IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/h/elg/eechap/14384_6.html
   My bibliography  Save this book chapter

Logic modeling: a tool for designing program evaluations

In: Handbook on the Theory and Practice of Program Evaluation

Author

Listed:
  • Gretchen B. Jordan

Abstract

As this volume demonstrates, a wide variety of methodologies exist to evaluate particularly the objectives and outcomes of research and development programs. These include surveys, statistical and econometric estimations, patent analyses, bibliometrics, scientometrics, network analyses, case studies, and historical tracings. Contributors divide these and other methods and applications into four categories – economic, non-economic, hybrid and data-driven – in order to discuss the many factors that affect the utility of each technique and how that impacts the technological, economic and societal forecasts of the programs in question.

Suggested Citation

  • Gretchen B. Jordan, 2013. "Logic modeling: a tool for designing program evaluations," Chapters, in: Albert N. Link & Nicholas S. Vonortas (ed.), Handbook on the Theory and Practice of Program Evaluation, chapter 6, pages 143-165, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    • Handle: RePEc:elg:eechap:14384_6
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.elgaronline.com/view/9780857932396.00012.xml
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Gretchen B Jordan, 2010. "A theory-based logic model for innovation policy and evaluation," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 19(4), pages 263-273, October.
    2. Gregory Tassey, 2007. "The Technology Imperative," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 4229.
    3. 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, vol. 24(2), pages 119-128, May.
    4. 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.
    5. John H Reed & Gretchen Jordan, 2007. "Using systems theory and logic models to define integrated outcomes and performance measures in multi-program settings," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 16(3), pages 169-181, 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. 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. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. McLinden, Daniel, 2017. "And then the internet happened: Thoughts on the future of concept mapping," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 60(C), pages 293-300.
    5. Lenihan, Helena, 2011. "Enterprise policy evaluation: Is there a 'new' way of doing it?," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 34(4), pages 323-332, November.
    6. 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.
    7. Gregory Tassey, 2007. "Tax incentives for innovation: time to restructure the R&E tax credit," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 32(6), pages 605-615, December.
    8. 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.
    9. Tylecote, Andrew, 2019. "Biotechnology as a new techno-economic paradigm that will help drive the world economy and mitigate climate change," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(4), pages 858-868.
    10. 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.
    11. Wifo, 2021. "WIFO-Monatsberichte, Heft 10/2021," WIFO Monatsberichte (monthly reports), WIFO, vol. 94(10), October.
    12. 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.
    13. 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.
    14. 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.
    15. Jürgen Janger & Agnes Kügler, 2018. "Innovationseffizienz. Österreich im internationalen Vergleich," WIFO Studies, WIFO, number 61111.
    16. 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.
    17. Fangyuan Chang & Andrea Eriksson & Britt Östlund, 2020. "Discrepancies between Expected and Actual Implementation: The Process Evaluation of PERS Integration in Nursing Homes," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(12), pages 1-18, June.
    18. Barbero, Javier & Zabala-Iturriagagoitia, Jon Mikel & Zofío, José L., 2021. "Is more always better? On the relevance of decreasing returns to scale on innovation," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 107(C).
    19. Louise R. Manfredi & Meriel Stokoe & Rebecca Kelly & Seyeon Lee, 2021. "Teaching Sustainable Responsibility through Informal Undergraduate Design Education," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(15), pages 1-13, July.
    20. Halima Jibril & Stephen Roper & Mark Hart, 2021. "COVID-19, business support and SME productivity in the UK," Working Papers 005, The Productivity Institute.

    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:elg:eechap:14384_6. 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: Darrel McCalla (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.e-elgar.com .

    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.