IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/epplan/v74y2019icp69-75.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Using logic model and visualization to conduct portfolio evaluation

Author

Listed:
  • Wu, Huang
  • Shen, Jianping
  • Jones, Jeffrey
  • Gao, Xingyuan
  • Zheng, Yunzheng
  • Krenn, Huilan Y.

Abstract

Portfolio evaluation is the evaluation of multiple projects with a common purpose. While logic models have been used in many ways to support evaluation, and data visualization has been used widely to present and communicate evaluation findings, adopting logic models for portfolio evaluation and using data visualization to share findings simultaneously is surprisingly limited in the literature. With the data from a sample portfolio of 209 projects which aims to improve the system of early care and education (ECE), this study illustrated how to use logic model and data visualization techniques to conduct a portfolio evaluation by answering two evaluation questions: “To what extent are the elements of a logic model (strategies, sub-strategies, activities, outcomes, and impacts) reflected in the sample portfolio?” and “Which dominant paths through the logic model were illuminated by the data visualization technique?” For the first question, the visualization technique illuminated several dominant strategies, sub-strategies, activities, and outcomes. For the second question, our visualization techniques made it convenient to identify critical paths through the logic model. Implications for both program evaluation and program planning were discussed.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:epplan:v:74:y:2019:i:c:p:69-75
    DOI: 10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2019.02.011
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0149718918302775
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2019.02.011?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. Hansen, Mark & Alkin, Marvin C. & Wallace, Tanner LeBaron, 2013. "Depicting the logic of three evaluation theories," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 34-43.
    2. Miller, Robin Lin, 2013. "Logic models: A useful way to study theories of evaluation practice?," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 77-80.
    3. Greene, Jennifer C., 2013. "Logic and evaluation theory," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 71-73.
    4. 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.
    5. Vo, Anne T., 2013. "Visualizing context through theory deconstruction: A content analysis of three bodies of evaluation theory literature," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 44-52.
    6. Dillman, Lisa M., 2013. "Comparing evaluation activities across multiple theories of practice," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 53-60.
    7. Schwerin, Michael J. & Michael, Paul G. & Glaser, Dale N. & Farrar, Kara L., 2002. "A cluster evaluation of Navy quality of life programs," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 25(3), pages 303-312, August.
    8. Luskin, Rebecca J.C. & Ho, Timothy, 2013. "Comparing the intended consequences of three theories of evaluation," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 61-66.
    9. 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.
    10. Gao, Xingyuan & Shen, Jianping & Wu, Huang & Krenn, Huilan Y., 2019. "Evaluating program effects: Conceptualizing and demonstrating a typology," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 72(C), pages 88-96.
    11. 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.
    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. Tavana, Madjid & Khosrojerdi, Ghasem & Mina, Hassan & Rahman, Amirah, 2019. "A hybrid mathematical programming model for optimal project portfolio selection using fuzzy inference system and analytic hierarchy process," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 77(C).

    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. Miller, Robin Lin, 2013. "Logic models: A useful way to study theories of evaluation practice?," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 77-80.
    2. Cousins, J. Bradley, 2013. "When does a conceptual framework become a theory? Reflections from an accidental theorist," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 67-70.
    3. Mark, Melvin M. & Henry, Gary T., 2013. "Logic models and content analyses for the explication of evaluation theories: The case of emergent realist evaluation," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 74-76.
    4. Hansen, Mark & Alkin, Marvin C. & Wallace, Tanner LeBaron, 2013. "Depicting the logic of three evaluation theories," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 34-43.
    5. Gargani, John, 2013. "What can practitioners learn from theorists’ logic models?," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 81-88.
    6. 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.
    7. Dillman, Lisa M., 2013. "Comparing evaluation activities across multiple theories of practice," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 53-60.
    8. 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.
    9. 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.
    10. 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.
    11. Tremblay, Marie-Claude & Brousselle, Astrid & Richard, Lucie & Beaudet, Nicole, 2013. "Defining, illustrating and reflecting on logic analysis with an example from a professional development program," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 40(C), pages 64-73.
    12. 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.
    13. 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.
    14. 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.
    15. Schalock, Robert L. & Lee, Tim & Verdugo, Miguel & Swart, Kees & Claes, Claudia & van Loon, Jos & Lee, Chun-Shin, 2014. "An evidence-based approach to organization evaluation and change in human service organizations evaluation and program planning," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 45(C), pages 110-118.
    16. 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.
    17. 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.
    18. 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.
    19. Jacobson, Miriam R. & Azzam, Tarek, 2018. "The effects of stakeholder involvement on perceptions of an evaluation’s credibility," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 64-73.
    20. Schalock, Robert L. & Verdugo, Miguel & Lee, Tim, 2016. "A systematic approach to an organization’s sustainability," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 56(C), pages 56-63.

    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:74:y:2019:i:c:p:69-75. 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.