This article describes a methodology for conducting process evaluations. The Deliberation-Derived Process (DDP) evaluation develops questions based on deliberations occurring during the planning, design and early implementation phases of a program. The steps involved in completing a DDP evaluation are described and illustrated using a few case examples. It is argued DDP evaluation is especially useful in providing targeted and timely information to assist design staff in making improvements to the quality of a program. The advantages and drawbacks of DDP evaluation are also discussed.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BaranowskiT., & StablesG.2000, ‘Process evaluations of the 5-a-day projects’, Health Education & Behavior, vol. 27, no. 2, pp. 157–166.
2.
BondG.R.1991, ‘Variations in an assertive outreach model’, New Directions for Mental Health Services, no. 52, pp. 65–80.
3.
CoşkunR., AkandeA., & Renger2012, ‘Using root cause analysis for evaluating program improvement’, Evaluation Journal of Australasia, vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 4–14.
4.
DeharM.A., CasswellS., & DuignanP.1993, ‘Formative and process evaluation of health promotion and disease prevention programs’, Evaluation Review, vol. 17, no. 2, pp. 204–220.
5.
FitzpatrickJ.L., SandersJ.R., & WorthenB.R.2011, Program evaluation: alternative approaches and practical guidelines, 4th edn, Pearson, Boston, Massachusetts.
6.
GrinnellR.M.Jr, GaborP.A., & UnrauY.A.2012, Program evaluation for social workers: foundations of evidence-based programs, 6th edn, Oxford University Press, New York.
7.
HitesL.S., GranilloB.S., GarrisonE.R., CimettaA.D., SerafinV.J., RengerR.F., WakeleeJ.F., & BurgessJ.L.2012, ‘Emergency preparedness training of tribal community health representatives’, Journal of Immigrant and Minority Health, vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 323–329.
8.
HuffR.M., & KlineM.V.2007, ‘Health promotion in the context of culture’, in KlineM.V., & HuffR.M. (eds), 2nd edn, Health promotion in multicultural populations: a handbook for practitioners and students, Sage, Thousand Oaks, California.
9.
LazenbattA.2002, The evaluation handbook for health professionals, Routledge, London.
10.
MarkM.M., HenryG.T., & JulnesG.2000, Evaluation: an integrated framework for understanding, guiding, and improving policies and programs, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.
11.
MathisonS. (ed.) 2005, Encyclopedia of evaluation, Sage, Thousand Oaks, California.
PetersJ.S., & McRaeM.R.2009, Process evaluation insights on program implementation, White Paper prepared for the California Public Utilities Commission, San Francisco, California.
14.
RengerR.F.2011, ‘Constructing and verifying program theory using source documentation’, Canadian Journal of Evaluation, vol. 25, no. 1, pp. 51–67.
15.
RengerR., BartelG., & FoltysovaJ.2013, ‘The reciprocal relationship between implementation theory and program theory in assisting decision-making’, The Canadian Journal of Program Evaluation, vol. 28, no. 1, pp. 27–41.
16.
RengerR.F., WoodS., GranilloB., & AttakaiA.2011, ‘Using Experiential Learning Theory (ELT) to design emergency preparedness training curricula’, Journal of Emergency Management, vol. 9, no. 5, pp. 57–63.
17.
SaundersR.P., EvansM.H., & JoshiP.2005, ‘Developing a process-evaluation plan for assessing health promotion program implementation: a how-to guide’, Health Promotion Practice, vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 134–147.
18.
ScheirerM.A., ShediacM.C., & CassadyC.E.1995, ‘Measuring the implementation of health promotion programs: the case of the Breast and Cervical Cancer Program in Maryland’, Health Education Research, vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 11–25.
19.
ScrivenM.1967, ‘The methodology of evaluation’, in StakeR.E. (ed.), Perspectives of curriculum evaluation, Rand McNally, Chicago, Illinois.
20.
ScrivenM.1991, Evaluation thesaurus, 4th edn, Sage, Newbury Park, California.
