Although the general conceptual basis appeared far earlier, theory-driven evaluation came to prominence only a few decades ago with the appearance of Chen’s 1990 book Theory-Driven Evaluations. Since that time, the approach has attracted many supporters as well as detractors. In this paper, 45 cases of theory-driven evaluations, published over a twenty-year period, are systematically examined to ascertain how closely theory-driven evaluation practices comport with the key tenants of theory-driven evaluation as described and prescribed by prominent theoretical writers. Evidence derived from this review to repudiate or substantiate many of the claims put forth both by critics of and advocates for theory-driven forms of evaluation are presented and an agenda for future research on the approach is recommended.
Alkin, M. C., & Christie, C. A. (Eds.). (2005). Theorists’ models in action. New Directions for Evaluation, No. 106. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass .
2.
*Bamberg, S. ( 2006). Is a residential relocation a good opportunity to change people’s travel behavior? Results from a theory-driven intervention study. Environment and Behavior, 38, 820-840.
3.
*Bamberg, S., & Schmidt, P. ( 1998). Changing travel-mode choice as rational choice: Results from a longitudinal intervention study. Rationality and Society , 10, 223-252.
4.
*Bamberg, S., & Schmidt, P. ( 2001). Theory-driven subgroup-specific evaluation of an intervention to reduce private car use. Journal of Applied Social Psychology , 31, 1300-1329.
5.
Bickman, L. (Ed.). (1987). Using program theory in evaluation. New Directions for Program Evaluation, No. 33. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
6.
*Bickman, L. ( 1996). The application of program theory to the evaluation of a managed mental health care system. Evaluation and Program Planning, 19, 111-119.
7.
Birckmayer, J.D., & Weiss, C.H. ( 2000). Theory-based evaluation practice: What do we learn? Evaluation Review, 24, 407-431.
8.
Borenstein, M., Hedges, L.V., Higgins, J.P.T., & Rothstein, H.R. (2009). Introduction to meta-analysis . West Sussex, UK: John Wiley.
9.
Brandon, P.R., & Singh, J.M. ( 2009). The strength of the methodological warrants for the findings of research on program evaluation use. American Journal of Evaluation, 30, 123-157.
10.
Campbell, D.T. ( 1984). Hospital and landsting as continuously monitoring social programs: Advocacy and warning. In B. Cronholm & L. Von Knorring (Eds.), Evaluation of mental health service programs (pp. 13-39). Stockholm , Sweden: Forskningsraadet Medicinska.
11.
*Carvalho, S., & White, H. ( 2004). Theory-based evaluation: The case of social funds. American Journal of Evaluation, 25, 141-160.
12.
*Chang, F., & Munoz, M.A. ( 2006). School personnel educating the whole child: Impact of character education on teachers’ self-assessment and student development . Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 19, 35-49.
13.
Chelimsky, E. ( 1997). The political environment of evaluation and what it means for the development of the field. In E. Chelimsky & W. R. Shadish (Eds.), Evaluation for the 21st century: A handbook (pp. 53-68). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
14.
Chelimsky, E. ( 1998). The role of experience in formulating theories of evaluation practice. American Journal of Evaluation, 19, 35-55.
15.
Chen, H.T. ( 1980). The theory-driven perspective [Special issue]. Evaluation and Program Planning, 12, 299-306.
Chen, H.T. ( 2005a). Practical program evaluation: Assessing and improving planning, implementation, and effectiveness. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
19.
Chen, H.T. ( 2005b). Theory-driven evaluation. In S. Mathison (Ed.), Encyclopedia of evaluation (pp. 415-419). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
20.
Chen, H.T. ( 2005c). Program theory. In S. Mathison (Ed.), Encyclopedia of evaluation (pp. 340-342). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
21.
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, 106-122.
22.
Chen, H.T., & Rossi, P.H. ( 1983). Evaluating with sense: The theory-driven approach. Evaluation Review, 7, 283-302.
23.
Chen, H.T., & Rossi, P.H. ( 1987). The theory-driven approach to validity. Evaluation and Program Planning, 10, 95-103.
24.
Chen, H. T. & Rossi, P. H. (Eds.). (1992). Using theory to improve program and policy evaluations. Santa Barbara, CA: Greenwood Press.
25.
*Chen, H.T., Weng, J.C.S., & Lin, L.-H. (1997). Evaluating the process and outcome of a garbage reduction program in Taiwan. Evaluation Review, 21, 27-42.
26.
*Cho, H., & Witte, K. ( 2005). Managing fear in public health campaigns: A theory-based formative evaluation process. Health Promotion Practice, 6, 482-490.
27.
Chouinard, J.A., & Cousins, J.B. ( 2009). A review and synthesis of current research on cross-cultural evaluation. American Journal of Evaluation, 30, 457-494.
28.
Christie, C.A. ( 2003). What guides evaluation practice? A study of how evaluation practice maps onto evaluation theory. In C. A. Christie (Ed.), The theory-practice relationship in evaluation (pp. 7-36). New Directions for Evaluation, No. 97. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
29.
Christie, C.A. ( 2007). Reported influence of evaluation data on decision makers’ actions. American Journal of Evaluation, 28, 8-25.
30.
*Cole, M. ( 2003). The health action zone initiative: Lessons from Plymouth . Local Government Studies, 29, 99-117.
31.
Conlin, S., & Stirrat, R.L. ( 2008). Current challenges in development evaluation. Evaluation, 14, 193-208.
32.
*Conner, R.F., Mishra, S.I., & Lewis, M.A. ( 2004). Theory-based evaluation of AIDS-related knowledge, attitudes, and behavior changes. New Directions for Program Evaluation , 46, 75-85.
33.
*Cook, T.D., Habib, F., Phillips, M., Settersten, R.A., Shagle, S.C., & Degirmencioglu, S.M. (1999). Comer’s school development program in Prince George’s County, Maryland: A theory-based evaluation. American Educational Research Journal, 36, 543-597.
34.
*Cook, T.D., Murphy, R.F., & Hunt, H.D. ( 2000). Comer’s school development program in Chicago: A theory-based evaluation. American Educational Research Journal , 37, 535-597.
35.
*Cooksy, L.J., Gill, P., & Kelly, P.A. ( 2001). The program logic model as an integrative framework for a multimethod evaluation. Evaluation and Program Planning , 24, 119-128.
36.
Cooper, H. ( 1998). Synthesizing research: A guide for literature reviews (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA : Sage.
37.
Cordray, D.S., & Pion, G.M. ( 2006). Treatment strength and integrity: Models and methods . In R. R. Bootzin & P. E. McKnight (Eds.), Strengthening research methodology: Psychological measurement and evaluation (pp. 103-124). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association .
38.
Coryn, C.L.S. ( 2005). Practical program evaluation: Assessing and improving planning, implementation, and effectiveness [Review of the book Practical program evaluation: Assessing and improving planning, implementation, and effectiveness, by H. T Chen]. American Journal of Evaluation , 26, 405-407.
39.
Coryn, C.L.S. ( 2007). Evaluation of researchers and their research: Toward making the implicit explicit (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Western Michigan University, Kalamazoo, MI, USA.
40.
Coryn, C.L.S. ( 2008). Program theory-driven evaluation science [Review of the book Program theory-driven evaluation science, by S. I. Donaldson]. American Journal of Evaluation, 29, 215-220.
41.
Coryn, C.L.S. ( 2009, September). Contemporary trends and movements in evaluation: Evidence-based, participatory and empowerment, and theory-driven evaluation . Paper presented at The Evaluation Center’s Evaluation Café, Kalamazoo, MI.
42.
Cousins, J.B., & Earl, L.M. ( 1992). The case for participatory evaluation. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 14, 397-418.
43.
Cousins, J.B., & Leithwood, K.A. (1986). Current empirical research on evaluation utilization. Review of Educational Research , 56, 331-364.
44.
Cousins, J.B., & Whitmore, E. ( 1998). Framing participatory evaluation. In E. Whitmore (Ed.), Understanding and practicing participatory evaluation (pp. 5-23). New Directions for Evaluation, No. 80. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
45.
*Crew, R.E. Jr., & Anderson, M.R. (2003). Accountability and performance in charter schools in Florida: A theory-based evaluation. American Journal of Evaluation, 24, 189-212.
46.
Cullen, A., Coryn, C.L.S., & Rugh, J. ( 2010). A study of international development evaluators’ perceptions of reasons for and the politics and consequences associated with participatory evaluation approaches. Manuscript submitted for publication.
47.
Davidson, E.J. ( 2000). Ascertaining causality in theory-based evaluation. In P. J. Rogers, T. A. Hasci, A. Petrosino, & T. A. Huebner (Eds.), Program theory in evaluation: Challenges and opportunities (pp. 17-26). New Directions for Evaluation, No. 87. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
48.
Davidson, E.J. ( 2005). Evaluation methodology basics: The nuts and bolts of sound evaluation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
49.
Davidson, E.J. ( 2007). Unlearning some of our social scientists habits. Journal of MultiDisciplinary Evaluation, 4, iii-vi.
50.
Donaldson, S.I. ( 2001). Mediator and moderator analysis in program development . In S. Sussman (Ed.), Handbook of program development for health behavior research (pp. 470-496). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
51.
Donaldson, S.I. ( 2003). Theory-driven program evaluation in the new millennium . In S. I. Donaldson & M. Scriven (Eds.), Evaluating social programs and problems: Visions for the new millennium (pp. 109-141). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
52.
Donaldson, S.I. ( 2007). Program theory-driven evaluation science. New York, NY: Lawrence Erlbaum.
53.
Donaldson, S.I., & Gooler, L. ( 2002). Theory-driven evaluation of the Work and Health Initiative: A focus on winning new jobs. American Journal of Evaluation , 23, 341-346.
54.
*Donaldson, S.I., & Gooler, L. ( 2003). Theory-driven evaluation in action: Lessons from a $20 million statewide work and health initiative. Evaluation and Program Planning, 26, 355-366.
55.
Donaldson, S.I., Graham, J.W., & Hansen, W.B. ( 1994). Testing the generalizability of intervening mechanism theories: Understanding the effects of adolescent drug use prevention interventions . Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 17, 195-216.
56.
Donaldson, S.I., & Lipsey, M.W. ( 2006). Roles for theory in contemporary evaluation practice: Developing practical knowledge. In I. Shaw, J. C. Greene, & M. M. Mark (Eds.), The handbook of evaluation: Policies, programs, and practices (pp. 56-75). London, UK: Sage.
57.
*Farber, M., & Sabatino, C. ( 2007). A therapeutic summer weekend camp for grieving children: Supporting clinical practice through empirical evaluation. Child Adolescent Social Work Journal, 24, 385-402.
58.
Flay, B.R., Biglan, A., Boruch, R.F., González Castro, F., Gottfredson, D., Kellam, S., . . . Ji, P. ( 2005). Standards of evidence: Criteria for efficacy, effectiveness and dissemination. Prevention Science, 6, 151-175.
59.
Fleischer, D.N., & Christie, C.A. (2009). Evaluation use: Results from a survey of U.S. American Evaluation Association members. American Journal of Evaluation, 30, 158-175.
60.
Fournier, D.M. ( 1995). Establishing evaluative conclusions: A distinction between general and working logic. In D. M. Fournier (Ed.), Reasoning in evaluation: Inferential links and leaps (pp. 15-32). New Directions in Evaluation, No. 68. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
61.
Frechtling, J.A. ( 2007). Logic modeling methods in program evaluation. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
62.
*Frosch, D.L., Legare, F., & Mangione, C.M. (2008). Using decision aids in community-based primary care: A theory-driven evaluation with ethnically diverse patients. Patient Education and Counseling, 73, 490-496.
63.
Funnel, S.C. ( 1997). Program logic: An adaptable tool. Evaluation News & Comment, 6, 5-17.
64.
Government Accountability Office. (2009). A variety of rigorous methods can help identify effective interventions ( GAO Publication No. GAO-10-30). Washington, DC: U. S. Government Printing Office.
65.
*Grocott, P., & Cowley, S. ( 2001). The palliative management of fungating malignant wounds-Generalising from multiple-case study data using a system of reasoning. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 38, 533-545.
66.
Gugiu, P.C., & Rodriguez-Campos, L. (2007). Semi-structured interview protocol for constructing logic models. Evaluation and Program Planning, 30, 339-350.
67.
Heberger, A.E., Christie, C.A., & Alkin, M.C. ( 2010). A bibliometric analysis of the academic influences of and on evaluation theorists’ published works. American Journal of Evaluation, 31, 24-44.
68.
*Heflinger, C. ( 1996). Implementing a system of care: Findings from the Fort Bragg evaluation project. Journal of Mental Health Administration , 23, 16-29.
69.
*Heflinger, C., Bickman, L., Northrup, D., & Sonnichsen, S. (1997). A theory-driven intervention and evaluation to explore family caregiver empowerment. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 5, 184-191.
70.
*Hendershott, A., & Norland, S. ( 1990). Theory-based evaluation: An assessment of the implementation and impact of an adolescent parenting program. Journal of Applied Sociology, 7, 35-48.
71.
Henry, G.T. ( 2009). When getting it right matters: The case for high-quality policy and program impact evaluations. In S. I. Donaldson, C. A. Christie, & M. M. Mark (Eds.), What counts as credible evidence in applied research and evaluation practice? (pp. 32-50). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
72.
Henry, G.T., & Mark, M.M. ( 2003). Toward an agenda for research on evaluation. In C. A. Christie (Ed.), The practice-theory relationship in evaluation (pp. 69-80). New Directions for Evaluation, No. 97. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
73.
*Hense, J., Kriz, W.C., & Wolfe, J. ( 2009). Putting theory-oriented evaluation into practice: A logic model approach for evaluating SIMGAME. Simulation & Gaming , 40, 110-133.
74.
Higgins, J. P. T., & Green, J. (Eds.). (2008). Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. West Sussex, UK: John Wiley.
75.
*Janssens, F.J.G., & de Wolf, I.F. ( 2009). Analyzing the assumptions of a policy program: An ex-ante evaluation of ‘‘educational governance’’ in the Netherlands . American Journal of Evaluation, 30, 411-425.
76.
Johnson, K., Greenseid, L.O., Toal, S.A., King, J.A., Lawrenz, F., & Volkov, B. ( 2009). Research on evaluation use: A review of the empirical literature from 1986 to 2005. American Journal of Evaluation , 30, 377-410.
77.
*Johnson, K., Young, L., Foster, J.P., & Shamblen, S.R. (2006). Law enforcement training in Southeast Asia: A theory-driven evaluation. Police Practice Research, 7, 195-215.
78.
Joint Committee on Standards for Educational Evaluation. ( 1994). The program evaluation standards (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage .
79.
Kerlinger, F.N. ( 1986). Foundations of behavioral research (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
80.
*Kidiyala, S., Rawat, R., Roopnaraine, T., Babirye, F., & Ochai, R. ( 2009). Applying a programme theory framework to improve livelihood interventions integrated with HIV care and treatment programmes. Journal of Development Effectiveness, 1, 470-491.
81.
Leeuw, F.L. ( 2003). Reconstructing program theories: Methods available and problems to be solved. American Journal of Evaluation, 24, 5-20.
82.
Lipsey, M.W. ( 1993). Theory as method: Small theories of treatments. In L. B. Sechrest & A. G. Scott (Eds.), Understanding causes and generalizing about them (pp. 5-38). New Directions for Program Evaluation, No. 57. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass .
*Manomaivibool, P. ( 2008). Network management and environmental effectiveness: The management of end-of-life vehicles in the United Kingdom and in Sweden. Journal of Cleaner Production, 16, 2006-2017.
85.
Mark, M.M. ( 2007). Building a better evidence base for evaluation theory: Beyond general calls to a framework of types of research on evaluation. In N. L. Smith & P. R. Brandon (Eds.), Fundamental issues in evaluation (pp. 111-134). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
86.
Mark, M.M., Henry, G.T., & Julnes, G. ( 1998). A realist theory of evaluation practice. In G. T. Henry, G. Julnes , & M. M. Mark (Eds.), Realist evaluation: An emerging theory in support of practice (pp. 3-31). New Directions for Evaluation, No. 78. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
87.
Mark, M.M., Henry, G.T., & Julnes, G. ( 2000). Evaluation: An integrative framework for understanding, guiding, and improving policies and programs. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
88.
Mark, M.M., Hoffman, D.A., & Reichardt, C.S. (1992). Testing theories in theory-driven evaluations: (Tests of) moderation of all things. In H. T. Chen & P. H. Rossi (Eds.), Using theory to improve program and policy evaluations (pp. 71-84). Santa Barbara, CA: Greenwood Press.
89.
McLaughlin, J.A., & Jordan, G.B. ( 1999). Logic models: A tool for telling your program’s performance story. Evaluation and Program Planning, 22, 65-72.
90.
*Mercier, C., Piat, M., Peladeau, N., & Dagenais, C. ( 2000). An application of theory-driven evaluation to a drop-in youth center. Evaluation Review, 24, 73-91.
91.
Miller, R.L. ( 2010). Developing standards for empirical examinations of evaluation theory. American Journal of Evaluation, 31, 390-399.
92.
Miller, R.L., & Campbell, R. ( 2006). Taking stock of empowerment evaluation: An empirical review. American Journal of Evaluation, 27, 296-319.
93.
Milstein, B., & Wetterhall, S.CDC Working Group. ( 2000). A framework featuring steps and standards for program evaluation. Health Promotion Practice, 1, 221-228.
94.
*Mole, K.F., Hart, M., Roper, S., & Saal, D.S. ( 2009). Assessing the effectiveness of business support services in England: Evidence from a theory-based evaluation. International Small Business Journal, 27, 557-582.
95.
*Mulroy, E.A., & Lauber, H. ( 2004). A user-friendly approach to program evaluation and effective community interventions for families at risk of homelessness. Social Work, 49, 573-586.
96.
*Nesman, T.M., Batsche, C., & Hernandez, M. ( 2007). Theory-based evaluation of a comprehensive Latino education initiative: An interactive evaluation approach. Evaluation and Program Planning, 30, 267-281.
97.
*O’Day, J., & Quick, H.E. ( 2009). Assessing instructional reform in San Diego: A theory-based approach. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk , 14, 1-16.
98.
*Oroviogoicoechea, C., & Watson, R. ( 2009). A quantitative analysis of the impact of a computerized information system on nurses’ clinical practice using a realistic evaluation framework. International Journal of Medical Informatics, 78, 839-849.
99.
*Palumbo, D.J., & Gregware, P.R. (1992). Evaluating new dawn and Pegasus using the Chen and Rossi multi-goal, theory-driven approach. In H. T. Chen & P. H. Rossi (Eds.), Using theory to improve program and policy evaluations (pp. 145-163). Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.
100.
Patton, M.Q. ( 1997). Utilization-focused evaluation: The new century text (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA : Sage.
Patton, M.Q. ( 2010). Developmental evaluation: Applying complexity concepts to enhance innovation and use. New York, NY: Guilford.
103.
Pawson, R., & Tilley, N. ( 1997). Realistic evaluation. London, UK: Sage.
104.
*Pinkleton, B.E., Austin, E.W., Cohen, M., Miller, A., & Fitzgerald, E. (2007). A statewide evaluation of the effectiveness of media literacy training to prevent tobacco use among adolescents. Health Communication, 21, 23-34.
105.
Reed, J.G., & Baxter, P.M. ( 2009). Using reference databases. In H. Cooper, L. V. Hedges, & J. C. Valentine (Eds.), The handbook of research synthesis and meta-analysis (pp. 73-102). New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.
106.
*Reynolds, A.J. ( 2005). Confirmatory program evaluation: Applications to early childhood interventions. Teachers College Record, 107, 2401-2425.
107.
Rogers, P.J. ( 2000). Program theory evaluation: Not whether programs work but how they work. In D. L. Stufflebeam, G. F. Madaus, & T. Kellaghan (Eds.), Evaluation models: Viewpoints on educational and human services evaluation (pp. 209-232). Boston, MA: Kluwer.
108.
Rogers, P.J. ( 2007). Theory-based evaluation: Reflections ten years on. In S. Mathison (Ed.), Enduring issues in evaluation: The 20th anniversary of the collaboration between NDE and AEA (pp. 63-67). New Directions for Evaluation, No. 114. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
109.
Rogers, P.J. ( 2008). Using programme theory to evaluate complicated and complex aspects of interventions. Evaluation, 14, 29-48.
110.
Rogers, P.J., Petrosino, A., Huebner, T.A., & Hacsi, T.A. ( 2000). Program theory evaluation: Practice, promise, and problems . In P. J. Rogers, T. A. Hacsi, A. Petrosino , & T. A. Huebner (Eds.), Program theory in evaluation: Challenges and opportunities (pp. 5-14). New Directions for Evaluation, No. 87. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
*Sandler, I.N., West, S.G., Baca, L., Pillow, D.R., Gersten, J.C., Rogosch, F., & . . . Ramirez, R. (1992). Linking empirically based theory and evaluation: The family bereavement program. American Journal of Community Psychology, 20, 491-520.
113.
*Sato, Y. ( 2005). A case of policy evaluation utilizing a logical framework: Evaluation of Japan’s foreign student policy towards Thailand. Evaluation, 11, 351-378.
114.
Scriven, M. ( 1967). The methodology of evaluation. In R. Tyler, R. Gagne, & M. Scriven (Eds.), Perspectives of curriculum evaluation (pp. 39-83). Chicago, IL: Rand-McNally .
115.
Scriven, M. ( 1973). Goal-free evaluation. In E. R. House (Ed.), School evaluation: The politics and process (pp. 319-328). Berkley, CA: McCutchan.
Scriven, M. ( 1994). The fine line between evaluation and explanation. Evaluation Practice, 15, 75-77.
118.
Scriven, M. ( 1998). Minimalist theory: The least theory that practice requires . American Journal of Evaluation, 19, 57-70.
119.
Scriven, M. ( 2007). Key evaluation checklist (KEC). Retrieved November 21, 2008, from http://www.wmich.edu/evalctr/checklists/kec_feb07.pdf
120.
Shadish, W.R., Cook, T.D., & Campbell, D.T. (2002). Ex1perimental and quasi-experimental designs for generalized causal inference. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
121.
Shadish, W.R., Cook, T.D., & Leviton, L.C. ( 1991). Foundations of program evaluation: Theories of practice . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
122.
Shulha, L.M., & Cousins, J.B. ( 1997). Evaluation use: Theory, research, and practice since 1986. American Journal of Evaluation, 18, 195-208.
123.
*Sielbeck-Bowen, K. ( 2000). Development of local program theory: Using theory-oriented evaluation to make a difference. Field Methods, 12, 129-152.
124.
Smith, N.L. ( 1993). Improving evaluation theory through the empirical study of evaluation practice. Evaluation Practice, 14, 237-242.
125.
Smith, N.L. ( 1994). Clarifying and expanding the application of program theory-driven evaluations. Evaluation Practice, 15, 83-87.
126.
Smith, N.L. ( 2010). Introduction to the forum: Advances in evaluating evaluation theory. American Journal of Evaluation.
127.
Stame, N. ( 2004). Theory-based evaluation and types of complexity. Evaluation, 10, 58-76.
128.
Stevahn, L., King, J.A., Ghere, G., & Minnema, J. ( 2005). Establishing essential competencies for program evaluators . American Journal of Evaluation, 26, 43-59.
129.
Stufflebeam, D.L. ( 2001). Evaluation models. New Directions for Evaluation, No. 89. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Suchman, E. ( 1967). Evaluative research. New York, NY : Russell Sage Foundation.
133.
*Tilley, N. ( 2004). Applying theory-driven evaluation to the British Crime Reduction Programme. Criminal Justice, 4, 255-276.
134.
Tourmen, C. ( 2009). Evaluators’ decision making. American Journal of Evaluation, 30, 7-30.
135.
Trevisan, M.S. ( 2007). Evaluability assessment from 1986 to 2006. American Journal of Evaluation, 28, 290-303.
136.
*Trochim, W.M.K., Marcus, S.E., Masse, L.C., Moser, R.P., & Weld, P.C. ( 2008). The evaluation of large research initiatives: A participatory integrative mixed-methods approach. American Journal of Evaluation , 29, 8-28.
137.
*Turnbull, B. ( 2002). Program theory building: A strategy for deriving cumulative evaluation knowledge. American Journal of Evaluation, 23, 275-290.
138.
*Umble, K.E., Cervero, R.M., Yang, B., & Atkinson, W.L. (2000). Effects of traditional classroom and distance continuing education: A theory-driven evaluation of a vaccine-preventable diseases course. American Journal of Public Health, 90, 1218-1224.
139.
United Way of America. (1996). Measuring program outcomes: A practical approach. Alexandria, VA: Author.
140.
Urban, J.B., & Trochim, W. ( 2009). The role of evaluation in research-practice integration: Working toward the ‘‘Golden Spike.’’. American Journal of Evaluation, 30, 538-553.
141.
Weaver, L., & Cousins, J.B. ( 2004). Unpacking the participatory process. Journal of MultiDisciplinary Evaluation, 1, 19-40.
Weiss, C.H. ( 1995). Nothing as practical as good theory: Exploring theory-based evaluation for comprehensive community initiatives for children and families . In J. Connell, A. Kubisch, L. B. Schorr, & C. H. Weiss (Eds.), New approaches to evaluating community initiatives: Volume 1, concepts, methods, and contexts (pp. 65-92). New York, NY: Aspen Institute.
144.
Weiss, C.H. ( 1997a). How can theory-based evaluations make greater headway ? Evaluation Review, 21, 501-524.
145.
Weiss, C.H. ( 1997b). Theory-based evaluation: Past, present and future. In D. J. Rog & D. Fournier (Eds.), Progress and future directions in evaluation: Perspectives on theory, practice and methods (pp. 55-41). New Directions for Evaluation, No. 76. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
146.
Weiss, C.H. ( 1998). Evaluation: Methods for studying programs and policies (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
147.
Weiss, C.H. ( 2000). Which links in which theories shall we evaluate? In P. J. Rogers, T. A. Hasci, A. Petrosino, & T. A. Huebner (Eds.), Program theory in evaluation: Challenges and opportunities (pp. 35-45). New Directions for Evaluation, No. 87. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
148.
Weiss, C.H. ( 2004a). On theory-based evaluation: Winning friends and influencing people. The Evaluation Exchange, IX, 1-5.
149.
Weiss, C.H. ( 2004b). Rooting for evaluation: A cliff notes version of my work. In M. C. Alkin (Ed.), Evaluation roots: Tracing theorists’ views and influences (pp. 153-168). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
150.
*Weitzman, B.C., Mijanovich, T., Silver, D., & Brecher, C. ( 2009). Finding the impact in a messy intervention: Using an integrated design to evaluate a comprehensive citywide health initiative. American Journal of Evaluation, 30, 495-514.
151.
*Weitzman, B.C., Silver, D., & Dillman, K.N. ( 2002). Integrating a comparison group design into a theory of change evaluation: The case of the urban health initiative. American Journal of Evaluation, 23, 371-385.
152.
White, H. ( 2007). Evaluating aid impact (Research Paper No. 2007/75). Brighton, UK: University of Sussex, Institute of Development Studies.
153.
White, H. ( 2009). Theory-based impact evaluation: Principles and practice . Journal of Development Effectiveness, 1, 271-284.
154.
*White, H., & Masset, E. ( 2007). Assessing interventions to improve child nutrition: A theory-based impact evaluation of the Bangladesh Integrated Nutrition Project . Journal of International Development, 19, 627-652.
155.
Wholey, J.S. ( 1979). Evaluation: Promise and performance. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.
156.
Williams, A.P., & Morris, J.C. ( 2009). The development of theory-driven evaluation in the military . American Journal of Evaluation, 30, 62-79.
157.
Wilson, D.B. ( 2009). Systematic coding. In H. Cooper, L. V. Hedges, & J. C. Valentine (Eds.), The handbook of research synthesis and meta-analysis (2nd ed., pp. 159-176). New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.
158.
Wingate, L.A., Coryn, C.L.S., Gullickson, A.R., & Cooksy, L.J. ( 2010). The Program Evaluation Standards applied for metaevaluation purposes: Investigating interrater agreement and its implications for use . Manuscript submitted for publication.
159.
W. K. Kellogg Foundation. (1998). W. K. Kellogg Foundation evaluation handbook. Battle Creek, MI: Author.
160.
W. K. Kellogg Foundation. (2000). Logic model development guide. Battle Creek, MI: Author.
161.
World Bank. (2003). Books, buildings and learning outcomes: An impact evaluation of World Bank support to basic education in Ghana. Washington, DC: Operations Evaluation Department, World Bank.
162.
World Bank. (2005). Maintaining momentum to 2015? An impact evaluation of interventions to improve maternal and child health and nutrition outcomes in Bangladesh. Washington, DC: Operations Evaluation Department, World Bank.
163.
Worthen, B.R. ( 2001). Wither evaluation? That all depends. American Journal of Evaluation, 22, 409-418.
164.
Worthen, B.R., & Sanders, J.R. ( 1973). Evaluation as disciplined inquiry. In B. R. Worthen & J. R. Sanders (Eds.), Educational evaluation: Theory and practice (pp. 10-39). Worthington, OH: Charles A. Jones.
165.
Wyatt Knowlton, L., & Phillips, C.C. (2008). The logic model guidebook: Better strategies for great results. Thousand Oaks, CA : Sage.
