Process use refers to the ways in which stakeholders and/or evaluands change as a function of participating in evaluation activities. Although the concept of process use has been well discussed in the literature, exploration of methodological strategies for the measurement and assessment of process use has been limited. Typically, empirical research on process use has been limited to cross-sectional studies in single-site evaluation projects. In this method note, we present a longitudinal study of process use in a multisite evaluation project. Stakeholders’ changes in learning, attitudes, and behavior/action were assessed at three time points: prior to the onset of evaluation consultation; near the conclusion of a 1-year participatory consultation project; and 6–8 weeks after the termination of the project. Results showed that different domains of process use had differential development over time. Implications for measuring process use are discussed.
AmoC.CousinsJ. B. (2007). Going through the process: An examination of the operationalization of process use in empirical research on evaluation. New Directions in Evaluation, 116, 5–26.
2.
CampbellR.DoreyH.NeageliM.GrubsteinL. K.BennettK. K.BonterF.SmithP.GrzywaczJ.BakerP. K.DavidsonW. S. (2004). An empowerment evaluation model for sexual assault programs: Empirical evidence of effectiveness. American Journal of Community Psychology, 34, 251–262.
3.
CampbellR.PattersonD.BybeeD. (2012). Prosecution of adult sexual assault cases: A longitudinal analysis of the impact of a sexual assault nurse examiner (SANE) program. Violence Against Women, 18, 223–244.
4.
CampbellR.PattersonD.LichtyL. F. (2005). The effectiveness of sexual assault nurse examiner (SANE) program: A review of psychological, medical, legal, and community outcomes. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse: A Review Journal, 6, 313–329.
5.
CampbellR.TownsendS. M.BybeeD.ShawJ. L.MarkowitzJ. (2013). Implementation of a sexual assault nurse examiner (SANE) practitioner evaluation toolkit. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.
6.
CharmazK. (2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
7.
CorbinJ.StraussA. (2008). Basics of qualitative research (3rd ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
8.
CousinsJ. B.ChouinardJ. A. (2012). Participatory evaluation up close: An integration of research-based knowledge. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing, Inc.
9.
CousinsJ. B.WhitmoreE. (1998). Framing participatory evaluation. New Directions for Evaluation, 80, 5–23.
10.
Department of Justice. (2013). A national protocol for sexual assault medical forensic examinations (adults/adolescents) (2nd ed.). Washington, DC: Author.
11.
ForssK.RebbienC. C.CarlssonJ. (2002). Process use of evaluations: Type of use that precede lessons learned and feedback. Evaluation, 8, 29–45.
12.
GibbonsR. E. (2010). Violence against women on the college campus: Evaluating anti-violence programming (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertation and Theses. (UMI Number 3398306)
13.
HarnarM. A.PreskillH. (2007). Evaluators’ descriptions of process use: An exploratory study. New Directions for Evaluation, 116, 27–44.
14.
HsiehH.ShannonS. E. (2005). Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative Health Research, 15, 1277–1288.
15.
JacobS.OuvrardL.BélangerJ. (2011). Participatory evaluation and process use with a social aid organization for at-risk families and youth. Evaluation and Program Planning, 34, 113–123.
16.
JohnsonK.GreenseidL. O.ToalS. A.KingJ. A.LawrenzF.VolkovB. (2009). Research on evaluation use: A review of the empirical literature from 1986-2005. American Journal of Evaluation, 30, 377–410.
17.
KammB. J. (2004). Building organizational learning and evaluation capacity: A study of process use. (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertation and Theses. (UMI Number 3154944)
18.
KingJ. (2007). Developing evaluation capacity through process use. New Directions for Evaluation, 116, 45–59.
19.
LawrenzF.HuffmanD.McGinnisJ. R. (2007). Multilevel evaluation process use in large-scale multisite evaluation. New Directions for Evaluation, 116, 75–85.
20.
LincolnY. S.GubaE. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
21.
LonswayK. A.ArchambaultJ. (2012). The “justice gap” for sexual assault cases: Future directions for research and reform. Violence Against Women, 18, 145–168.
22.
MacQueenK. M.McLellan-LemalE.BartholowK.MilsteinB. (2008). Team-based codebook development: Structure, process, and agreement. In GuestG.MacQueenK. M. (Eds.), Handbook for team-based qualitative research (pp. 119–136). Lanham, MD: Altamira/Rowman & Littlefield.
23.
MillerR. L.CampbellR. (2006). Taking stock of empowerment evaluation: An empirical review. American Journal of Evaluation, 27, 296–319.
24.
MontañoD. E.KasprzykD. (2002). The theory of reasoned action and the theory of planned behavior. In GlanzK.RimerB. K.LewisF. M. (Eds.), Health behavior and health education: Theory, research, and practice (3rd ed., pp. 67–98). New York, NY: Wiley.
25.
MorabitoS. M. (2002). Evaluator roles and strategies for expanding evaluation process influence. American Journal of Evaluation, 23, 321–330.
26.
PattonM. Q. (1998). Discovering process use. Evaluation, 4, 225–233.
PreskillH.CaracelliV. (1997). Current and developing conceptions of use: Evaluation use TIG survey results. Evaluation Practice, 18, 209–225.
29.
PreskillH.TorresR. (2000). The readiness for organizational learning and evaluation instrument (ROLE). Evaluation in Organizations, 421–434.
30.
PreskillH.ZuckermanB.MatthewsB. (2003). An exploratory study of process use: Findings and implications for future research. American Journal of Evaluation, 24, 423–442.
31.
PodemsD. (2007). Process use: A case narrative from Southern Africa. New Directions in Evaluation, 116, 87–97.
32.
Russ-EftD.AtwoodR.EghermanT. (2002). Use and non-use of evaluation results: Case study of environmental influences in the private sector. American Journal of Evaluation, 23, 19–31.
33.
TorresR. T.PreskillH. (2001). Evaluation and organizational learning: Past, present, and future. American Journal of Evaluation, 22, 387–395.
