Skip to main content
Journal of Nursing Education, 2009;48(12):661–668
Published Online:https://doi.org/10.3928/01484834-20091113-08Cited by:35

Abstract

Health professions education researchers continually search for tools to measure, evaluate, and disseminate the findings from educational interventions. Clinical teaching, particularly teaching about the improvement of care and systems, is marked by complexity and is invariably influenced by the context into which the intervention is placed. The traditional research framework states that interventions should be adjudicated through a yes or no decision to determine effectiveness. In reality, educational interventions and the study of the interventions rarely succumb to such a simple yes or no question. The realist evaluation framework from Pawson and Tilley provides an explanatory model that links the context, mechanisms, and outcome patterns that are discovered during implementation of a project.

This article describes the unique qualities of the realist evaluation, the basic components and steps in a realist evaluation, and an example that uses this technique to evaluate teaching about improvement of care in a clinical setting.

  • Clark A.M., Whelan H.K., Barbour R., & MacIntyre P.D. (2005). A realist study of the mechanisms of cardiac rehabilitation. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 52, 362–371.

    > Crossref MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • Davis D.A., Thomson M.A., Oxman A.D., & Haynes R.B. (1995). Changing physician performance: A systematic review of the effect of continuing medical education strategies. The Journal of the American Medical Association, 274, 700–705.

    > CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Greenhalgh T., Kristjansson E., & Robinson V. (2007). Realist review to understand the efficacy of school feeding programmes. BMJ, 335(7625), 858–861.

    > Crossref MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • Kazi M. (2003). Realist evaluation for practice. The British Journal of Social Work, 33, 803–818.

    > CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • McEvoy P., & Richards D. (2006). A critical realist rationale for using a combination of quantitative and qualitative methods. Journal of Research in Nursing, 11, 66–78.

    > CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Miller G.E. (1990). The assessment of clinical skills/competence/performance. Academic Medicine, 65(9 Suppl.), S63–S67.

    > Crossref MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • Ogrinc G., Headrick L., & Boex J. (1999). Understanding the value added to clinical care by educational activities. Value of Education Research Group. Academic Medicine, 74, 1080–1086.

    > Crossref MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • Ogrinc G., West A., Eliassen M.S., Liuw S., Schiffman J., & Cochran N. (2007). Integrating practice-based learning and improvement into medical student learning: Evaluating complex curricular innovations. Teaching and Learning in Medicine, 19, 221–229.

    > Crossref MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • Pawson R. (2006). Evidence-based policy: A realist perspective. London: Sage.

    > CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Pawson R., & Tilley N. (1997). Realistic evaluation. London: Sage.

    > Google Scholar
  • Sanderson I. (2003). Is it ‘what works’ that matters? Evaluation and evidence-based policy-making. Research Papers in Education, 18, 331–345.

    > CrossrefGoogle Scholar

We use cookies on this site to enhance your user experience. For a complete overview of all the cookies used, please see our privacy policy.

×