The Counterfactual Definition of a Program Effect

IF 1.1 3区 社会学 Q2 SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY American Journal of Evaluation Pub Date : 2022-01-06 DOI:10.1177/1098214020975485
C. S. Reichardt
{"title":"The Counterfactual Definition of a Program Effect","authors":"C. S. Reichardt","doi":"10.1177/1098214020975485","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Evaluators are often called upon to assess the effects of programs. To assess a program effect, evaluators need a clear understanding of how a program effect is defined. Arguably, the most widely used definition of a program effect is the counterfactual one. According to the counterfactual definition, a program effect is the difference between what happened after the program was implemented and what would have happened if the program had not been implemented, but everything else had been the same. Such a definition is often said to be linked to the use of quantitative methods. But the definition can be used just as effectively with qualitative methods. To demonstrate its broad applicability in both qualitative and quantitative research, I show how the counterfactual definition undergirds seven common approaches to assessing effects. It is not clear how any alternative to the counterfactual definition is as generally applicable as the counterfactual definition.","PeriodicalId":51449,"journal":{"name":"American Journal of Evaluation","volume":"43 1","pages":"158 - 174"},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American Journal of Evaluation","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1098214020975485","RegionNum":3,"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: 2

Abstract

Evaluators are often called upon to assess the effects of programs. To assess a program effect, evaluators need a clear understanding of how a program effect is defined. Arguably, the most widely used definition of a program effect is the counterfactual one. According to the counterfactual definition, a program effect is the difference between what happened after the program was implemented and what would have happened if the program had not been implemented, but everything else had been the same. Such a definition is often said to be linked to the use of quantitative methods. But the definition can be used just as effectively with qualitative methods. To demonstrate its broad applicability in both qualitative and quantitative research, I show how the counterfactual definition undergirds seven common approaches to assessing effects. It is not clear how any alternative to the counterfactual definition is as generally applicable as the counterfactual definition.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
程序效应的反事实定义
评估人员经常被要求评估项目的效果。为了评估项目效果,评估人员需要清楚地了解项目效果是如何定义的。可以说,最广泛使用的程序效果定义是反事实的。根据反事实的定义,程序效果是指程序实施后发生的事情与如果程序没有实施,但其他一切都是一样的话会发生的事情之间的差异。这种定义通常被认为与定量方法的使用有关。但是,定性方法同样可以有效地使用该定义。为了证明其在定性和定量研究中的广泛适用性,我展示了反事实定义是如何支撑评估效果的七种常见方法的。目前尚不清楚反事实定义的任何替代方案如何像反事实定义一样普遍适用。
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
American Journal of Evaluation
American Journal of Evaluation SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY-
CiteScore
4.40
自引率
11.80%
发文量
39
期刊介绍: The American Journal of Evaluation (AJE) publishes original papers about the methods, theory, practice, and findings of evaluation. The general goal of AJE is to present the best work in and about evaluation, in order to improve the knowledge base and practice of its readers. Because the field of evaluation is diverse, with different intellectual traditions, approaches to practice, and domains of application, the papers published in AJE will reflect this diversity. Nevertheless, preference is given to papers that are likely to be of interest to a wide range of evaluators and that are written to be accessible to most readers.
期刊最新文献
Reflections on the Intersections Between Collaboration and Use in Evaluation Practice The Role of Evaluation Theory and Practice in Narrowing the Research-to-Practice Gap Rich Pictures: A Visual Method for Sensemaking Amid Complexity Book Review: Cost-Inclusive Evaluation: Planning It, Doing It, Using It by Nadini Persaud & Brian T. Yates From the Co-Editors: Being in Relationship with Citizens, Communities, and Clients in Evaluation Practice
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1