Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

CiteULike is a free service for managing and discovering scholarly references - click here to get started.

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Evaluation
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Cowley, S.
Right arrow Articles by Grocott, P.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Research Design for the Development and Evaluation of Complex Technologies

An Empirical Example and Critical Discussion

Sarah Cowley

King's College London, UK, sarah.cowley{at}kcl.ac.uk

Patricia Grocott

King's College London, UK

This article offers for wider discussion a description of the approach used in a situation where the gold standard of a randomized controlled trial (RCT) was not immediately feasible. It explains how the methods and research design of a developmental project known as `WRAP' (Woundcare Research for Appropriate Products) evolved, and discusses their implications for complex wound care evaluations.The project was guided by the UK Medical Research Council (MRC) framework for the development and evaluation of RCTs (MRC and Board, 2000). It is proposed that dressing performance in chronic wound care may best be evaluated by a focus on the first two phases of the framework, theorizing and modelling, to design interventions and measurement tools, before proceeding to the third phase, exploratory trials.When the data generated in such trials are deemed valid and reliable, using specified criteria, alternative forms of evaluation to the randomized controlled trial, such as post-market surveillance studies, can follow. It is also proposed that these adaptations of the MRC framework may apply to complex evaluations more generally.

Key Words: collaborative research • complex evaluation • methodological development • user focused research • wound care products

Evaluation, Vol. 13, No. 3, 285-305 (2007)
DOI: 10.1177/1356389007078629


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
American Journal of EvaluationHome page
S. Jacob
Cross-Disciplinarization: A New Talisman for Evaluation?
American Journal of Evaluation, June 1, 2008; 29(2): 175 - 194.
[Abstract] [PDF]