Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Click here to sign up for SAGE Journal Email Alerts today!

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Evaluation Review
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Orwin, R. G.
Right arrow Articles by Perl, H. I.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Orwin, R. G.
Right arrow Articles by Perl, H. I.
Right arrowPubmed/NCBI databases
Medline Plus Health Information
*Alcoholism
*Drug Abuse
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Constructing Quantitative Implementation Scales From Categorical Services Data

Examples From a Multisite Evaluation

Robert G. Orwin

R.O.W. Sciences, Inc.

L. Joseph Sonnefeld

R.O.W. Sciences, Inc.

David S. Cordray

Vanderbilt University

Georgine M. Pion

Vanderbilt University

Harold I. Perl

National Institute of Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism

Like measures of outcome, measures of implementation are most useful and analytically powerful when measured at client-level and are quantitative. However, high-quality, individual-level, quantitative service utilization data can be expensive, intrusive, or otherwise impractical to obtain. Cruder data—for example, presence versus absence of a given service—are often more feasible to collect, as well as more likely to be available. Consequently, evaluators can benefit by finding ways to better exploit such data at the analysis phase to compensate for shortcomings at the collection phase. This article documents one such instance in which this was done. Specifically, it describes how quantitative, client-level implementation scales were derived from qualitative (categorical) data and used to support a cross-site synthesis of implementation and outcome analyses in a multisite evaluation. It also suggests additional scenarios in which quantitative implementation scales might be derived form qualitative services data.

Evaluation Review, Vol. 22, No. 2, 245-288 (1998)
DOI: 10.1177/0193841X9802200204


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
American Journal of EvaluationHome page
M. C. Barth
A Low-Cost, Post Hoc Method to Rate Overall Site Quality in a Multi-Site Demonstration
American Journal of Evaluation, March 1, 2004; 25(1): 79 - 97.
[Abstract] [PDF]


Home page
American Journal of EvaluationHome page
M. M. Mark, G. T. Henry, and G. Julnes
Toward an Integrative Framework for Evaluation Practice
American Journal of Evaluation, June 1, 1999; 20(2): 177 - 198.
[Abstract] [PDF]