2020 年罗西奖讲座:不断发展的计划评估艺术。

IF 3 4区 社会学 Q1 SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY
Evaluation Review Pub Date : 2023-04-01 Epub Date: 2022-08-29 DOI:10.1177/0193841X221121241
Randall S Brown
{"title":"2020 年罗西奖讲座:不断发展的计划评估艺术。","authors":"Randall S Brown","doi":"10.1177/0193841X221121241","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Evaluation of public programs has undergone many changes over the past four decades since Peter Rossi coined his \"Iron Law\" of program evaluation: \"The expected value of any net impact assessment of any large-scale social program is zero.\" While that assessment may be somewhat overstated, the essence still holds. The failures far outnumber the successes, and the estimated favorable effects are rarely sizeable. Despite this grim assessment, much can be learned from \"failed\" experiments, and from ones that are successful in only some sites or subgroups. Advances in study design, statistical models, data, and how inferences are drawn from estimates have substantially improved our analyses and will continue to do so. However, the most actual learning about \"what works\" (and why, when, and where) is likely to come from gathering more detailed and comprehensive data on how the intervention was implemented and attempting to link that data to estimated impacts. Researchers need detailed data on the target population served, the content of the intervention, and the process by which it is delivered to participating service providers and individuals. Two examples presented here illustrate how researchers drew useful broader lessons from impact estimates for a set of related programs. Rossi posited three reasons most interventions fail-wrong question, wrong intervention, poor implementation. Speeding the accumulation of wisdom about how social programs can best help vulnerable populations will require that researchers work closely with program funders, developers, operators, and participants to gather and interpret these detailed data about program implementation.</p>","PeriodicalId":47533,"journal":{"name":"Evaluation Review","volume":"47 2","pages":"209-230"},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"2020 Rossi Award Lecture: The Evolving Art of Program Evaluation.\",\"authors\":\"Randall S Brown\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/0193841X221121241\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Evaluation of public programs has undergone many changes over the past four decades since Peter Rossi coined his \\\"Iron Law\\\" of program evaluation: \\\"The expected value of any net impact assessment of any large-scale social program is zero.\\\" While that assessment may be somewhat overstated, the essence still holds. The failures far outnumber the successes, and the estimated favorable effects are rarely sizeable. Despite this grim assessment, much can be learned from \\\"failed\\\" experiments, and from ones that are successful in only some sites or subgroups. Advances in study design, statistical models, data, and how inferences are drawn from estimates have substantially improved our analyses and will continue to do so. However, the most actual learning about \\\"what works\\\" (and why, when, and where) is likely to come from gathering more detailed and comprehensive data on how the intervention was implemented and attempting to link that data to estimated impacts. Researchers need detailed data on the target population served, the content of the intervention, and the process by which it is delivered to participating service providers and individuals. Two examples presented here illustrate how researchers drew useful broader lessons from impact estimates for a set of related programs. Rossi posited three reasons most interventions fail-wrong question, wrong intervention, poor implementation. Speeding the accumulation of wisdom about how social programs can best help vulnerable populations will require that researchers work closely with program funders, developers, operators, and participants to gather and interpret these detailed data about program implementation.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":47533,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Evaluation Review\",\"volume\":\"47 2\",\"pages\":\"209-230\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-04-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Evaluation Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/0193841X221121241\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2022/8/29 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Evaluation Review","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/0193841X221121241","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2022/8/29 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

自彼得-罗西(Peter Rossi)提出项目评估的 "铁律 "以来,公共项目评估在过去 40 年中经历了许多变化:"对任何大型社会项目进行净影响评估的预期价值为零"。虽然这一评价可能有些言过其实,但其本质仍然成立。失败的案例远远多于成功的案例,而且估计的有利影响也很少是可观的。尽管评估结果不容乐观,但从 "失败 "的实验中,以及从仅在部分地点或亚群体中取得成功的实验中,我们还是可以学到很多东西。研究设计、统计模型、数据以及如何从估算结果中得出推论等方面的进步极大地改进了我们的分析,并将继续这样做。然而,关于 "什么是有效的"(以及为什么有效、何时有效、在哪里有效)的最实际的了解可能来自于收集关于干预措施实施方式的更详细、更全面的数据,并尝试将这些数据与估计的影响联系起来。研究人员需要关于服务目标人群、干预内容以及向参与的服务提供者和个人提供干预的过程的详细数据。这里介绍的两个例子说明了研究人员如何从一系列相关项目的影响评估中吸取更广泛的有用经验。罗西提出了大多数干预措施失败的三个原因--问题错误、干预措施错误、实施不力。要加快积累关于社会项目如何才能最好地帮助弱势群体的智慧,就需要研究人员与项目资助者、开发者、运营者和参与者密切合作,收集并解释这些有关项目实施的详细数据。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
2020 Rossi Award Lecture: The Evolving Art of Program Evaluation.

Evaluation of public programs has undergone many changes over the past four decades since Peter Rossi coined his "Iron Law" of program evaluation: "The expected value of any net impact assessment of any large-scale social program is zero." While that assessment may be somewhat overstated, the essence still holds. The failures far outnumber the successes, and the estimated favorable effects are rarely sizeable. Despite this grim assessment, much can be learned from "failed" experiments, and from ones that are successful in only some sites or subgroups. Advances in study design, statistical models, data, and how inferences are drawn from estimates have substantially improved our analyses and will continue to do so. However, the most actual learning about "what works" (and why, when, and where) is likely to come from gathering more detailed and comprehensive data on how the intervention was implemented and attempting to link that data to estimated impacts. Researchers need detailed data on the target population served, the content of the intervention, and the process by which it is delivered to participating service providers and individuals. Two examples presented here illustrate how researchers drew useful broader lessons from impact estimates for a set of related programs. Rossi posited three reasons most interventions fail-wrong question, wrong intervention, poor implementation. Speeding the accumulation of wisdom about how social programs can best help vulnerable populations will require that researchers work closely with program funders, developers, operators, and participants to gather and interpret these detailed data about program implementation.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Evaluation Review
Evaluation Review SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY-
CiteScore
2.90
自引率
11.10%
发文量
80
期刊介绍: Evaluation Review is the forum for researchers, planners, and policy makers engaged in the development, implementation, and utilization of studies aimed at the betterment of the human condition. The Editors invite submission of papers reporting the findings of evaluation studies in such fields as child development, health, education, income security, manpower, mental health, criminal justice, and the physical and social environments. In addition, Evaluation Review will contain articles on methodological developments, discussions of the state of the art, and commentaries on issues related to the application of research results. Special features will include periodic review essays, "research briefs", and "craft reports".
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信