Skip to main content

Abstract

A renowned evaluator, Daniel L. Stufflebeam, once noted that “the purpose of evaluation is to improve, not prove” (Stufflebeam 1993). We begin the second half of the book with evaluation, a methodical determination of a health program or policy’s worth and significance using criteria governed by a set of standards to ensure its validity and reliability. As mentioned before in Chaps. 2 and 3, the validity and reliability of a program or policy is of utmost importance in both translational research and effectiveness in healthcare. This chapter introduces important philosophical models in evaluation, namely, William Farish, Joseph Rice, and Fredrick Taylor, all of which have made their contribution to the evolution of modern evaluation.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 139.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 159.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Common Qualitative Data Analysis software include MAXQDA, QDA MINER, ATLAS.ti, NVivo, Dedoose for mixed methods, and others.

Recommended Reading

  • Bloom BS, Hasting T, Madaus G. Handbook of formative and summative evaluation of student learning. New York: McGraw-Hill; 1971.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bogdan R, Taylor S. Looking at the bright side: A positive approach to qualitative policy and evaluation research. Qual Sociol. 1997;13:193–2.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chiappelli F. Fundamentals of evidence-based health care and translational science. Heidelberg: Springer; 2014.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Cochrane A. Effectiveness and efficiency. Random reflections on health service. London: Nuffield Provincial Hospital Trust; 1972.

    Google Scholar 

  • Donner A. A bayesian approach to the interpretation of sub-group results in clinical trials. J Chronic Dis. 1992;34:429–35.

    Google Scholar 

  • Donner A, Birkett N, Buck C. Randomisation by cluster: sample size requirements and analysis. Am J Epidemiol. 1991;114:906–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dowie J. “Evidence-based,” “cost-effective” and “preference-driven” medicine: decision analysis based medical decision making is the pre-requisite. J Health Serv Res Policy. 1996;1:104–13.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Gaventa J, Tandon R. Globalizing citizens: new dynamics of inclusion and exclusion. London: Zed; 2010.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gray JAM, Haynes RB, Sackett DL, Cook DJ, Guyatt GH. Transferring evidence from health care research into medical practice. 3. Developing evidence-based clinical policy. Evid Based Med. 1997;2:36–9.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gubrium JF, Holstein JA. The new language of qualitative method. New York: Oxford University Press; 2000.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ham C, Hunter DJ, Robinson R. Evidence-based policymaking—research must inform health policy as well as medical care. BMJ. 1995;310:71–2.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Liddle J, Williamson M, Irwig L. Method for evaluating research and guidelines evidence. Sydney: NSW Health Department; 1999.

    Google Scholar 

  • Madaus GF, Stufflebeam DL, Kellaghan T. Evaluation models: viewpoints on educational and human services evaluation. 2nd ed. Hingham: Kluwer Academic; 2000.

    Google Scholar 

  • McIntyre A. Participatory action research. Thousand Oaks: Sage; 2009.

    Google Scholar 

  • Muir Gray JA. Evidence-based health care: how to make health policy and management decisions. London: Churchill Livingstone; 1997.

    Google Scholar 

  • Patton MQ. Utilization-focused evaluation. 3 London Sage, 1996.

    Google Scholar 

  • Racino J. Policy, program evaluation and research in disability: community support for all. London: Haworth Press; 1999.

    Google Scholar 

  • Royse D, Thyer BA, Padgett DK, Logan TK. Program evaluation: an introduction. 4th ed. Belmont: Brooks-Cole; 2006.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scriven M. The methodology of evaluation. In: Stake RE, editor. Curriculum evaluation. Chicago: Rand McNally; 1967.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stufflebeam DL. The CIPP model for program evaluation. In: Madaus GF, Scriven M, Stufflebeam DL, editors. Evaluation models: viewpoints on educational and human services evaluation. Boston: Kluwer Nijhof; 1993.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Khakshooy, A.M., Chiappelli, F. (2018). Evaluation. In: Practical Biostatistics in Translational Healthcare. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-57437-9_9

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-57437-9_9

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-662-57435-5

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-662-57437-9

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics