<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="static/style.xsl"?><OAI-PMH xmlns="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xsi:schemaLocation="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/ http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/OAI-PMH.xsd"><responseDate>2026-04-18T21:40:49Z</responseDate><request verb="GetRecord" identifier="oai:riubu.ubu.es:10259/5324" metadataPrefix="oai_dc">https://riubu.ubu.es/oai/request</request><GetRecord><record><header><identifier>oai:riubu.ubu.es:10259/5324</identifier><datestamp>2022-04-07T10:28:20Z</datestamp><setSpec>com_10259_4734</setSpec><setSpec>com_10259_5086</setSpec><setSpec>com_10259_2604</setSpec><setSpec>col_10259_4735</setSpec></header><metadata><oai_dc:dc xmlns:oai_dc="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc/" xmlns:doc="http://www.lyncode.com/xoai" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xsi:schemaLocation="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc/ http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc.xsd">
<dc:title>Evaluability assessment of a community development leisure program in Spain</dc:title>
<dc:creator>Hortigüela Arroyo, María</dc:creator>
<dc:creator>Ubillos Landa, Silvia</dc:creator>
<dc:subject>Evaluability assessment</dc:subject>
<dc:subject>Public program evaluation</dc:subject>
<dc:subject>Community development</dc:subject>
<dc:subject>Program improvement</dc:subject>
<dc:subject>Sociología</dc:subject>
<dc:subject>Sociology</dc:subject>
<dc:description>This paper presents the results of an evaluability assessment (EA) conducted in Spain. EAs are assessments that minimize the uncertainty and risk inherent in a subsequent evaluation (e.g. an impact or results assessment) that may require excessive resources. We designed our own EA model by combining three theoretical approaches, with a holistic and pedagogic vision of the process and a flexible methodology to enable adaptation to different programs and contexts, thus fostering transferability. The EA was carried using a qualitative methodology: documentary analysis, seven semi-structured interviews with stakeholders, eight direct observation sessions and a check-list for politicians and experts. The outcome report helped promote organizational learning, provided the program with a logical and assessable theoretical model, detected its strengths and helped overcome the barriers to efficient assessment. Based on these achievements, an evaluation of the results was recommended, with repeated pretest-posttest measurements and an equivalent control group.</dc:description>
<dc:date>2020-06-03T11:31:45Z</dc:date>
<dc:date>2020-06-03T11:31:45Z</dc:date>
<dc:date>2019-02</dc:date>
<dc:type>info:eu-repo/semantics/article</dc:type>
<dc:type>info:eu-repo/semantics/acceptedVersion</dc:type>
<dc:identifier>0149-7189</dc:identifier>
<dc:identifier>http://hdl.handle.net/10259/5324</dc:identifier>
<dc:identifier>10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2018.10.014</dc:identifier>
<dc:language>eng</dc:language>
<dc:relation>Evaluation and Program Planning. 2019. V. 72, p. 219-226</dc:relation>
<dc:relation>https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2018.10.014</dc:relation>
<dc:rights>Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 Internacional</dc:rights>
<dc:rights>http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/</dc:rights>
<dc:rights>info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess</dc:rights>
<dc:format>application/pdf</dc:format>
<dc:publisher>Elsevier</dc:publisher>
</oai_dc:dc></metadata></record></GetRecord></OAI-PMH>