IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/epplan/v52y2015icp107-117.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Can a workbook work? Examining whether a practitioner evaluation toolkit can promote instrumental use

Author

Listed:
  • Campbell, Rebecca
  • Townsend, Stephanie M.
  • Shaw, Jessica
  • Karim, Nidal
  • Markowitz, Jenifer

Abstract

In large-scale, multi-site contexts, developing and disseminating practitioner-oriented evaluation toolkits are an increasingly common strategy for building evaluation capacity. Toolkits explain the evaluation process, present evaluation design choices, and offer step-by-step guidance to practitioners. To date, there has been limited research on whether such resources truly foster the successful design, implementation, and use of evaluation findings. In this paper, we describe a multi-site project in which we developed a practitioner evaluation toolkit and then studied the extent to which the toolkit and accompanying technical assistance was effective in promoting successful completion of local-level evaluations and fostering instrumental use of the findings (i.e., whether programs directly used their findings to improve practice, see Patton, 2008). Forensic nurse practitioners from six geographically dispersed service programs completed methodologically rigorous evaluations; furthermore, all six programs used the findings to create programmatic and community-level changes to improve local practice. Implications for evaluation capacity building are discussed.

Suggested Citation

  • Campbell, Rebecca & Townsend, Stephanie M. & Shaw, Jessica & Karim, Nidal & Markowitz, Jenifer, 2015. "Can a workbook work? Examining whether a practitioner evaluation toolkit can promote instrumental use," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 52(C), pages 107-117.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:epplan:v:52:y:2015:i:c:p:107-117
    DOI: 10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2015.04.005
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0149718915000506
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2015.04.005?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. Burford, Gemma & Velasco, Ismael & Janoušková, Svatava & Zahradnik, Martin & Hak, Tomas & Podger, Dimity & Piggot, Georgia & Harder, Marie K., 2013. "Field trials of a novel toolkit for evaluating ‘intangible’ values-related dimensions of projects," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 36(1), pages 1-14.
    2. Wandersman, Abraham & Imm, Pamela & Chinman, Matthew & Kaftarian, Shakeh, 2000. "Getting to outcomes: a results-based approach to accountability," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 23(3), pages 389-395, August.
    3. Patton, Michael Quinn & Horton, Douglas, 2008. "Utilization-focused evaluation for agricultural innovation," ILAC Briefs 52533, Institutional Learning and Change (ILAC) Initiative.
    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. Rorrer, Audrey S., 2016. "An evaluation capacity building toolkit for principal investigators of undergraduate research experiences: A demonstration of transforming theory into practice," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 55(C), pages 103-111.

    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. Daigneault, Pierre-Marc, 2014. "Taking stock of four decades of quantitative research on stakeholder participation and evaluation use: A systematic map," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 45(C), pages 171-181.
    2. Lifshitz, Chen Chana, 2017. "Fostering employability among youth at-risk in a multi-cultural context: Insights from a pilot intervention program," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 76(C), pages 20-34.
    3. 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.
    4. LaVelle, John M. & Davies, Randall, 2021. "Seeking consensus: Defining foundational concepts for a graduate level introductory program evaluation course," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 88(C).
    5. Melz, Heidi & Fromknecht, Anne E. & Masters, Loren D. & Richards, Tammy & Sun, Jing, 2023. "Incorporating multiple data sources to assess changes in organizational capacity in child welfare systems," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 97(C).
    6. Gemma Burford & Elona Hoover & Ismael Velasco & Svatava Janoušková & Alicia Jimenez & Georgia Piggot & Dimity Podger & Marie K. Harder, 2013. "Bringing the “Missing Pillar” into Sustainable Development Goals: Towards Intersubjective Values-Based Indicators," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 5(7), pages 1-25, July.
    7. Wingate, Lori A. & Smith, Nick L. & Perk, Emma, 2018. "The project vita: A dynamic knowledge management tool," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 71(C), pages 22-27.
    8. Landry Signé, 2017. "Public service delivery – What matters for successful implementation and what can policy leaders do?," Research papers & Policy papers 1705, Policy Center for the New South.
    9. Metta, Matteo & Ciliberti, Stefano & Obi, Chinedu & Bartolini, Fabio & Klerkx, Laurens & Brunori, Gianluca, 2022. "An integrated socio-cyber-physical system framework to assess responsible digitalisation in agriculture: A first application with Living Labs in Europe," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 203(C).
    10. Albers, Bianca & Mildon, Robyn & Lyon, Aaron R. & Shlonsky, Aron, 2017. "Implementation frameworks in child, youth and family services – Results from a scoping review," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 81(C), pages 101-116.
    11. Arbour, Ghislain, 2020. "Teaching programme evaluation: A problem of knowledge," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 83(C).
    12. Jan Činčera & Grzegorz Mikusiński & Bohuslav Binka & Luis Calafate & Cristina Calheiros & Alexandra Cardoso & Marcus Hedblom & Michael Jones & Alex Koutsouris & Clara Vasconcelos & Katarzyna Iwińska, 2019. "Managing Diversity: The Challenges of Inter-University Cooperation in Sustainability Education," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(20), pages 1-16, October.
    13. Picciotto, Robert, 2019. "Is evaluation obsolete in a post-truth world?," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 88-96.
    14. Kupiec, Tomasz, 2022. "Does evaluation quality matter? Quantitative analysis of the use of evaluation findings in the field of cohesion policy in Poland," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 93(C).
    15. Barbee, Anita P. & Christensen, Dana & Antle, Becky & Wandersman, Abraham & Cahn, Katharine, 2011. "Successful adoption and implementation of a comprehensive casework practice model in a public child welfare agency: Application of the Getting to Outcomes (GTO) model," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 33(5), pages 622-633, May.
    16. Gullickson, Amy M. & King, Jean A. & LaVelle, John M. & Clinton, Janet M., 2019. "The current state of evaluator education: A situation analysis and call to action," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 75(C), pages 20-30.
    17. Harman, Elena & Azzam, Tarek, 2018. "Incorporating public values into evaluative criteria: Using crowdsourcing to identify criteria and standards," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 71(C), pages 68-82.
    18. Pleasant, Andrew & O’Leary, Catina & Carmona, Richard H., 2020. "Using formative research to tailor a community intervention focused on the prevention of chronic disease," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 78(C).
    19. Bean, Corliss N. & Kendellen, Kelsey & Halsall, Tanya & Forneris, Tanya, 2015. "Putting program evaluation into practice: Enhancing the Girls Just Wanna Have Fun program," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 49(C), pages 31-40.
    20. Purkus, Alexandra & Lüdtke, Jan, 2020. "A systemic evaluation framework for a multi-actor, forest-based bioeconomy governance process: The German Charter for Wood 2.0 as a case study," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 113(C).

    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:52:y:2015:i:c:p:107-117. 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.