Home > HCAS > HCAS_PUBS > HCAS_JOURNALS > TQR Home > TQR > Vol. 15 > No. 4 (2010)
Using Qualitative Data to Refine a Logic Model for the Cornell Family Development Credential Program
Human service practitioners face challenges in communicating how their programs lead to desired outcomes. One framework for representation that is now widely used in the field of program evaluation is the program logic model. This article presents an example of how qualitative data were used to refine a logic model for the Cornell Family Development Training and Credentialing (FDC) Program. This interagency training program teaches a strengths-based, family support, empowerment-oriented approach to the helping relationship. Analysis of the qualitative data gathered from interviews and focus groups with stakeholders led to revisions and further development of the program's initial logic model. The logic model format was then used to organize the representation of findings relative to program activities and outcomes.
Qualitative Inquiry, Program Logic Model, Empowerment, Outcomes Evaluation, Human Service Training, Strengths-Based Practice, Family Development, and Family Support
This paper is based on a presentation at the 1st International Congress of Qualitative Inquiry, at University of Illinois in 2005 and draws from a Cornell University doctoral dissertation entitled, “Building a theory of change and a logic model for an empowerment-based family support training and credentialing program.”
I want to acknowledge the superlative editorial assistance that I received from Sally St. George. I learned a great deal in the process and have been able to use what I learned from her as I advise my graduate students who are preparing dissertation-based work for journal publication.
Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 4.0 International License.
Recommended APA Citation
Crane, B. (2010). Using Qualitative Data to Refine a Logic Model for the Cornell Family Development Credential Program. The Qualitative Report, 15(4), 899-931. https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2010.1187
Quantitative, Qualitative, Comparative, and Historical Methodologies Commons, Social Statistics Commons