Skip directly to search Skip directly to A to Z list Skip directly to navigation Skip directly to site content Skip directly to page options

Conclusion

Program evaluation can take a variety of forms and serve a variety of purposes, ranging from helping to shape a program to learning lessons from its implemen­tation or outcomes. Engaging stakeholders throughout the evaluation process improves the evaluation and positions these stakeholders to implement necessary changes as identified through the evaluation. Both participatory and empower­ment evaluation are built on this insight and prescribe specific approaches to stakeholder involvement that are consistent with the principles of community engagement. Evaluating community-engaged partnerships in and of themselves is an emerging area. In addition, SNA and formal models of engagement may provide useful frameworks for evaluating engagement.

References

Anderson RM, Funnell MM, Aikens JE, Krein SL, Fitzgerald JT, Nwankwo R, et al. Evaluating the efficacy of an empowerment-based self-management consultant intervention: results of a two-year randomized controlled trial. Therapeutic Patient Education 2009;1(1):3-11.

Burke B. Evaluating for a change: reflections on participatory methodology. New Directions for Evaluation 1998;(80):43-56.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Framework for program evaluation in public health. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 1999;48(RR11):1-40.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Prevention Research Centers: Evaluation results: Program context. Atlanta (GA): Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; 2009. Retrieved from http://www.cdc.gov/prc/pdf/esfall2009-full.pdf.

Ericsson KA, Simon HA. Protocol analysis. Cambridge (MA): Massachusetts Institute of Technology; 1993.

Fetterman DM. Steps of empowerment evaluation: from California to Cape Town. Evaluation and Program Planning 1994;17(3):305-313.

Fetterman DM, Kaftarian SJ, Wandersman A. Empowerment evaluation: knowledge and tools for self-assessment and accountability. Thousand Oaks (CA): Sage; 1996.

Fetterman DM. Empowerment evaluation: An introduction to process use. 2008. Retrieved from http://www.rri.pdx.edu/fetterman_empowerment_10-2008.pdf.

Freeman J, Audia P. Community ecology and the sociology of organizations. Sociology 2006;32:145-169.

Garbarino S, Holland J. Quantitative and qualitative methods in impact evaluation and measuring results. Social Development Direct; 2009. Retrieved from http://www.gsdrc.org/docs/open/EIRS4.pdf.

Green LW, George MA, Daniel M, Frankish CJ, Herbert CP, Bowie WR, et al. Study of participatory research in health promotion: review and recommendations for the development of participatory research in health promotion in Canada. Ottawa, Canada: The Royal Society of Canada; 1995.

Holland J, Campbell J (editors). Methods in development research: combining qualita­tive and quantitative approaches. London, United Kingdom: ITDG Publications; 2005.

Israel BA, Shulz AJ, Parker EA, Becker AB. Review of community-based research: Assessing partnership approaches to improve public health. Annual Review of Public Health 1998;19:173-202.

Joint Committee on Standards for Educational Evaluation, Sanders J (editors). The program evaluation standards: how to assess evaluations of educational programs (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks (CA): Sage; 1994.

Krueger R, Casey M. Focus groups: a practical guide for applied research (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks (CA): Sage; 2000.

MacDonald G, Starr G, Schooley M, Yee SL, Klimowski K, Turner K. Introduction to program evaluation for comprehensive tobacco control programs. Atlanta (GA): Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; 2001.

Morgan D. Focus groups and qualitative research. Newbury Park (CA): Sage; 1997.

Mullan PB. Working to reduce maternal mortality in Sub-Saharan Africa: inter­national fellowship program for Ghanaian physicians. Medical Education at Michigan 2009;5(2):16. Retrieved from http://www.med.umich.edu/meded/pdf/Newsletters/12-2009.pdf.

Parker E, Robins TG, Israel BA, Brakefield-Caldwell W, Edgren K, Wilkins D. Developing and implementing guidelines for dissemination. In: Israel BA, Eng E, Schulz AJ, Parker EA (editors). Methods in community-based participatory research for health. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass; 2005.

Patton MQ. Qualitative evaluation and research methods. Newbury Park (CA): Sage; 2002.

Patton MQ. Utilization focused evaluation (4th ed.). Saint Paul (MN): Sage; 2008.

Rossi P, Lipsey M, Freeman H. Evaluation: a systemic approach (7th ed.). Thousand Oaks (CA): Sage; 2004.

Steckler A, McLeroy KR, Goodman RM, Bird ST, McCormick L. Toward integrating qualitative and quantitative methods: an introduction. Health Education Quarterly 1992;19(1):1-8.

Wandersman A, Snell-Johns J, Lentz B, Fetterman D, Keener D, Livet M, et al. The principles of empowerment evaluation. Empowerment Evaluation Principles in Practice 2005;27-41.

Wasserman S, Faust K. Social network analysis: methods and applications. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University; 1994.

Top of Page

 
Contact Us:
  • Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
    4770 Buford Hwy NE
    Atlanta, GA 30341
  • 800-CDC-INFO
    (800-232-4636)
    TTY: (888) 232-6348
    Contact CDC-INFO
  • New Hours of Operation
    8am-8pm ET/Monday-Friday
    Closed Holidays
USA.gov: The U.S. Government's Official Web PortalDepartment of Health and Human Services
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, 4770 Buford Hwy NE, Atlanta, GA 30341
Contact CDC: 800-232-4636 / TTY: 888-232-6348

A-Z Index

  1. A
  2. B
  3. C
  4. D
  5. E
  6. F
  7. G
  8. H
  9. I
  10. J
  11. K
  12. L
  13. M
  14. N
  15. O
  16. P
  17. Q
  18. R
  19. S
  20. T
  21. U
  22. V
  23. W
  24. X
  25. Y
  26. Z
  27. #