Abma Tineke A
University of Maastricht, Healthcare Ethics and Philosophy, PO Box 616, 6200 MD Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Health Promot Int. 2005 Dec;20(4):391-7. doi: 10.1093/heapro/dai013. Epub 2005 Jun 21.
Responsive evaluation offers a perspective in which evaluation is reframed from the assessment of program interventions on the basis of policymakers' goals to an engagement with all stakeholders about the value and meaning of their practice. This article argues for this perspective both generally and more particularly in relation to health promotion. Responsive evaluation is especially appropriate in health promotion contexts characterized by a high degree of ambiguity. Ambiguity refers to the absence of or contradictory interpretations about what needs to, can and should be done, when and where. Ambiguity is high in the case of non-routine programs, lack of knowledge about success indicators, collaborative and community based programs and the absence of consensus among stakeholders. In health promotion contexts marked by a low degree of ambiguity random controlled trials (RCTs) and quantitative methods are to be considered. This implies the evaluators should assess the degree of ambiguity of a situation before deciding about an appropriate design.
回应式评估提供了一种视角，在这种视角下，评估从基于政策制定者目标对项目干预措施的评估，重新转变为与所有利益相关者就其实践的价值和意义进行互动。本文从总体上以及更具体地就健康促进方面论证了这种视角。回应式评估在高度模糊性特征的健康促进背景中尤为适用。模糊性指的是对于何时、何地需要做、能够做以及应该做什么缺乏或存在相互矛盾的解释。在非常规项目、对成功指标缺乏了解、基于协作和社区的项目以及利益相关者之间缺乏共识的情况下，模糊性程度较高。在模糊性程度较低的健康促进背景下，应考虑随机对照试验（RCT）和定量方法。这意味着评估者在决定采用合适的设计之前，应评估情况的模糊程度。
