Search research articles

Search research articles

Related Experiment Videos

Qualitative methods in program evaluation.

¹Health Services Research Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

American Journal of Health Promotion : AJHP

|June 8, 1991

Summary

This summary is machine-generated.

Related Concept Videos

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by

Same author

How many replicons make a nodule?

Nature·1997

Same author

Examining job demands among Pennsylvania administrators.

The Journal of long term care administration·1996

Same author

A profile of Pennsylvania nurse's aides.

Geriatric nursing (New York, N.Y.)·1995

Same author

Reporting evaluation results.

American journal of health promotion : AJHP·1991

Same author

Ampicillin, erythromycin and chloramphenicol penetration into rabbit aqueous humor.

Annals of ophthalmology·1973

Same author

The intraocular penetration of chloramphenicol succinate in rabbits.

Annals of ophthalmology·1973

ABOUT JoVE

Overview Leadership Blog JoVE Help Center

AUTHORS

Publishing Process Editorial Board Scope & Policies Peer Review FAQ Submit

LIBRARIANS

Testimonials Subscriptions Access Resources Library Advisory Board FAQ

RESEARCH

JoVE Journal Methods Collections JoVE Encyclopedia of Experiments Archive

EDUCATION

JoVE Core JoVE Business JoVE Science Education JoVE Lab Manual Faculty Resource Center Faculty Site

Terms & Conditions of Use

Choosing the right evaluation method is crucial. This article explores quantitative and qualitative approaches, highlighting their differences and suggesting how to integrate both for comprehensive program assessment, especially in health promotion.

Area of Science:

Program Evaluation
Health Promotion Research
Social Sciences

Background:

Traditional program evaluation heavily relies on quantitative methods.
Quantitative techniques have limitations in addressing certain evaluation questions.
Health promotion program evaluation often faces challenges best addressed by alternative methods.

Purpose of the Study:

To differentiate between quantitative and qualitative evaluation methodologies.
To discuss the limitations of purely quantitative approaches.
To propose the integration of both quantitative and qualitative methods in program evaluation.

Main Methods:

Comparative analysis of quantitative and qualitative research techniques.
Literature review on evaluation methodologies in health promotion.

Related Experiment Videos

Discussion of complementary and alternative uses of qualitative methods.

Main Results:

Quantitative methods excel at measuring outcomes but may miss contextual nuances.
Qualitative methods provide in-depth understanding of processes, experiences, and context.
Both approaches offer unique insights, and their combination enhances evaluation rigor.

Conclusions:

Qualitative evaluation methods can effectively complement or replace quantitative methods.
Integrating quantitative and qualitative approaches provides a more holistic understanding of program effectiveness.
Strategic selection and combination of methodologies are key to robust program assessment.