaluation, Implementation Fidelity Evaluation, Program Process Evaluation
Liên quan	4	3
Tóm tắt	Results-Based Accountability (RBA), also known as Outcomes-Based Accountability, is a disciplined performance framework developed by Mark Friedman and set out in his 2005 book Trying Hard Is Not Good Enough. It provides a simple, common-sense method for moving from talk about results to measurable action, organised around a sharp distinction between population accountability — the wellbeing of whole populations in a place — and performance accountability — how well a specific program, agency or service is doing. For each, RBA asks the same disciplined set of questions and drives toward concrete actions that 'turn the curve' on key indicators.	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.