The importance of Outcome evaluation endeavors cannot be overemphasized. It is sometimes done for explorative reasons and at other times for tactical, strategic, symbolic, or constitutive reasons (Laursen et al., 2017). Chen (2015) mentions four approaches to outcome evaluation, i.e., conclusive and constructive process evaluations, and also, constructive and conclusive outcome evaluations. The author adds a fifth, which is hybrid evaluations (Conclusive/constructive) derived from the first four basic types. The experimentation evaluation approach in the form of randomized control trials has historically favored the Conclusive approach as a means to evaluate outcomes. However, Chen (2015), “in the holistic effectuality evaluation approach, argues that real-world outcome evaluation should be a hybrid.”
The key reason for this is owing to the inherent challenges of performing RCTs in real-world programs. Chen (2015) argues that performing controlled trials in real-world situations can be costly and sometimes unethical. Furthermore, experimental approaches place prime importance on internal validity, which is near impossible to achieve amid the real-world messiness. This is not the case with the holistic effectuality evaluation approach because it first conducts a constructive evaluation which enhances a program's coherence so they can later carry out a fruitful conclusive evaluation. The conclusive approach, if used as a standalone in real-world programs, would use adjuvants, which usually constitute threats to internal validity 9Wright et al., 2020).
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Cohn et al. (2013), in their research study, evaluated the outcomes of a new school lunch program in reducing obesity. The researchers used a holistic effectuality evaluation approach for this evaluation, rather than an experimental approach; from the results, it is clear that process plays a significant role in shaping real-world outcomes; that is, the researchers showed that a new lunch program could not be effective in reducing obesity if there are flaws in the quality, preparation, and presentation which affect the satisfaction. Teater (2010), In a separate study evaluating the effectiveness of the Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) program, showed that the conclusive approach used was ineffective since it did not include a constructive side to it in the program. The same is true for Devita et al.'s (2017) study on nipple-sparing mastectomy surgery.
References
Chen, H. T. (2015). Practical program evaluation: Theory-driven evaluation and the integrated evaluation perspective . Sage Publications.
Cohn, D. J., Pickering, R., & Chin, N. P. (2013). Is lunch still gross? A qualitative evaluation of a new school lunch program. ICAN: Infant, Child, & Adolescent Nutrition , 5 (6), 383-392.
De Vita, R., Zoccali, G., Buccheri, E. M., Costantini, M., Botti, C., & Pozzi, M. (2017). Outcome evaluation after 2023 nipple-sparing mastectomies: our experience. Plastic and reconstructive surgery , 139 (2), 335e-347e.
Lau rsen, M., Svejvig, P., & Rode, A. L. G. (2017). Four approaches to project evaluation. In 24th Nordic Academy of Management Conference .\
Teater, B. A. (2011). A qualitative evaluation of the Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher program: The recipients’ perspectives. Qualitative Social Work , 10 (4), 503-519.
Wright, P. J., Pinto, B. M., & Corbett, C. F. (2020). Balancing Internal and External Validity Using Precis-2 and Re-Aim: Case Exemplars. Western Journal of Nursing Research , 0193945920940308.
