|
Applying The Integrative Validity Model and the Bottom-Up Approach in the Case of Phase II of the Noyce Scholarship Program
|
| Presenter(s):
|
| David Urias, Drexel University, dau25@drexel.edu
|
| Sheila Vaidya, Drexel University, sheila.rao.vaidya@drexel.edu
|
| Abstract:
Using Drexel University's Phase II of the Noyce Scholarship Program as a case-study, this paper reports on research designed to improve the gap between intervention research and practice by illustrating the application of Chen's (2010) integrative validity model and bottom-up approach to validity. In the real-world, stakeholders organize and implement an intervention program. Thus, they have real viability concerns. Viability alone does not guarantee an intervention's efficacy or effectiveness, but in real-world settings, viability is essential for an intervention's overall success. In other words, irrespective of an intervention's efficacy or effectiveness, unless the intervention is practical, suitable for implementation, and acceptable to stakeholders and implementers, it has little chance of survival in a community. Our research answers the question how does one design and implement viable, effective, and generalizable real-world programs?
|
|
Emerging Strategies for Revitalizing Basic Evaluation Concepts: Recent Developments in Theory-Driven Evaluation
|
| Presenter(s):
|
| Huey Chen, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, hbc2@cdc.gov
|
| Abstract:
Recent developments in a new perspective that incorporates the integrative validity model and bottom-up approach from the theory-driven evaluation tradition (Chen, 2010, Chen and Garbe, 2011) provide evaluators with a realistic and useful way to address validity issues in outcome evaluation systematically. Due to its comprehensiveness and real-world orientation, this perspective has broad implications for advancing evaluation concepts and methods to better serve stakeholders' needs. This paper attempts to use insights provided by this new perspective to examine problems or controversies surrounding basic evaluation concepts and offer possible solutions. The discussion covers the following areas: the controversy of fidelity versus reinvention in process evaluation, problems with use of the traditional goal-attainment model to define evaluation scope, confusions on the concept of external validity issues, and problems with neglecting stakeholder theory-based interventions. Based on the discussion, strategies implied from the new perspective to address these problems are proposed and discussed systematically.
|
| |