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。

Realist Evaluation×Process Evaluation×
领域Public PolicyPublic Policy
方法族Process / pipelineProcess / pipeline
起源年份19972015
提出者Ray Pawson & Nick TilleyHealth-promotion & MRC evaluation tradition (Saunders et al.; Moore et al.)
类型Theory-driven, generative evaluation approachImplementation-focused program evaluation
开创性文献Pawson, 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 ↗
别名Realistic Evaluation, Theory-Driven Realist Evaluation, CMO Configuration Analysis, Pawson-Tilley EvaluationImplementation Evaluation, Implementation Fidelity Evaluation, Program Process Evaluation
相关43
摘要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.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.
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: Realist Evaluation · Process Evaluation. 于 2026-06-24 检索自 https://scholargate.app/zh/compare