Abstract
Examining the assumptions that hold a program theory together is a vital part of evaluating program outcomes. Examining implicit or explicit program assumptions facilitates understanding of program results, both intended and unintended. This chapter outlines evaluation approaches to testing program assumptions. The best time to start integrating assumptions in an evaluation is at the conceptualizing stage, when evaluation questions are being formulated. Ideally, framing the questions well will lead to methods, tools, and data that produce highly useful answers and solutions. Examining assumptions is without doubt a necessary element in the process.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Bourdon, J. (2001) Size and path length of Patricia tries: Dynamical sources context. Random Structures and Algorithms, 19(3–4), 289–315.
Brown, P. (1995). The role of the evaluator in comprehensive community initiatives. In J. I. Connell, A. C. Kubisch, L. B. Schorr, & C. H. Weiss (Eds.), New approaches to evaluating community initiatives: Concepts, methods, and contexts (pp. 201–225). Washington, DC: Aspen Institute.
Chen, H. T. (2005). Practical program evaluation: Assessing and improving planning, implementation, and effectiveness. London, UK: Sage Publications.
Chen, H. T. (2006). A theory-driven evaluation perspective on mixed methods research. Research in the Schools (Mid-South Educational Research Association), 13(1), 75–83.
Chen, H. T., & Rossi, P. H. (1980). The multi-goal, theory-driven approach to evaluation: A model linking basic and applied social science. Social Forces, 59(1), 106–122.
Connell, J. P., & Kubisch, A. C. (1998). Applying a theory of change approach to the evaluation of comprehensive community initiatives: progress, prospects, and problems. In K. Fulbright-Anderson, A. C. Kubrisch, & J. P. Connell (Eds.), New approaches to evaluating community initiatives, Vol. 2. Theory, measurement and analysis. Washington, DC: Aspen Institute.
Davies, F. D. (1989) Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319.
Davies, R. (2010, October 20). Counter-factual and counter-theories. [Blog post]. Retrieved from http://mandenews.blogspot.com/2010/10/counter-factuals-and-counter-theories.html
Donaldson, S. I., & Gooler, L. E. (2002). Theory-driven evaluation of the work and health initiative: A focus on winning new jobs. American Journal of Evaluation, 23(3), 341–347.
Donaldson, S. I., & Scriven, M. (Eds.) (2003). Evaluating social programs and problems: Visions for the new millennium. In The Claremont symposium on applied social psychology (pp. 109–141). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Feinstein, O. (2006). Assumptions Based Comprehensive Development Evaluation Framework (ABCDEF). Note presented at the pre-European Evaluation Society Conference, Training and Professional Development workshop on the ABCDEF. London, October 2, 2006
Funnel, S. C. (2000). Developing and using a program theory matrix for program evaluation and performance monitoring. New Directions for Evaluation, 87(Fall), 91–101.
Green, B. L., & McAllister, C. (1998, February/March). Theory-based, participatory evaluation: A powerful tool for evaluating family support programs. The Bulletin of the National Center for Zero to Three, 18, 30–36.
Hoyle, R. H. (ed.) (1995). Structural Equation Modeling. SAGE Publications, Inc. Thousand Oaks, CA.
Janssens, F. J. G., & De Wolf, I. F. (2010). Analyzing the assumptions of a policy program: An ex-ante evaluation of “educational governance” in the Netherlands. American Journal of Evaluation, 30(3), 330–348.
Johnson, R. A., & Wichern, D. W. (1982). Applied Multivariate Statistical Analysis (pp. 326–333). Prentice Hall, Inc. Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Kelloway, E. K. (1998). Using LISREL for structural equation modeling. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Leviton, L. C. (1994). Program theory and evaluation theory in community-based programs. American Journal of Evaluation, 15(1), 89–92.
Marquart, J. M. (1990). A pattern-matching approach to link program theory and evaluation data. New Directions for Program Evaluation, 47, 93–107.
Maruyama, G. M. (1998). Basics of structural equation modeling. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Mayne, J. (2011). Contribution analysis: Addressing cause effect. In K. Forss, M. Marra, & R. Schwartz (Eds.), Evaluating the complex: attribution, contribution, and beyond (pp. 53–96). New Brunswick, NJ: Transactional Publishers.
McLaughlin, J. A., & Jordan, G. B. (1999). Logic models: A tool for telling your performance story. Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier Science, 22(1), 65–72.
McLinden, D. J., & Trochim, W. M. K. (1998). Getting to parallel: Assessing the return on expectations of training. Performance Improvement, 37, 21–26.
Mitchell, R. J. (1993). Path analysis: Pollination. In S. M. Scheiner & J. Gurevitch (Eds.), Design and analysis of ecological experiments (pp. 211–231). New York, NY: Chapman and Hall, Inc..
Morell, J. A. (2005). Why are there unintended consequences of program action, and what are the implications for doing evaluation? American Journal of Evaluation, 26(4), 444–463.
Oxford University (2010) Oxford Dictionary of English, Oxford University Press, 2010. Ed. Judy Pearsall.
Pawson, R., & Tilley, N. (2001). Realistic evaluation bloodlines. American Journal of Evaluation, 22, 317–324.
Schalock, R. L., & Bonham, G. S. (2003). Measuring outcomes and managing for results. Evaluation and Program Planning, 26, 229–235.
Schumacker, R. E., & Lomax, R. G. (1996). A Beginner’s guide to structural equation modeling. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Scriven, M. (2008). A summative evaluation of RCT methodology: & an alternative approach to causal research. Journal of Multi Disciplinary Evaluation, 5(9), 15–24.
Shaw, I., & Crompton, I. A. (2003). Theory, like mist on spectacles, obscures vision. Evaluation, 9(2), 192–204.
Stame, N. (2010). What doesn’t work? Three failures, many answers. Evaluation, 16(4), 371–387.
Tilley, N. (2004). Applying theory-driven evaluation to the British Crime Reduction Program. The theories of the program and of its evaluations. Criminology and Criminal Justice, 4(3), 255–276.
Trochim, W. (1989). Outcome pattern matching and program theory. Evaluation and Program Planning, 12(4), 355–366.
Trochim, W., & Cook, J. (1992). Pattern matching in theory-driven evaluation: A field example from psychiatric rehabilitation. In H. Chen & P. H. Rossi (Eds.), Using theory to improve program and policy evaluations (pp. 49–69). New York, NY: Greenwood Press.
Ullman, J. B. (1996). Structural equation modeling. In B. G. Tabachnick & L. S. Fidell (Eds.), Using Multivariate Statistics, 3rd Edition (pp. 709–819). New York, NY: Harper Collins College Publishers.
Weiss, C. H. (1993). Where politics and evaluation research meet. American Journal of Evaluation, 14(1), 93–106.
Weiss, C. H. (1997a). Theory-based evaluation: Past, present, and future. New Directions for Evaluation, 76(Winter), 41–55.
Weiss, C. H. (1997b). How can theory-based evaluation make greater headway? Evaluation Review, 21(4), 501–524.
Weiss, C. H. (2000). Which links in which theories shall we evaluate? New Directions for Evaluation, 87(Fall), 35–45.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Nkwake, A.M. (2020). Evaluating Assumptions. In: Working with Assumptions in International Development Program Evaluation. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-33004-0_11
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-33004-0_11
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-33003-3
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-33004-0
eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)