IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/epplan/v94y2022ics0149718922000775.html

Representing the values of program participants: Endogenous evaluative criteria

Author

Listed:
  • Teasdale, Rebecca M.

Abstract

Evaluative conclusions are grounded in implicit and explicit criteria that describe a successful or high-quality intervention. Most often, evaluative criteria are drawn from program objectives that reflect the values and priorities of program designers and funders. Yet, an exclusive focus on program goals risks overlooking the values of program participants, the extent to which their actual needs and priorities are addressed, and, in certain types of programs, the choices participants make and agency they exercise. This article presents concepts and methods to guide evaluators in drawing some of the criteria used in an evaluation from program participants. The article outlines a typology of evaluative criteria and seven methods for drawing outcomes-focused criteria from program participants. The article concludes with a discussion of implications and future directions for research and practice.

Suggested Citation

  • Teasdale, Rebecca M., 2022. "Representing the values of program participants: Endogenous evaluative criteria," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 94(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:epplan:v:94:y:2022:i:c:s0149718922000775
    DOI: 10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2022.102123
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0149718922000775
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2022.102123?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

    for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. 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.
    2. Sridharan, Sanjeev & Nakaima, April, 2020. "Valuing and embracing complexity: How an understanding of complex interventions needs to shape our evaluation capacities building initiatives," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 80(C).
    3. Schalock, Robert L. & Bonham, Gordon S. & Marchand, Cristine B., 2000. "Consumer based quality of life assessment: a path model of perceived satisfaction," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 23(1), pages 77-87, February.
    4. Onken, Steven J., 2018. "Mental health consumer concept mapping of supportive community," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 71(C), pages 36-45.
    5. Dickinson, Pauline & Adams, Jeffery, 2017. "Values in evaluation – The use of rubrics," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 65(C), pages 113-116.
    6. 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.
    7. Richard F. Catalano & M. Lisa Berglund & Jean A. M. Ryan & Heather S. Lonczak & J. David Hawkins, 2004. "Positive Youth Development in the United States: Research Findings on Evaluations of Positive Youth Development Programs," The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, , vol. 591(1), pages 98-124, January.
    8. Abraham, Traci H. & Deen, Tisha L. & Hamilton, Michelle & True, Gala & O’Neil, Marie T. & Blanchard, Jessica & Uddo, Madeline, 2020. "Analyzing free-text survey responses: An accessible strategy for developing patient-centered programs and program evaluation," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 78(C).
    9. James S. Dyer & Rakesh K. Sarin, 1979. "Group Preference Aggregation Rules Based on Strength of Preference," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 25(9), pages 822-832, September.
    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. Contreras, I. & Marmol, A.M., 2007. "A lexicographical compromise method for multiple criteria group decision problems with imprecise information," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 181(3), pages 1530-1539, September.
    2. Tingyin Wong & Daniel T. L. Shek, 2025. "Meaning-Focused Coping in University Students in Hong Kong During the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Qualitative Study," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 22(4), pages 1-30, April.
    3. Manel Baucells & Rakesh K. Sarin, 2003. "Group Decisions with Multiple Criteria," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 49(8), pages 1105-1118, August.
    4. Ngwenyama, Ojelanki K. & Bryson, Noel, 1999. "Eliciting and mapping qualitative preferences to numeric rankings in group decision making," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 116(3), pages 487-497, August.
    5. 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.
    6. Jennifer Hanratty & Sarah Miller & Leonor Rodriguez & Paul Connolly & Jennifer Roberts & Seaneen Sloan & Aoibheann Brennan‐Wilson & Daragh Bradshaw & Christopher Coughlan & Nicole Gleghorne & Laura Du, 2023. "UPDATED PROTOCOL: Universal school‐based programmes for improving social and emotional outcomes in children aged 3–11 years: An evidence and gap map," Campbell Systematic Reviews, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 19(3), September.
    7. 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.
    8. 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.
    9. Yanling Geng & Longtao He, 2022. "Gender Differences in Children’s Psychological Well-Being in Mainland China: Risk and Protective Factors," Applied Research in Quality of Life, Springer;International Society for Quality-of-Life Studies, vol. 17(5), pages 2743-2763, October.
    10. Andrew R. Kamwendo & Mandusha Maharaj, 2022. "The Preferences of Consumers When Selecting Clothing Detergent Products," International Review of Management and Marketing, Econjournals, vol. 12(6), pages 23-36, November.
    11. Fujun Hou, 2015. "A Consensus Gap Indicator and Its Application to Group Decision Making," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 24(3), pages 415-428, May.
    12. Ali E. Abbas, 2006. "Maximum Entropy Utility," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 54(2), pages 277-290, April.
    13. Senter, Morgan & Clifford, Amanda M. & Bhriain, Orfhlaith Ni, 2024. "Using theory knitting to conceptualize social phenomena in the design and evaluation of dance programs for people living with Parkinson’s disease," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 104(C).
    14. Kazak Jan K. & Simeunović Nataša & Hendricks Andreas, 2019. "Hidden Public Value Identification of Real Estate Management Decisions," Real Estate Management and Valuation, Sciendo, vol. 27(4), pages 96-104, December.
    15. Dillman, Lisa M., 2013. "Comparing evaluation activities across multiple theories of practice," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 53-60.
    16. Tingyin Wong & Daniel T. L. Shek, 2025. "Stress and Coping Strategies of Hong Kong University Students During the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Qualitative Study," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 22(9), pages 1-30, August.
    17. Melina A. Throuvala & Mark D. Griffiths & Mike Rennoldson & Daria J. Kuss, 2021. "Policy Recommendations for Preventing Problematic Internet Use in Schools: A Qualitative Study of Parental Perspectives," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(9), pages 1-23, April.
    18. Lu Yu & Mingyue Gu & Ko Ling Chan, 2023. "Hong Kong Adolescents’ Participation in Political Activities: Correlates of Violent Political Participation," Applied Research in Quality of Life, Springer;International Society for Quality-of-Life Studies, vol. 18(3), pages 1365-1405, June.
    19. 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.
    20. 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.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:94:y:2022:i:c:s0149718922000775. 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.