Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Evaluation Research: Methodologies for Evaluation of IPM Programs

  • Chapter
Integrated Pest Management: Dissemination and Impact

Abstract

Evaluation is a systematic approach by which the program process and results are compared with set goals and objectives to make value judgments about the program. In this regard, the evaluation of integrated pest management programs (IPM) is vital for making proper programmatic decisions. Formative and summative evaluations are the two major types of evaluation. Formative evaluation is used to assess the program process for its improvement. Summative evaluation is used to assess the program results for accountability. Institutions around the world are giving greater attention to the evaluation of extension programs. However, the evaluation of IPM programs is generally not up to the level it should be in terms of quality and rigger of evaluation research. The purpose of this chapter is to provide basic knowledge to the personnel involved in the evaluation about concept and purpose of evaluation, and appropriate research methods for conducting IPM evaluation studies. The theory based evaluation is helpful in designing the meaningful and rigorous studies. There are evaluation standards to guide the evaluators in this process. Before conducting IPM evaluation studies, it is important to review the practical considerations to ensure the quality and the usefulness of the study. Currently the evaluation of IPM programs lack consensus in selection of the indicators, research designs and adoption of appropriate methodologies. The social, economic and environmental indicators are taken into account while carrying out the IPM evaluation. The quality of an IPM evaluation can be improved by proper planning and selection of appropriate research design. Planning is helpful for achieving the evaluation objectives cost effectively. When the IPM evaluation studies are planned, it is important to consider the social, economic and environmental context of the farming community for achieving the practicality and the usefulness of the evaluation study. The IPM program evaluation is meaningful only if the results are communicated and utilized to achieve the evaluation objectives.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 169.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  • Alkin, M.C. and Christie, C.A. 2004. An Evaluation Theory Tree. http://www.sagepub.com/upm-data/5074_Alkin_Chapter_2.pdf

  • Alvarez, P., Escarramán, V., Gómez E., Villar, A., Jimenez, R., Ortiz, O., Alcazar, J. and Palacios, M. 1996. Economic impact of managing sweetpotato weevil (Cylas formicarius) with sex pheromones in the Dominican Republic. In Walker, T. and Crissman, C. (eds), Case Studies of the Economic Impact of CIP-Related Technology. Lima, Peru: International Potato Center pp. 83–93.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bailey, S.J. and Deen, M.Y. 2002. A framework for introducing program evaluation to extension faculty and staff. Journal of Extension [On-line] 40(2). Available at:http:// www.joe.org/joe/2002April/iwl.html

  • Bell, J. 1983. Contemporary Social Welfare, Macmillan, New York. (Original not seen. Cited by Patton, M.Q. 1997. Utilization Focused Evaluation. Sage, Thousand Oaks).

    Google Scholar 

  • Bennett, C. 1975. Up the hierarchy. Journal of Extension 75(2):7–12. Available: http://www.joe.org/joe/1975march/1975-2-a1.pdf

    Google Scholar 

  • Bickman, L. 1987. The functions of program theory. In Bickman, L. (ed) Using Program Theory in Evaluation. Jossey Bass Inc., Publishers, San Francisco pp. 5–18.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buck, A. 2002. Participatory evaluation of farmers’ perceptions about impact from Farmer Field Schools: Case study Province San Miguel, Peru. Thesis for the degree of Agricultural Engineer. Technical University of Munich.

    Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, D.T. and Stanley, J.C. 1963. Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Designs for Research. Rand McNally, Chicago.

    Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, D. and Stanley, J.C. 1966. Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Designs for Research. Rand McNally, Chicago.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chambers, F. 1994. Removing confusion about formative and summative evaluation: Purpose versus time. Evaluation and Program Planning 17(1):9–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chelimsky, E. 1997. The coming transformation in evaluation. In Chelimsky, E. and Shadish, W. (eds), Evaluation for the Twenty-first Century-A Handbook. Sage Publication Inc. California.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chen, H.-T. 1990. Theory-Driven Evaluations. Sage Publications, Newbury Park, CA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chen, H. 1994. Current trends and future directions in program evaluation. Evaluation Practice 15(3):229–238.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen, H. and Rossi, P. 1983. Evaluating with sense: The theory-driven approach. Evaluation Review 7:283–302.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cook, T. 1997. Lessons learned in evaluation over past 25 years. In: Chelimsky, E. and Shadish, W. (eds), Evaluation for the Twenty- First Century. Sage, Thousand Oaks, California.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davidson, E. J. 2006. The “Baggaging” of Theory-Based Evaluation. http://evaluation.wmich. edu/jmde/

  • Donaldson, S. I. 2001. Mediator and moderator analysis in program development. In Sussman, S. (ed), Handbook of Program Development for Health Behavior Research. Sage Publication, Newbury Park, CA pp. 470–496.

    Google Scholar 

  • Douglah, M. 1996. Developing a concept of Extension Program Evaluation (G 3658-7) Program Development and Evaluation. University of Winconsin-Extension(http://learningstore. uwex.edu/pdf/G3658-7.PDF)

  • Echols, G.W. and Soomro, M.H. 2005. Impact of the FAO-EU IPM program for cotton in Asia on the environment. In: Ooi, P.A.C., Praneetvatakul, S., Waibel, H. and Echols, G.W. (eds), The Impact of the FAO-EU IPM Program for Cotton in Asia. A Publication of the Pesticide Policy Project Hannover, Special Issue Publication Series, No. 9

    Google Scholar 

  • Feder, G. and Quizon, J.B. 1998. Integrated pest management (IPM) in Asia: Are there real returns to IPM and its diffusion? In Waibel, H., Fleischer, G., Kenmore, P.E., and Feder, G. (eds), Evaluation of IPM programs-Concepts and Methdologies. A Publication of the Pesticide Policy Project Hannover, April 1999 Publication Series No. 8

    Google Scholar 

  • Feder, G., Murgai, R. and Quizon, J.B. 2004. Sending farmers back to school: The impact of farmer field school in Indonesia. Review of Agricultural Economics 26:45–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fetterman, D.M. 2001. Foundations of Empowerment Evaluation. Sage Publications, Inc. Thousand Oaks, California.

    Google Scholar 

  • Figueredo, A. 1993. Critical multiplism, metaanalysisd and generalization: An Integrative Commentary. In: Sechrest, L. (ed), Program Evaluation: A pluralistic Enterprise (New Directions to program evaluation, No. 60). Jossey Bass, San Francisco.

    Google Scholar 

  • Godtland, Sadoulet, E.E., de Janvry, A., Murgai, R. and Ortiz, O. 2004. The impact of farmerfield-schools on knowledge and productivity: A study of potato farmers in the Peruvian Andes. Economic Development and Cultural Change 53(1):63–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hilbert, J., Russ-Eft, D. and Preskill, H. 1997. Evaluating training. In Russ-Eft, D. (ed), What works: Assessment, development, and measurement. ASTD, lexandria, VA. 109–150

    Google Scholar 

  • Indicators for the Evaluation of the EU’s Rural Devlopment Programs Task 1–5, Final Report (18th November 2005) AGRI/2004/G2/12. http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/eval/reports/indicator_rd/index_en.htm

  • Jayaratne, K.S.U. 2007a. Collecting evaluation data. Program Evaluation Institute. North Carolina State University Extension, Raleigh, NC.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jayaratne, K.S.U. 2007b. Evaluation tools. Program Evaluation Institute. North Carolina State University Extension, Raleigh, NC.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jiggins, J.L.S. 2002. New approaches to evaluation. International learning workshop on farmer field schools (FFS): Emerging issues and challenges, 21–25 October 2002, Yogyakarta.

    Google Scholar 

  • Joint Committee on Standards for Educational Evaluation. 1994. The Program Evaluation Standards: How to Assess Evaluations of Educational Programs (2nd ed.). Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Committee_on_Standards_for _Educational_Evaluation

  • Kalpan, A. 1994. The Conduct of Inquiry. Chandler, San Francisco.

    Google Scholar 

  • Khan, M.A. and Ahmad, I. 2005. Impact of FFS-based IPM knowedge and pratices on rural povery reduction: Evidence from Pakistan. In: Ooi, P.A.C., Praneetvatakul, S., Waibel, H. and Echols, G.W. (eds), The Impact of the FAO-EU IPM Program for Cotton in Asia. A Publication of the Pesticide Policy Project Hannover, Special Issue Publication Series, No. 9

    Google Scholar 

  • Khan, M.A., Ahmad, I. and Echols, G.W. 2005. Impact of an FFS based IPM approach on farmer capacity, production practices and income: Evidence from Pakistan. In: Ooi, P.A.C., Praneetvatakul, S., Waibel, H. and Echols, G.W. (eds), The Impact of the FAO-EU IPM Program for Cotton in Asia. A Publication of the Pesticide Policy Project Hannover, Special Issue Publication Series, No. 9

    Google Scholar 

  • Kosloski, K. 2000. Evaluation research. Encyclopedia of Sociology 1. Macmillan, New York pp. 861–869.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lazarsfeld, P. F. and Rosenburg, M. 1955. The Language of Social Research. (Original not seen. Cited by Shadish W.R., Cook T.D. and Laviton L.C. Foundation of Program Evaluation. Sage, Newburg Park, USA).

    Google Scholar 

  • Lewin, K. 1948. Resolving Social conflicts: selected papers on group dynamics. (Original not seen. Cited by Shadish, W.R., Cook, T.D. and Laviton, L.C. 1995. Foundation of Program Evaluation. Sage, Newburg Park, USA).

    Google Scholar 

  • Madaus, G.F., Scriven, M. and Stufflebeam, D.L. 1991. Evaluation Models. Kluwe-Nijhoff Publishing, USA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mancini, F. van Bruggen, A.H.C. and Jiggins, J.L.S. 2006. Evaluating cotton integrated pest management (IPM) Farmer field school outcomes using the sustainable livelihood approach in India. Experimental Agriculture 43:97–112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mancini, F., Termorshuizen, A.J., Jiggins, J.L.S. and van Bruggen, A.H.C. 2008. Increasing the environmental and social sustainability of cotton farming through farmer education in Andhra Pradesh, India. Agricultural Systems 96:16–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maza, N., Morales, A., Ortiz, O., Winters, P., Alcazar, J. and Scott, G. 2000. Impacto del manejo integrado del tetuán del boniato (Cylas formicarius) en Cuba. Lima, Peru. Instituto de Investigaciones en Viandas Tropicales (INIVIT). Centro Internacional de la Papa (CIP)

    Google Scholar 

  • Neuman, W.L. 2000. Social Research Methods- Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches (4th ed.). Allyn and Bacon, London, UK.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ortiz, O. 1997. The Information System for IPM in Subsistence Potato Production in Peru: Experience of Introducing Innovative Information in Cajamarca Province. PhD dissertation. Department of Agricultural Extension and Rural Development. The University of Reading, Reading, UK

    Google Scholar 

  • Ortiz, O. 2001. Workshop on Assessing the Impact of Participatory Research and Extension Methods in IPM-Reports of Working Groups (first draft), Nairobi 15–17 March, 2001, Nairobi.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ortiz, O., Alcazar, J., Catalán, W., Villano, W., Cerna, V., Fano, H. and Walker, T. 1996. Economic impact of IPM practiceson the Andean potato weevil in Peru. I. In Walker, T. and Crissman, C. (eds), Case Studies of the Economic Impact of CIP-Related Technology. International Potato Center Lima, Peru. pp. 95–110.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ortiz, O., Garret, K.A., Heath, J.J., Orrego, R. and Nelson, R. 2004. Management of potato late blight in the Peruvian Highlands: Evaluating the benefits of farmer field schools and farmer participatory research. Plant Disease 88(5):565–571.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Patton, M.Q. 1997. Utilization-focused Evaluation: The New Century Text. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peshin, R. 2005. Evaluation of the Dissemination of Insecticide Resistance Management Program in Cotton in Punjab. Ph.D Dissertation, Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana, India.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peshin, R. 2009. Evaluation of Insecticide Resistance Management Program: Theory and Practice. Daya publishers, New Delhi (In Press).

    Google Scholar 

  • Peshin, R. and Kalra, R. 1998. Integrated pest management at farmer’s level. Man and Development 22:137–141.

    Google Scholar 

  • Petheram, R.J. 1998. Review of Evaluation in Agricultural Extension. Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation, Kingston.http://www.rirdc.gov.au

  • Pimentel, D. 2005. Environmental and economic costs of the application of pesticides primarily in the United States. Environmental Development and Sustainability 7:229–252.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Posavac, E.J. and Carey, R.G. 1989. Program Evaluation, Methods and Case Studies. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliff, New Jersey.

    Google Scholar 

  • Powell, E.T., Steel, S. and Douglah, M. 1996. Planning a Program Evaluation: Program Development and Evaluation. University of Wisconsin-Extension (http://learningstore.uwex.edu/ pdf/G3658-1.PDF)

  • Praneetvatakul, S., Echols, G.E. and Waibel, H. 2005. The costs and benefits of the FAO-EU IPM program for cotton in Asia. In: Ooi, P.A.C., Praneetvatakul, S., Waibel, H. and Echols, G.W. (eds), The Impact of the FAO-EU IPM Program for Cotton in Asia. A Publication of the Pesticide Policy Project Hannover, Special Issue Publication Series, No. 9

    Google Scholar 

  • Pretty, J.N., Brett, C., Gee, D., Hine, R.E., Mason, C.F., Morison, J.I.L., Raven, H., Rayment, M.D. and van der Bijl, G. 2000. An assessment of the total external costs of UK agriculture. Agricultural Systems 65:113–136.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reddy, V.S. and Suryamani, M. 2005. Impact of Farmer field school approach on acquisition of knowledge and skills by farmers about cotton pests and other managmement practices: Evidence from India. In Ooi, P.A.C., Praneetvatakul, S., Waibel, H. and Echols, G.W. (eds), The Impact of the FAO-EU IPM Program for Cotton in Asia. A Publication of the Pesticide Policy Project Hannover, Special Issue Publication Series, No. 9

    Google Scholar 

  • Rogers, P.J., Petrosino, A., Huebner, T.A. and Hacsi, T.A. 2000. Program theory evaluation: practice, promise, and problems. In Hacsi, T.A. (ed.), Program Theory in Evaluation: Challenges and Opportunities. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, pp. 5–13

    Google Scholar 

  • Rossi, P.H. and Freeman, H.E. 1993. Evaluation (5th ed.). Sage, Newbury Park, California, p. 5

    Google Scholar 

  • Rossi, P.H., Freeman, H.E. and Write, S.R. 1979. Evaluation: A Systematic Approach. Sage Publishers, Bawerly Hills, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Russ-Eft, D., and Preskill, H. 2001. Evaluation in Organizations. Perseus Publishing, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rutman, L. 1984. Evaluation Research Methods. Sage, New bury park, California, p. 10.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scheirer, M.A. 1994. Designing and using process evaluation. In Wholey, J.S., Hatry, H. and Newcomer, K. (eds), Handbook of Practical Program Evaluation. Josey Bass, San Francisco. pp. 40–68.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scriven, M. 1967. The methodology of evaluation. In: Stake, R.E. (ed), Curriculum Evaluation. Chicaogo USA: Rand McNally.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scriven, M. 1991. Evaluation Thesaurus (4th ed.). Sage, New-bury Park, California, USA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scriven, M. 1999. The nature of evaluation part i: Relation to psychology. Practical Assessment, Research&Evaluation 6(11). Retrieved April 15, 2008(http://PAREonline.net/ getvn.asp?v=6&n=11).

  • Shadish, W.R. 1993. Critical multiplism: A research strategy and its attendant tactics. In: Sechrest, L. (ed), Program Evaluation: A Pluralistic Enterprise, Jossey-Bass., San Francisco.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shadish, W. 1998. Some evaluation questions. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation 6(3). Available online:http://pareonline.net/getvn.asp?v=6&n=3

  • Shadish, W., Cook, T.D. and Leviton, L.C. 1991. Foundations of Program Evaluation: Theories and Practice. Sage Publications, Newbury Park, CA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shadish W.R., Cook, T.D. and Leviton, L.C. 1995. Foundations of Program Evaluation. Sage, Newbury Park, California, USA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sikora, E.J., Zehnder, G.W., Kemble, J.M., Goodman, R., Andrianifahanana, M., Bauske, E.M. and Murphy, J.F. 2001. Tomato IPM field demonstrations in Alabama. Journal of Extension (39)2, Retrieved May 27, 2008, from http://www.joe.org/joe/2001april/iw6.html

  • Singh, R. 1975. An optimum stratification for proportional allocation. Snakhya. Inidian Journal of Statistical Series Part I, 37:109–115.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stufflebeam, D.L. 2001. The meta-evaluation imperative. American Journal of Evaluation 22(2):183–209.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stufflebeam, D.L. 2003. The CIPP model for evaluation. Presented at the 2003 Annual Conference of the Oregon Program Evaluators Network (OPEN). Portland, Oregon http://www.wmich.edu/evalctr/pubs/CIPP-ModelOregon10-03.pdf

  • Taylor, D.B. 1976. Eney, meeny, miney meaux: Alternative evaluation Models. North Central Association Quarterly 50:353–358.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tyler, R.W. 1942. General statement on evaluation. Journal of Educational Research 35:492–501.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tyler, R.W. 1967. Changing the concept of educational evaluation. In Stake R. E. (ed), Perspectives of Curriculum Evaluation. Rand McNally, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • van den Berg, H. 2004. IPM Farmer Field School: A Synthesis of 25 Impact Evaluation Studies. Wageningen University, Prepared for the Global IPM facility. http://www.fao.org/docrep/006/ad487e/ad487e00.htm

    Google Scholar 

  • van den Berg, H. and Jiggins, J. 2007. Investing in farmers–the impacts of farmer field schools in relation to integrated pest management, World Development 35:663–686.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van de Fliert E. 1993. Integrated Pest Management: Farmer Field School Generate Sustainable Practices. Wageningen Agricultural University Papers 93.3

    Google Scholar 

  • Waibel, H., Fleischer, G., Kenmore, P.E. and Feder, G. 1998. (eds), Evaluation of IPM Programs: Concept and Methodologies. Papers presented at the first workshop on evaluation of IPM programs, Hannover, A publication of the pesticide policy project, Publication series no. 8.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weiss, C.H. 1998. Evaluation: Methods for studying Programs and Policies (2nd ed.). Prentice Hall, New Jersey, USA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Worthen, B.R., Sanders, J.R. and Fitzpatrick, J.L. 1997. Program Evaluation: Alternative Approaches and Practical Guidelines. Longman, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wu, L., Praneetvatakul, S., Wiabel, H. and Wang, L. 2005. The impact of FFS on yield, pesticide cost and gross margin in Shadong Province, P. R. China: an econometric appraoch. In: Ooi, P. A.C., Praneetvatakul, S., Waibel, H. and Echols, G.W. (eds), The Impact of the FAO-EU IPM Program for Cotton in Asia. A Publication of the Pesticide Policy Project Hannover, Special Issue Publication Series, No. 9

    Google Scholar 

  • Yamazaki, S. and Resosudarmo, B.P. 2007. Does sending farmers back to school have an impact? A spatial econometric approach. Working Papers in Trade and Development, Working paper no. 2007/03, Division of Economics, Research school of Pacific and Asian Economics, ANU College of Asia and Pacific. http://rspas.anu.edu.au/economics/publish/papers/wp2007/wp-econ-2007-03.pdf

  • Yang, P., Wu, L., Wang, L. Xia, J. and Li, X. 2005. IPM-FFS traininng is crucial for sustaining Bt cotton- A case study form Hubei Province, P.R. China. In: Ooi, P.A.C., Praneetvatakul, S., Waibel, H. and Echols, G.W. (eds), The Impact of the FAO-EU IPM Program for Cotton in Asia. A Publication of the Pesticide Policy Project Hannover, Special Issue Publication Series, No. 9.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Agricultural Extension Education, Sher-e-Kashmir University of Agricultural Sciences and Technology of Jammu, Chatha, Jammu-180009, India

    Rajinder Peshin

Authors
  1. Rajinder Peshin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. K.S.U. Jayaratne
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Gurdeep Singh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Agricultural Extension Education FOA Chatha, Sher-e-Kashmir University of Agricultural Sciences and Technology of Jammu, Jammu-180009, India

    Rajinder Peshin

  2. Department of Entomology, Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana-141004, India

    Ashok K. Dhawan

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2009 Springer Science+Business Media B.V.

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Peshin, R., Jayaratne, K., Singh, G. (2009). Evaluation Research: Methodologies for Evaluation of IPM Programs. In: Peshin, R., Dhawan, A.K. (eds) Integrated Pest Management: Dissemination and Impact. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-8990-9_2

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation