ScholarGate
助手

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。

Process Evaluation×Contribution Analysis×
领域Public PolicyPublic Policy
方法族Process / pipelineProcess / pipeline
起源年份20152001
提出者Health-promotion & MRC evaluation tradition (Saunders et al.; Moore et al.)John Mayne
类型Implementation-focused program evaluationTheory-based approach to causal inference about contribution
开创性文献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. DOI ↗Mayne, J. (2012). Contribution analysis: Coming of age? Evaluation, 18(3), 270–280. DOI ↗
别名Implementation Evaluation, Implementation Fidelity Evaluation, Program Process EvaluationMayne's Contribution Analysis, Contribution Story Analysis, Theory-Based Contribution Analysis
相关33
摘要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.Contribution analysis is a theory-based evaluation approach that addresses the attribution problem — establishing whether and how an intervention made a difference — without relying on an experimental counterfactual. Developed by John Mayne from 2001 onward, it works by articulating the program's theory of change, gathering evidence along that chain, and then assembling a 'contribution story' that is progressively stress-tested against rival explanations. The aim is not statistical attribution but a credible, evidence-based conclusion that the program plausibly contributed to observed results, in the face of other influencing factors.
ScholarGate数据集
  1. v1
  2. 2 来源
  3. PUBLISHED
  1. v1
  2. 2 来源
  3. PUBLISHED

前往搜索 下载幻灯片

ScholarGate方法对比: Process Evaluation · Contribution Analysis. 于 2026-06-24 检索自 https://scholargate.app/zh/compare