Affiliation:
1. Oregon State University
Abstract
Site visits are frequently used by evaluators to gain first-hand experience and knowledge about program implementation. However, few peer-reviewed articles describe the procedures used for designing and conducting site visits. This article describes the process of constructing and using a systematic site visit protocol. Theories and concepts of evaluation, including the measurement of fidelity and quality and the importance of context to site-level implementation, guided the construction of this protocol. Using a systematic method for program inquiry can improve the consistency of qualitative observations of program activities by enhancing intentionality, transparency, and emergence within the site visit process. The method presented may be especially helpful to novice evaluators and their mentors in learning about and teaching the process of conducting site visits.
Publisher
Mississippi State University Libraries - DIGITAL COMMONS JOURNALS
Reference23 articles.
1. Barth, M. C. (2004). A low-cost, post hoc method to rate overall site quality in a multi-site demonstration. American Journal of Evaluation, 25(1), 79–97.
2. Bickman, L., Riemer, M., Brown, J. L., Jones, S. M., Flay, B. R., Li, K.-K., . . . Massetti, G. (2009). Approaches to measuring implementation fidelity in school-based program evaluations. Journal of Research in Character Education, 7(2), 75–101.
3. Brandon, P. R., Taum, A. K. H., Young, D. B., Pottenger, F. M., III, & Speitel, T. W. (2008). The complexity of measuring the quality of program implementation with observations: The case of middle school inquiry-based science. American Journal of Evaluation, 29(3), 235–250.
4. Century, J., Rudnick, M., & Freeman, C. (2010). A framework for measuring fidelity of implementation: A foundation for shared language and accumulation of knowledge. American Journal of Evaluation, 31(2), 199–218.
5. Conner, R. F., Fitzpatrick, J. L., & Rog, D. J. (2012). A first step forward: Context assessment. New Directions for Evaluation, 2012(135), 89–105.