IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/epplan/v65y2017icp156-162.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Devil is in the details: Using logic models to investigate program process

Author

Listed:
  • Peyton, David J.
  • Scicchitano, Michael

Abstract

Theory-based logic models are commonly developed as part of requirements for grant funding. As a tool to communicate complex social programs, theory based logic models are an effective visual communication. However, after initial development, theory based logic models are often abandoned and remain in their initial form despite changes in the program process. This paper examines the potential benefits of committing time and resources to revising the initial theory driven logic model and developing detailed logic models that describe key activities to accurately reflect the program and assist in effective program management. The authors use a funded special education teacher preparation program to exemplify the utility of drill down logic models. The paper concludes with lessons learned from the iterative revision process and suggests how the process can lead to more flexible and calibrated program management.

Suggested Citation

  • Peyton, David J. & Scicchitano, Michael, 2017. "Devil is in the details: Using logic models to investigate program process," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 65(C), pages 156-162.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:epplan:v:65:y:2017:i:c:p:156-162
    DOI: 10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2017.08.012
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S014971891730006X
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2017.08.012?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Millar, Annie & Simeone, Ronald S. & Carnevale, John T., 2001. "Logic models: a systems tool for performance management," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 24(1), pages 73-81, February.
    2. Kaplan, Sue A. & Garrett, Katherine E., 2005. "The use of logic models by community-based initiatives," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 28(2), pages 167-172, May.
    3. McLaughlin, John A. & Jordan, Gretchen B., 1999. "Logic models: a tool for telling your programs performance story," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 22(1), pages 65-72.
    4. Newton, Xiaoxia A. & Poon, Rebecca C. & Nunes, Nicole L. & Stone, Elisa M., 2013. "Research on teacher education programs: Logic model approach," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 36(1), pages 88-96.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Ebenso, Bassey & Manzano, Ana & Uzochukwu, Benjamin & Etiaba, Enyi & Huss, Reinhard & Ensor, Tim & Newell, James & Onwujekwe, Obinna & Ezumah, Nkoli & Hicks, Joe & Mirzoev, Tolib, 2019. "Dealing with context in logic model development: Reflections from a realist evaluation of a community health worker programme in Nigeria," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 97-110.
    2. Fielden, Sarah J. & Rusch, Melanie L. & Masinda, Mambo Tabu & Sands, Jim & Frankish, Jim & Evoy, Brian, 2007. "Key considerations for logic model development in research partnerships: A Canadian case study," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 30(2), pages 115-124, May.
    3. Vinícius P. Rodrigues & Daniela C. A. Pigosso & Jakob W. Andersen & Tim C. McAloone, 2018. "Evaluating the Potential Business Benefits of Ecodesign Implementation: A Logic Model Approach," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(6), pages 1-26, June.
    4. Park, Chul Hyun & Welch, Eric W. & Sriraj, P.S., 2016. "An integrative theory-driven framework for evaluating travel training programs," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 7-20.
    5. Sherman, Paul David, 2016. "Using RUFDATA to guide a logic model for a quality assurance process in an undergraduate university program," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 55(C), pages 112-119.
    6. Wasserman, Deborah L., 2010. "Using a systems orientation and foundational theory to enhance theory-driven human service program evaluations," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 33(2), pages 67-80, May.
    7. Wu, Huang & Shen, Jianping & Jones, Jeffrey & Gao, Xingyuan & Zheng, Yunzheng & Krenn, Huilan Y., 2019. "Using logic model and visualization to conduct portfolio evaluation," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 69-75.
    8. O'Keefe, Christine M. & Head, Richard J., 2011. "Application of logic models in a large scientific research program," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 34(3), pages 174-184, August.
    9. Kaplan, Sue A. & Garrett, Katherine E., 2005. "The use of logic models by community-based initiatives," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 28(2), pages 167-172, May.
    10. Cullen, Patricia & Clapham, Kathleen & Byrne, Jake & Hunter, Kate & Senserrick, Teresa & Keay, Lisa & Ivers, Rebecca, 2016. "The importance of context in logic model construction for a multi-site community-based Aboriginal driver licensing program," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 57(C), pages 8-15.
    11. Gervais, Christine & de Montigny, Francine & Lacharité, Carl & Dubeau, Diane, 2015. "The Father Friendly Initiative within Families: Using a logic model to develop program theory for a father support program," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 52(C), pages 133-141.
    12. Volden, Gro Holst, 2018. "Public project success as seen in a broad perspective," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 109-117.
    13. Levay, Adrienne V. & Chapman, Gwen E. & Seed, Barbara & Wittman, Hannah, 2018. "It’s just the right thing to do: Conceptualizing a theory of change for a school food and beverage sales environment interv ention and implications for implementation evaluation," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 73-82.
    14. George M Ibrahim & David W Cadotte & Mark Bernstein, 2015. "A Framework for the Monitoring and Evaluation of International Surgical Initiatives in Low- and Middle-Income Countries," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(3), pages 1-14, March.
    15. Patterson, Laurie B. & Backhouse, Susan H. & Duffy, Patrick J., 2016. "Anti-doping education for coaches: Qualitative insights from national and international sporting and anti-doping organisations," Sport Management Review, Elsevier, vol. 19(1), pages 35-47.
    16. Scarinci, Isabel C. & Johnson, Rhoda E. & Hardy, Claudia & Marron, John & Partridge, Edward E., 2009. "Planning and implementation of a participatory evaluation strategy: A viable approach in the evaluation of community-based participatory programs addressing cancer disparities," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 32(3), pages 221-228, August.
    17. Hill, Janice R. & Thies, Jeanie, 2010. "Program theory and logic model to address the co-occurrence of domestic violence and child maltreatment," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 33(4), pages 356-364, November.
    18. Tim Benijts, 2014. "A Business Sustainability Model for Government Corporations. A Belgian Case Study," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 23(3), pages 204-216, March.
    19. Voeten, J.J., 2012. "Understanding responsible innovation in small producers’ clusters in Northern Vietnam : A grounded theory approach to globalization and poverty alleviation," Other publications TiSEM e01da02b-ef2b-47c9-8d06-4, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    20. Roberts, Jennifer & Winter, Karen & Connolly, Paul, 2017. "The Letterbox Club book gifting intervention: Findings from a qualitative evaluation accompanying a randomised controlled trial," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 467-473.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:epplan:v:65:y:2017:i:c:p:156-162. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/evalprogplan .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.