Process evaluation: the new miracle ingredient in public health research?
Process evaluation: the new miracle ingredient in public health research?
复制标题
DOI：
10.1177/1468794110380522
复制
发表时间：
2010-12-01
影响因子：
3.6
通讯作者：
Bloor, Michael
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Munro, Alison;Bloor, Michael
公共卫生研究中的良好评估实践已等同于在“结果评估”的同时纳入混合方法的“过程评估”，以收集有关干预措施有效或无效的方式及原因的数据。虽然在随机对照试验中纳入过程评估是值得欢迎的，但存在一种被过度夸大的危险。一项对学校健康促进干预措施失败的评估数据说明了过程评估的问题所在。过程评估数据（旨在“解释”结果评估结果）必须在通常可获得结果评估结果之前收集：无法总是从先前的过程数据中令人满意地解决意外结果。此外，定性过程数据从特定情况归纳得出一般性推论，因此这些推论的普遍性是不确定的：定性数据可以加深我们对定量数据的理解，但两类数据的可比性仍然存在问题。
Good evaluation practice in public health research has become equated with the inclusion of a mixed-methods 'process evaluation' alongside an 'outcome evaluation' to gather data on how and why interventions are effective or ineffective. While the incorporation of process evaluations in randomized controlled trials is to be welcomed, there is a danger that they are being oversold. The problematic position of process evaluations is illustrated by data from an evaluation of an unsuccessful schools health promotion intervention. The process evaluation data (designed to 'explain' the outcome evaluation results) must be collected before the outcome evaluation results are typically available: unanticipated outcomes cannot always be addressed satisfactorily from prior process data. Further, qualitative process data draw inductively general inferences from particular circumstances and the generalizability of those inferences is therefore uncertain: qualitative data can deepen our understanding of quantitative data, but the commensurability of the two classes of data remains problematic.