Process Evaluation of Teams: A Revised Framework for Use in Extension

Jeantyl Norze et al.

American Journal of Evaluation2026https://doi.org/10.1177/10982140251411595article
ABDC C
Weight
0.50

What the paper says

Limited information exists on evaluating Extension team dynamics to determine activities that positively or negatively impact team outcomes. We sought to identify a new evaluation pathway for Extension teams and reviewed the health field's process evaluation frameworks for potential use in social sciences. We began by updating current process evaluation frameworks in the literature so they could be applied to social sciences and Extension contexts. We then developed a new framework and tested its relevance by implementing a process evaluation for a recent Extension project team. We analyzed the team's backwards plan and project notes and conducted semi-structured interviews with ten project participants. We found that the newly developed process evaluation provides valuable information on team dynamics and activities, but that the most efficient measurement source depends on the specific core component or moderating factor being evaluated.

Open paper page →

Cite this paper

https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/10982140251411595

Or copy a formatted citation

@article{jeantyl2026,
  title        = {{Process Evaluation of Teams: A Revised Framework for Use in Extension}},
  author       = {Jeantyl Norze et al.},
  journal      = {American Journal of Evaluation},
  year         = {2026},
  doi          = {https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/10982140251411595},
}

Paste directly into BibTeX, Zotero, or your reference manager.

Flag this paper

Process Evaluation of Teams: A Revised Framework for Use in Extension

Flags are reviewed by the Arbiter methodology team within 5 business days.


Evidence weight

0.50

Balanced mode · F 0.40 / M 0.15 / V 0.05 / R 0.40

F · citation impact0.50 × 0.4 = 0.20
M · momentum0.50 × 0.15 = 0.07
V · venue signal0.50 × 0.05 = 0.03
R · text relevance †0.50 × 0.4 = 0.20

† Text relevance is estimated at 0.50 on the detail page — for your query’s actual relevance score, open this paper from a search result.