方法对比
并排查看您选择的方法;存在差异的行会高亮显示。
| 面向评估的实用混合方法× | 项目评估× | |
|---|---|---|
| 领域≠ | 研究设计 | 田野方法 |
| 方法族 | Process / pipeline | Process / pipeline |
| 起源年份≠ | 1990s–2000s | 1960s–1970s (Scriven 1967; Stufflebeam CIPP model 1971) |
| 提出者≠ | Jennifer C. Greene; Abbas Tashakkori & Charles Teddlie | Michael Scriven; Daniel Stufflebeam; Peter Rossi |
| 类型≠ | Mixed methods research design | Applied evaluation methodology |
| 开创性文献≠ | Greene, J. C. (2007). Mixed Methods in Social Inquiry. Jossey-Bass. ISBN: 978-0787984090 | Rossi, P. H., Lipsey, M. W., & Freeman, H. E. (2004). Evaluation: A Systematic Approach (7th ed.). Sage. ISBN: 978-0761908944 |
| 别名 | pragmatic evaluation mixed methods, program evaluation mixed methods, applied pragmatic mixed methods, mixed methods program evaluation | evaluation research, program assessment, educational evaluation, systematic program evaluation |
| 相关≠ | 2 | 3 |
| 摘要≠ | Evaluation-oriented pragmatic mixed methods is a research design that combines quantitative and qualitative data collection within a pragmatist philosophical stance, expressly to evaluate programs, policies, or interventions. Rather than adhering rigidly to a single paradigm, it selects methods for their fitness to answer evaluation questions about program effectiveness, outcomes, and stakeholder experiences. The design is widely applied in education, public health, social services, and development evaluation contexts. | 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. |
| ScholarGate数据集 ↗ |
|
|