Formative Evaluation: An Integrative Practice Model and Case Study

Brown, Kenneth G.; Gerhardt, Megan W.

doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.2002.tb00137.x

Cited by 72 publications

(69 citation statements)

References 48 publications

(50 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Langley, 2009;Pettigrew, Woodman, & Cameron, 2001) and training evaluation (e.g. Brown & Gerhardt, 2002), currently, the knowledge about the role of process and contextual variables influencing intervention success is rather embryonic (Egan, Bambra, Petticrew, & Whitehead, 2009;Murta, Sanderson, & Oldenburgh, 2007). Rather, researchers have mainly focused on understanding if, rather than how, when and why, interventions are effective in reducing the negative consequences of stress at work.…”

Section: Intervention Process Evaluationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Process evaluation for organizational stress and well-being interventions: Implications for theory, method, and practice.

Biron

Karanika‐Murray

2014

International Journal of Stress Management

129

116

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Although the body of evidence showing the effects of psychosocial risks on employees' health is substantial, effective and sustainable stress prevention remains a thorny and complex issue. Most studies have focused on evaluating the effects of organizational interventions, and the results are mixed. Researchers find the evaluation of such actions methodologically challenging whereas practitioners often find the development and implementation of such actions a complicated matter. One of the reasons for this mixed impact is the lack of attention to contextual and process issues, namely how, when, and why interventions have their effects on outcomes such as mental health, well-being, and organizational performance. This paper aims to help researchers and practitioners to improve the development, implementation, and evaluation of organizational initiatives designed to reduce exposure to stress, to promote well-being, and healthy organizations. We review recent developments in the literature on process evaluation and propose examples of broader theoretical frameworks that could be used to improve this area. We articulate the essential elements for developing and bridging gaps between theory, methods, and practice.Throughout, we provide recommendations for the content, process and reporting of research on IPE.Keywords: intervention process evaluation, context, organizational interventions, well-being, occupational stress INTERVENTION PROCESS EVALUATION 3Process evaluation for organizational stress and well-being interventions: Implications for theory, method, and practice Because of their focus on reducing or eliminating the stressful and harmful aspects in the workplace, organizational-level interventions have been thought to be more effective compared to individual-level initiatives which attempt to modify individuals' ability to cope with stress (Semmer, 2011). Several reviews (Briner & Reynolds, 1999;Graveling, Crawford, Cowie, Amati, & Vohra, 2008;Parkes & Sparkes, 1998;Richardson & Rothstein, 2008; Van der Klink, Blonk, Schene, & Van Dijk, 2001) have concluded that there is not sufficient empirical evidence to draw conclusions on the effectiveness of organizational-level interventions, and that the research designs that have been used are too varied or not considered sufficiently strong. This is worrying given the pervasiveness and costs of workrelated stress and the considerable resources that organizations invested to manage it. In 2010 an observation was made that "at present little real progress is being made in [stress] intervention research [and] we do not need 'more of the same'" (Cox et al., 2010, p. 217). The implementation of interventions at the organizational level is considerably more complex and requiring more extensive resources than interventions at the individual level. Nevertheless, and despite calls for the importance of understanding intervention implementation coming from a range of areas such as organizational studies (e.g. Langley, 2009;Pettigrew, Woodman, & Cameron, 2001) and ...

show abstract

Section: Intervention Process Evaluationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Process evaluation for organizational stress and well-being interventions: Implications for theory, method, and practice.

Biron

Karanika‐Murray

2014

International Journal of Stress Management

129

116

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…To address the difficulty inherent in coaching evaluation, our goal is to present a conceptual model of leadership coaching and to present a systematic framework to evaluate it. Researchers and practitioners generally differentiate between two types of evaluation, summative and formative (Brown & Gerhardt, 2002;Patton, 1994). Summative evaluations assess the effectiveness of completed interventions whereas formative evaluations are process oriented and focus on identifying areas for program improvement (Beyer, 1995;Bhola, 1990;Patton, 1994).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluating leadership coaching: A review and integrated framework

Ely

Boyce

Nelson

et al. 2010

The Leadership Quarterly

220

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…A summative evaluation assesses the effectiveness of a completed training or development program, focusing on various outcomes of the program such as changes in behavior, knowledge, skills, and/or attitudes (Brown & Gerhardt, 2002). In contrast, a formative evaluation focuses on improving the quality of the program during development in order to maximize the likelihood that the intended instructional objectives will be achieved (Beyer, 1995).…”

Section: Leader Self-development Evaluation: Unique Challenges and Rementioning

confidence: 99%

“…In short, these two approaches differ in focus, with a summative evaluation focusing on whether or not the program worked and a formative evaluation focusing on why the program does or does not work and how to improve it. While an organization could utilize both approaches, the literature suggests that the summative evaluation approach has predominantly been used in both training and leader development evaluation research and practice (Brown & Gerhardt, 2002;Russon & Reinelt, 2004).…”

Section: Leader Self-development Evaluation: Unique Challenges and Rementioning

confidence: 99%

Leader self-development: A contemporary context for leader development evaluation

Orvis

Ratwani

2010

The Leadership Quarterly

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Formative Evaluation: An Integrative Practice Model and Case Study

Cited by 72 publications

References 48 publications

Process evaluation for organizational stress and well-being interventions: Implications for theory, method, and practice.

Process evaluation for organizational stress and well-being interventions: Implications for theory, method, and practice.

Evaluating leadership coaching: A review and integrated framework

Leader self-development: A contemporary context for leader development evaluation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About