Contribution Analysis of a Complex System During Disruptions

Authors

  • Sharon L. Newbill Folkstone: Evaluation Anthropology, Albuquerque, New Mexico

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.3138/cjpe.75803

Keywords:

occupational safety and health, agricultural health and injury prevention, COVID-19, evaluation practice

Abstract

The U.S. National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) supports 11 regional centers to conduct research and outreach in agriculture, fishing, and forestry. The Southwest Center for Agricultural Health, Injury Prevention, and Education serves Arkansas, Louisiana, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Texas. The 2016–2022 evaluation used contribution analysis since it is effective in evaluating complex systems with diverse stakeholders and multiple projects, with partners working toward the same outcome over time. The evaluation responded to the disruptions in program implementation caused by the COVID-19 pandemic and to NIOSH modifications to key elements of contribution analysis procedures.

References

Avalos, N. (2017, June). NIOSH Agriculture, forestry, and fishing program: Assessing impact through contribution analysis [Online workshop]. Office of Policy, Planning, and Evaluation, Office of Agriculture Safety and Health. National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2014, January 15). Centers for Agricultural Safety and Health.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2023a, March 15). CDC Museum COVID-19 timeline.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2023b, June 5). Evaluation of NIOSH programs.

Downes, A., Novicki, E., & Howard, J. (2019). Using the contribution analysis approach to evaluate science impact: A case study of the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. American Journal of Program Evaluation, 40(2), 177–189. Medline:30518992

Dybdal, L., Nielsen, S. B., & Lemire, S. (2011). Contribution analysis applied: Reflections on scope and methodology. The Canadian Journal of Program Evaluation, 25(2), 29–57.

Hempel, C. G. (1966). Philosophy of natural sciences (Foundations of Philosophy Series). Prentice-Hall.

Lemire, S. T., Nielsen, S. B., & Dybdal, L (2012). Making contribution analysis work: A practical framework for handling influencing factors and alternative explanations. Evaluation, 18 (3), 294–309.

Mayne, J. (2001). Addressing attribution through contribution analysis: Using performance measures sensibly. Canadian Journal of Program Evaluation, 16(1), 1–24.

Mayne, J. (2008). Contribution analysis: An approach to exploring cause and effect (ILAC Brief 16).

Mayne, J. (2011). Contribution analysis: Addressing cause and effect. In R. Schwartz, K. Forss, & M. Marra (Eds.), Evaluating the complex (pp. 53–96). Transaction Publishers.

Mayne, J. (2012a). Contribution analysis: Coming of age? Evaluation, 18(3), 270–280.

Mayne, J. (Ed.). (2012b). Special issue: Contribution analysis. Evaluation, 18(3).

Mayne, J. (2015). Useful theory of change models. The Canadian Journal of Program Evaluation, 30(2), 119–142.

Mayne, J. (2017). Theory of change analysis: Building robust theories of change. Canadian Journal of Program Evaluation, 32(2), 155–173.

Mayne, J. (2018a). Developing and using useful theories of change (Evergreen briefing note).

Mayne, J (2018b). The COM-B theory of change model: Working paper.

Mayne, J. (2019). Template for building a COM-B theory of change.

Michie, S., van Stralen, M. M., & West, R. (2011). The behaviour change wheel: A new method for characterizing and designing behaviour change interventions. Implementation Science, 6, 42. Medline:21513547

Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldana, J. (2014). Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook (3rd ed.). Sage.

Newbill, S. L. (2022). Summative report 2016–2022 contribution analysis. Southwest Center for Agricultural Health, Injury Prevention and Education.

Newbill, S. L., Wickman, A., Brown, C., & Helitzer, D. (2017). Hierarchical logic models as a tool to evaluate programmatic initiatives: Practical solutions to identified problems. Journal of Community Medicine & Health Education, 7(3), 1–7. Medline:2884533

Patton, M. Q. (2012). A utilization-focused approach to contribution analysis. Evaluation, 18(3), 364–377.

Downloads

Published

2023-12-08

How to Cite

Newbill, S. L. (2023). Contribution Analysis of a Complex System During Disruptions. Canadian Journal of Program Evaluation, 38(2), 374–395. https://doi.org/10.3138/cjpe.75803

Issue

Vol. 38 No. 2 (2023): December

Section

Research and Practice Notes

License

Copyright (c) 2023 Sharon L. Newbill

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

Authors contributing to The Canadian Journal of Program Evaluation agree to release their articles under the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 4.0 (CC-BY-NC) license. This licence allows this work to be copied, distributed, remixed, transformed, and built upon for any purpose provided that appropriate attribution is given, a link is provided to the license, and changes made were indicated.

Authors retain copyright of their work and grant the journal right of first publication.

Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.