IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/epplan/v33y2010i3p223-233.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Evaluation for community-based programs: The integration of logic models and factor analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Helitzer, Deborah
  • Hollis, Christine
  • Hernandez, Brisa Urquieta de
  • Sanders, Margaret
  • Roybal, Suzanne
  • Van Deusen, Ian

Abstract

Purpose To discuss the utility of and value of the use of logic models for program evaluation of community-based programs and more specifically, the integration of logic models and factor analysis to develop and revise a survey as part of an effective evaluation plan.Principal results Diverse stakeholders with varying outlooks used a logic model as a framework to reach agreement on a plan for a state-wide evaluation. This evaluation plan utilized a survey of sixth grade students, administered before and after exposure to a year-long abstinence education program. Components of the logic model were linked to specific survey questions. Exploratory factor analysis was then used to assess whether and how the questions in the survey fit with the constructs of the model; confirmatory factor analysis was used to test the hypothesis that the factors identified in the exploratory analysis were consistently represented in the survey.Major conclusions A logic model is a tool that engages stakeholders to link evaluation instruments more closely to specific program objectives. Thus, stakeholders can more closely assess the extent to which project outcomes have been achieved. In addition, use of factor analysis in the evaluation process can help the stakeholders better understand whether evaluation instruments such as a survey adequately assess program effectiveness. Lastly, a logic model process can help to achieve consensus among diverse stakeholders, by allowing them to focus on objectives that are concrete, measurable, and mutually acceptable.

Suggested Citation

  • Helitzer, Deborah & Hollis, Christine & Hernandez, Brisa Urquieta de & Sanders, Margaret & Roybal, Suzanne & Van Deusen, Ian, 2010. "Evaluation for community-based programs: The integration of logic models and factor analysis," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 33(3), pages 223-233, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:epplan:v:33:y:2010:i:3:p:223-233
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0149-7189(09)00084-6
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    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. Sydney C. Ludvigson & Serena Ng, 2009. "A Factor Analysis of Bond Risk Premia," NBER Working Papers 15188, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    2. repec:mpr:mprres:5429 is not listed on IDEAS
    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. Ompad, D.C. & Ikeda, R.M. & Shah, N. & Fuller, C.M. & Bailey, S. & Morse, E. & Kerndt, P. & Maslow, C. & Wu, Y. & Vlahov, D. & Garfein, R. & Strathdee, S.A., 2005. "Childhood sexual abuse and age at initiation of injection drug use," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 95(4), pages 703-709.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. Clapham, Kathleen & Manning, Claire & Williams, Kathryn & O’Brien, Ginger & Sutherland, Margaret, 2017. "Using a logic model to evaluate the Kids Together early education inclusion program for children with disabilities and additional needs," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 96-105.
    4. Fletcher-Hildebrand, Shaneice & Williamson, Linzi & Lawson, Karen & Dell, Colleen, 2023. "Remotely and collaboratively evaluating a campus-based therapy dog program during the COVID-19 pandemic," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 98(C).
    5. 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.
    6. Helitzer, Deborah L. & Sussman, Andrew L. & Hoffman, Richard M. & Getrich, Christina M. & Warner, Teddy D. & Rhyne, Robert L., 2014. "Along the way to developing a theory of the program: A re-examination of the conceptual framework as an organizing strategy," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 45(C), pages 157-163.
    7. Ribeiro, Fernando & Ferreira, Paula & Araújo, Madalena, 2013. "Sustainability assessment of electricity production using a logic models approach," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 28(C), pages 215-223.

    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. 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.
    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. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. Gonçalves, Sílvia & McCracken, Michael W. & Perron, Benoit, 2017. "Tests of equal accuracy for nested models with estimated factors," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 198(2), pages 231-252.
    6. Jonas Krampe & Luca Margaritella, 2021. "Factor Models with Sparse VAR Idiosyncratic Components," Papers 2112.07149, arXiv.org, revised May 2022.
    7. 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.
    8. Romain Houssa & Lasse Bork & Hans Dewachter, 2008. "Identification of Macroeconomic Factors in Large Panels," Working Papers 1010, University of Namur, Department of Economics.
    9. 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.
    10. Piyachart Phiromswad & Takeshi Yagihashi, 2016. "Empirical identification of factor models," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 51(2), pages 621-658, September.
    11. Matt Andrews, 2022. "This is How to Think About and Achieve Public Policy Success," CID Working Papers 413, Center for International Development at Harvard University.
    12. Wifo, 2021. "WIFO-Monatsberichte, Heft 10/2021," WIFO Monatsberichte (monthly reports), WIFO, vol. 94(10), October.
    13. Sobelson, Robyn K. & Young, Andrea C., 2013. "Evaluation of a federally funded workforce development program: The Centers for Public Health Preparedness," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 37(C), pages 50-57.
    14. 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.
    15. 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.
    16. 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.
    17. Chanel Bjanca V. Balinbin & Krystina Trizia R. Balatbat & Alyssa Nicolette B. Balayan & Maria Isabel C. Balcueva & Mary Grace B. Balicat & Thea Arabelle S. Balidoy & John Rey B. Macindo & Gian Carlo S, 2020. "Occupational determinants of compassion satisfaction and compassion fatigue among Filipino registered nurses," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 29(5-6), pages 955-963, March.
    18. Laura Nowzohour & Livio Stracca, 2020. "More Than A Feeling: Confidence, Uncertainty, And Macroeconomic Fluctuations," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 34(4), pages 691-726, September.
    19. Janger, Jürgen & Schubert, Torben & Andries, Petra & Rammer, Christian & Hoskens, Machteld, 2017. "The EU 2020 innovation indicator: A step forward in measuring innovation outputs and outcomes?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(1), pages 30-42.
    20. Jürgen Janger & Agnes Kügler, 2018. "Innovationseffizienz. Österreich im internationalen Vergleich," WIFO Studies, WIFO, number 61111, February.

    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:33:y:2010:i:3:p:223-233. 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.