IDEAS home Printed from
   My bibliography  Save this article

Evaluability Assessment of an immunization improvement strategy in rural Burkina Faso: Intervention theory versus reality, information need and evaluations


  • Sanou, Aboubakary
  • Kouyaté, Bocar
  • Bibeau, Gilles
  • Nguyen, Vinh-Kim


An innovative immunization improvement strategy was proposed by the CRSN (Centre de Recherche en Santé de Nouna) to improve the low coverage rate for children aged 0-11 months in the health district of Nouna in Burkina Faso. This article reports on the Evaluability Assessment (EA) study that aimed to orient decisions for its evaluation in close relationship with the information needs of the stakeholders. Various methods were used, including document reviews, individual interviews, focus group discussions, meetings, literature reviews and site visits. A description of the intervention theory and philosophy is provided with its logic models and its reality documented. Lessons on the procedure include the importance of the position of the evaluability assessor, the value of replicating some steps of the assessment and the relationships between EA and process evaluation. The evaluability study concludes that the intervention had some evaluable components. To satisfy the stakeholders' needs, the initially planned community randomized controlled trial can be maintained and complemented with a process evaluation. There is a need to provide sufficient information on the cost of the intervention. This will inform decision makers on the possibility of replicating the intervention in other contexts.

Suggested Citation

  • Sanou, Aboubakary & Kouyaté, Bocar & Bibeau, Gilles & Nguyen, Vinh-Kim, 2011. "Evaluability Assessment of an immunization improvement strategy in rural Burkina Faso: Intervention theory versus reality, information need and evaluations," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 34(3), pages 303-315, August.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:epplan:v:34:y:2011:i:3:p:303-315

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL:
    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

    1. Youtie, Jan & Bozeman, Barry & Shapira, Philip, 1999. "Using an evaluability assessment to select methods for evaluating state technology development programs: the case of the Georgia Research Alliance," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, pages 55-64.
    2. Shern, David L. & Trochim, William M. K. & LaComb, Christina A., 1995. "The use of concept mapping for assessing fidelity of model transfer: An example from psychiatric rehabilitation," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, pages 143-153.
    3. Smith, M. F., 1990. "Evaluability assessment: Reflections on the process," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, pages 359-364.
    4. Russ-Eft, Darlene, 1986. "Evaluability assessment of the adult education program (AEP): The results and their use," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, pages 39-47.
    5. Cooksy, Leslie J. & Gill, Paige & Kelly, P. Adam, 2001. "The program logic model as an integrative framework for a multimethod evaluation," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, pages 119-128.
    6. Wendy Olsen, 2008. "Realist ontology and epistemology for rural research," Brooks World Poverty Institute Working Paper Series 5308, BWPI, The University of Manchester.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)


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

    Cited by:

    1. D’Ostie-Racine, Léna & Dagenais, Christian & Ridde, Valéry, 2013. "An evaluability assessment of a West Africa based Non-Governmental Organization's (NGO) progressive evaluation strategy," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, pages 71-79.
    2. 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.


    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:34:y:2011:i:3:p:303-315. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Dana Niculescu). General contact details of provider: .

    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 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.