Uses of the viable validity concept: A systematic scoping review

IF 1.5 4区社会学 Q2 SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY Evaluation and Program Planning Pub Date : 2024-11-13 DOI:10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2024.102516

Césarine Sambou , Charlotte Decroix , Judith Martin-Fernandez , Linda Cambon , François Alla

{"title":"Uses of the viable validity concept: A systematic scoping review","authors":"Césarine Sambou , Charlotte Decroix , Judith Martin-Fernandez , Linda Cambon , François Alla","doi":"10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2024.102516","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objective</h3><div>The concept of viable validity was first defined in 2010 within the framework of the integrative validity model. The concept has continued to evolve in the intervening years, and the purpose of this systematic scoping review is to describe and analyze the ways in which it has been deployed and appropriated by various research traditions.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>We began by including all articles which cite Chen’s original article “<em>The bottom-up approach to integrative validity: a new perspective for program evaluation</em> (Eval Program Plann. 2010;33(3):205–14) and/or contain the terms “viable validity” or “viable cogency,” sourced from 5 databases (PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, Psycinfo and ResearchGate).</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>we selected and included 31 articles published between 2011 and 2022. These studies fall into three major research traditions (evaluation science, population health intervention research and humanities and social sciences), providing a broad overview of the conceptual mobilization of viable validity. Paradoxically, our literature reveals the concept of viable validity to be poorly operationalized and only partially mature, owing to a lack of consensus among the research traditions with regard to its definition, as well as the porous boundaries between this concept and adjacent concepts such as feasibility and acceptability.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>Viable validity is a complex concept, and its operational application constitutes a major challenge for research into and evaluation of population health interventions.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":48046,"journal":{"name":"Evaluation and Program Planning","volume":"108 ","pages":"Article 102516"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Evaluation and Program Planning","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0149718924001186","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective

The concept of viable validity was first defined in 2010 within the framework of the integrative validity model. The concept has continued to evolve in the intervening years, and the purpose of this systematic scoping review is to describe and analyze the ways in which it has been deployed and appropriated by various research traditions.

Methods

We began by including all articles which cite Chen’s original article “The bottom-up approach to integrative validity: a new perspective for program evaluation (Eval Program Plann. 2010;33(3):205–14) and/or contain the terms “viable validity” or “viable cogency,” sourced from 5 databases (PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, Psycinfo and ResearchGate).

Results

we selected and included 31 articles published between 2011 and 2022. These studies fall into three major research traditions (evaluation science, population health intervention research and humanities and social sciences), providing a broad overview of the conceptual mobilization of viable validity. Paradoxically, our literature reveals the concept of viable validity to be poorly operationalized and only partially mature, owing to a lack of consensus among the research traditions with regard to its definition, as well as the porous boundaries between this concept and adjacent concepts such as feasibility and acceptability.

Conclusion

Viable validity is a complex concept, and its operational application constitutes a major challenge for research into and evaluation of population health interventions.

查看原文

微信好友朋友圈 QQ好友复制链接

本刊更多论文

可行有效性概念的用途：系统性范围审查。

目的：可行有效性的概念于2010年在综合有效性模型的框架内首次被定义。在这几年中，这一概念不断演变，本系统性综述的目的是描述和分析不同研究传统对这一概念的部署和运用方式：我们首先收录了所有引用 Chen 原文 "自下而上的综合有效性方法：项目评估的新视角（Eval Program Plann.结果：我们从 5 个数据库（PubMed、Web of Science、Scopus、Psycinfo 和 ResearchGate）中选择并收录了 2011 年至 2022 年间发表的 31 篇文章。这些研究分属三大研究传统（评估科学、人口健康干预研究以及人文和社会科学），为可行有效性的概念调动提供了一个广泛的概览。矛盾的是，我们的文献显示，由于各研究传统对可行有效性的定义缺乏共识，以及这一概念与可行性和可接受性等相邻概念之间的界限不清，可行有效性这一概念的可操作性很差，而且只是部分成熟：可行有效性是一个复杂的概念，其实际应用对人口健康干预措施的研究和评估构成了重大挑战。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文去求助

来源期刊

Evaluation and Program Planning SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY-

CiteScore

3.10

自引率

6.20%

发文量

112

期刊介绍： Evaluation and Program Planning is based on the principle that the techniques and methods of evaluation and planning transcend the boundaries of specific fields and that relevant contributions to these areas come from people representing many different positions, intellectual traditions, and interests. In order to further the development of evaluation and planning, we publish articles from the private and public sectors in a wide range of areas: organizational development and behavior, training, planning, human resource development, health and mental, social services, mental retardation, corrections, substance abuse, and education.