This chapter posits two principal streams of participatory evaluation, practical participatory evaluation and transformative participatory evaluation, and compares them on a set of dimensions relating to control, level, and range of participation. The authors then situute them among other forms of collaborative evaluations.Framing Participatory Evaluation J. Bradley Cousins, Elizabeth Whitmore Forms and applications of collaborative research and inquiry are emerging at an astounding pace. For example, a bibliography of published works on participatory research in the health-promotion sector listed close to five hundred titles (Green and others, 1995), with some items dating back as early as the late 1940s. The vast majority, however, have surfaced since the mid-1970s. In the evaluation field, one label that is being used with increasing frequency as a descriptor of collaborative work is participatory evaluation (PE). The term, however, is used quite differently by different people. For some it implies a practical approach to broadening decision making and problem solving through systematic inquiry; for others, reallocating power in the production of knowledge and promoting social change are the root issues.The purpose of this chapter is to explore the meanings of PE through the identification and explication of key conceptual dimensions. We are persuaded of the existence of two principal streams of participatory evaluation, streams that loosely correspond to pragmatic and emancipatory functions. After describing these streams, we present a framework for differentiating among forms of collaborative inquiry and apply it as a way to (1) compare the two streams of participatory evaluation and (2) situate them among other forms of collaborative evaluation and collaborative inquiry We conclude with a set of questions confronted by those with an interest in participatory evaluation.

Objective To evaluate the efficacy and safety of osmotic-release methylphenidate (OROS-MPH) compared to placebo for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and impact on substance treatment outcomes in adolescents concurrently receiving cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) for substance use disorders (SUD). Method 16-week randomized controlled multi-site trial of OROS-MPH + CBT versus placebo + CBT in 303 adolescents (aged 13-18), meeting DSM-IV diagnostic criteria for ADHD and SUD. Primary outcomes: (1) ADHD- clinician-administered ADHD Rating Scale (ADHD-RS), adolescent informant; (2) Substance- adolescent reported days of use in the past 28 days. Secondary outcome measures included parent ADHD-RS and weekly urine drug screens (UDS). Results There were no group differences on reduction in ADHD-RS scores (OROS-MPH: −19.2, 95% confidence interval [CI], −17.1 to −21.2; placebo,−21.2, 95% CI, −19.1 to −23.2) or reduction in days of substance use (OROS-MPH: −5.7 days, 95% CI, 4.0-7.4; placebo: −5.2 days, 95% CI, 3.5-7.0). Some secondary outcomes favored OROS-MPH including lower parent ADHD-RS scores at 8 (mean difference [md]=4.4, 95% CI, 0.8-7.9) and 16 weeks (md=6.9; 95% CI, 2.9-10.9) and more negative UDS in OROS-MPH (mean=3.8) compared to placebo (mean=2.8; P=0.04). Conclusions OROS-MPH did not show greater efficacy than placebo for ADHD or on reduction in substance use in adolescents concurrently receiving individual CBT for co-occurring SUD. However, OROS-MPH was relatively well tolerated and was associated with modestly greater clinical improvement on some secondary ADHD and substance outcome measures.

No abstract

This article introduces a set of evidence-based principles to guide evaluation practice in contexts where evaluation knowledge is collaboratively produced by evaluators and stakeholders. The data from this study evolved in four phases: two pilot phases exploring the desirability of developing a set of principles; an online questionnaire survey that drew on the expertise of 320 practicing evaluators to identify dimensions, factors or characteristics that enhance or impede success in collaborative approaches in evaluation (CAE); and finally a validation phase involving a subsample of 58 evaluators who participated in the main phase. The principles introduced here stem from the experiences of evaluators who have engaged in CAE in a wide variety of evaluation settings and contexts and the lessons they have learned. They are understood to be interconnected and loosely temporally ordered. We expect the principles to evolve over time, as evaluators learn more about collaborative approaches in context. With this in mind, we pose questions for consideration to stimulate further inquiry.

In this article, we critique two recent theoretical developments about collaborative inquiry in evaluation-using logic models as a means to understand theory, and efforts to compartmentalize versions of collaborative inquiry into discrete genres-as a basis for considering future direction for the field. We argue that collaborative inquiry in evaluation is about relationships between trained evaluation specialists and nonevaluator stakeholders (i.e., members of the program community, intended program beneficiaries, or other persons with an interest in the program) and that practice should, in the first instance, be sensitive to stakeholder interests and context, and it should be principle-driven.

There are several strategies that nursing homes and local health authorities can adopt to promote advance care planning and build better support systems between the two sectors, thereby reducing the numbers of residents who need to be transferred to hospital for their health care.

A continuum model of practice is proposed that describes four broad approaches to practice under the domains of initiation, scope, follow-up and documentation of ACP as well as the organisational leadership adopted around ACP.

This chapter is the fruit of discussions among several evaluators with feminist inclinations. The authors explore numerous ideas or guidelines pertinent to feminist inquiry and begin the conversation that continues throughout this volume.