Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

The aim of this article is to explicate the local program theory of an adolescent pregnancy and parenting program using a mix of methods. By bracketing these methods, local program theory is developed and subsequently used to distinguish between the validity of program theory and the validity of program implementation. Theory is then used as a tool to construct a model of how the program is supposed to work. This is followed by an assessment of the extent to which the program's theories are actually implemented in the field. The intent of using a mix of methods during this process is to gather an extensive, intensive, and comprehensive view of program case managers' thoughts about their work. Analysis is based on the evaluator's recognition of patterns of meaning that contribute to an enhanced contextual and theoretical understanding of the overall effectiveness of this program.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Bickman, L. 1987. The functions of program theory. New Directions for Program Evaluation: Using Program Theory in Evaluation 33:5–18.

Chen, H. T. 1990. Theory-driven evaluations. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Chen, H. T. 1998. Theory-driven evaluations. In Advances in educational productivity. Vol. 7, Evaluation research for educational productivity, edited by A. J. Reynolds and H. J. Walberg , 15–34. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Chen, H. T. , and P. H. Rossi . 1989. Issues in the theory-driven perspective. Evaluation and Program Planning 12:299–306.

Concept Systems Inc. 1998. The concept system, ideas in action, version 1.75. Ithaca, NY: William Trochim.

Donaldson, S. I. 1993. Testing the generalizability of intervening mechanism theories: Understanding the effects of adolescent drug use prevention interventions. Journal of Behavioral Medicine 17:195–214.

Friedman, V. 2000. Action science: Creating communities of inquiry in committees of practice. In Handbook of action research, edited by H. Bradbury and P. Reason , 120–139. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Greene, J. C. 1990. Three views on the nature and role of knowledge in social science. In The paradigm dialog, edited by E. G. Guba , 227–245. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Greene, J. C. 1993. The role of theory in qualitative program evaluation. In Theory and concepts in qualitative research, edited by D. J. Flinders and G. E. Mills , 14–15. New York: Teachers College Press.

10.

Greene, J. C. 1994. Qualitative program evaluation: Practice and promise. In Handbook of qualitative research, edited by N. K. Denzin and Y. S. Lincoln , 533-533. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

11.

Lipsey, M. W. , and J. A. Pollard . 1989. Driving toward theory in program evaluation: More models to choose from. Evaluation and Program Planning 12:317–328.

12.

Mark, M. , and R. Shotland . 1987. Alternative models for the use of multiple methods. New Directions for Program Evaluation 35:95–99.

13.

Miles, M. B. , and A. M. Huberman . 1994. An expanded sourcebook: Qualitative data analysis. 2d ed. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

14.

Moore, K. 1995. Adolescent pregnancy prevention programs: Interventions and evaluations. Washington, DC: Child Trends, Inc.

15.

Patton, M. Q. 1997. Utilization focused evaluation. 3d ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

16.

Reichardt, C. S. , and T. D. Cook . 1979. Beyond qualitative versus quantitative methods. In Qualitative and quantitative methods in evaluation research, edited by T. D. Cook and C. S. Reichardt , 7–32. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

17.

Rubin, A. , and E. Babbie . 1993. Research methods for social work. 2d ed. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.

18.

Schorr, L. B. 1997. Common purpose. New York: Anchor Books Doubleday.

19.

Smith, M. L. 1997. Mixing and matching: Methods and models. In Advances in mixed-method evaluation: The challenges and benefits of integrating diverse paradigms. New Directions for Evaluation, no. 74, edited by J. C. Green and V. J. Caracelli , 78–85. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

20.

Trochim, W.M.K. 1989. An introduction to concept mapping for planning and evaluation. Evaluation and Program Planning 12:1–16.

21.

Weiss, C. H. 1998. Evaluation. 2d ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

22.

Wholey, J. S. 1987. Evaluability assessment: Developing program theory. New Directions for Program Evaluation: Using Program Theory in Evaluation 33:77–92.

Development of Local Program Theory: Using Theory-Oriented Evaluation to Make a Difference

Abstract

Get full access to this article

References