Page 196 - Encyclopedia of Nursing Research

EVALUATiON n 163

inside the culture (emic view) rather than same level of attention given to any research
from the positions of outsiders (etic view). method.
Participant observation and informant inter- Evaluations serve one of three purposes: E
viewing are the major data collection strat- (1) to conceptualize and design interven-
egies used during ethnographic fieldwork. tions, (2) to monitor implementation of some
The specific ethnographic tradition used by intervention, or (3) to assess the utility of
the investigator determines the appropriate some action. in the first type of evaluation,
form of the ethnographic product. studies focus on (a) the extent of the prob-
lem needing intervention, (b) who should
Toni Tripp-Reimer be involved in or targeted for the interven-
Stacie Salsbury Lyons tion, (c) whether the intervention proposed
Bernard Sorofman will address the problem or the needs of
Jimmy Reyes individuals, and (d) whether the chance for
successful outcome has been maximized. in
the second type of evaluation, studies focus
on what is done; they generally are referred
Evaluation to as process evaluation studies. These stud-
ies also determine whether the interven-
tion is reaching the targeted population
Evaluation is a method for measuring the and whether what is done is consistent with
effect of some purposeful action on a par- what was intended. Process evaluations are
ticular situation. it is often described as an essential for determining cause and effect,
assessment of worth. in evaluation, both although they are not sufficient by them-
anticipated and unanticipated outcomes are selves for measuring impact. That is where
important and are included in the discussion evaluation researchers often get into trouble.
of findings and the publication of results. They stop collecting data once they describe
The purpose of evaluation is to provide what was done; therefore, process evaluation
information for decision makers who usu- methods have tended to be viewed with dis-
ally have some stake in the outcome of the favor, which is unfortunate. Although they
intervention. are insufficient by themselves, they are abso-
Evaluation methods have been catego- lutely necessary for determining whether the
rized along a continuum ranging from sim- intervention caused the outcome and if so,
ple assessment, in which informal practices how—and if not, why not. in the third type,
are used to look for indication of outcome, studies determine both the degree to which
to evaluation research, in which research an intervention has an impact and the benefit
methods are used to allow for generalization of the intervention in relation to the cost. The
to other comparable situations. in actuality, degree of impact is referred to as the inter-
the use of informal practices for determin- vention’s effectiveness, and the degree of cost
ing intervention outcome is never appropri- is referred to as its efficiency.
ate. Consequently, the term evaluation should Recent writings on evaluation focus on
suffice for all efforts in which a systematic the need for theory to guide the investigation
process is used to determine the effect of and frame the results. Authors have identi-
some intervention on some anticipated out- fied theories that range from those targeted
come. The research component of the term solely for the purposes of designing evalua-
is assumed. No matter what the purpose of tions to those directed at the expected rela-
the evaluation, the issue of rigor is always tionships between intervention and outcome.
foremost, and the methods and measure- For example, behavioral theories often are
ment approaches used should involve the used to develop interventions targeted at