Évaluation: l’indépendance à l’épreuve de la relation entre mandants et mandataires

L’article suivant rend compte des résultats d’un atelier tenu à l’occasion du congrès 2015 de la SEVAL. L’atelier portait sur l’indépendance des évaluateurs et des évaluatrices du point de vue de leur relation avec les commanditaires de l’évaluation. Sur la base d’un exemple de mandat concret présenté par deux intervenants – l’évaluatrice ainsi que le conseiller d’État mandant de l’évaluation en question – les différents garde-fous contractuels, communicationnels et procéduraux aptes à garantir une pleine indépendance de l’évaluation ont été discutés. Il en est ressorti que quatre dimensions étaient cruciales pour le succès de la démarche : les conditions-cadres de l’évaluation, la récolte des données, les relations avec les évalués, ainsi que la phase de restitution des résultats.

Anticipatory and reactive forms of blame avoidance: of foxes and lions

Blame avoidance behavior (BAB) encompasses all kinds of integrity-protecting activities by officeholders in the face of potentially blame-attracting events. Although considered essential for a realistic understanding of politics and policymaking, a general understanding of this multi-faceted behavioral phenomenon and its implications has been lacking to date. We argue that this is due to the lack of careful conceptualization of various forms of BAB. Crucially, the difference between anticipatory and reactive forms of BAB is largely neglected in the literature. This paper links anticipatory and reactive forms of BAB as two consecutive decision situations. It exposes dependence relationships between the situations that trigger BAB, the rationalities at work, the resources and strategies applied by blame-avoiding actors, and the various consequences thereof. The paper concludes that anticipatory and reactive BAB are distinct phenomena that require specific research approaches to assess their relevance for the workings of polities.

Efficacy of an Internet-based, individually tailored smoking cessation program: A randomized trial

Introduction: Self-help computer-based programs are easily accessible and cost-effective interventions with a great recruitment potential. However, each program is different and results of meta-analyses may not apply to each new program; therefore, evaluations of new programs are warranted. The aim of this study was to assess the marginal efficacy of a computer-based, individually tailored program (the Coach) over and above the use of a comprehensive Internet smoking cessation website. Methods: A two-group randomized controlled trial was conducted. The control group only accessed the website, whereas the intervention group received the Coach in addition. Follow-up was conducted by e-mail after three and six months (self-administrated questionnaires). Of 1120 participants, 579 (51.7%) responded after three months and 436 (38.9%) after six months. The primary outcome was self-reported smoking abstinence over four weeks. Results: Counting dropouts as smokers, there were no statistically significant differences between intervention and control groups in smoking cessation rates after three months (20.2% vs. 17.5%, p¼0.25, odds ratio (OR)¼1.20) and six months (17% vs. 15.5%, p¼0.52, OR¼1.12). Excluding dropouts from the analysis, there were statistically significant differences after three months (42% vs. 31.6%, p¼0.01, OR¼1.57), but not after six months (46.1% vs. 37.8%, p¼0.081, OR¼1.41). The program also significantly increased motivation to quit after three months and self-efficacy after three and six months. Discussion: An individually tailored program delivered via the Internet and by e-mail in addition to a smoking cessation website did not significantly increase smoking cessation rates, but it increased motivation to quit and self-efficacy.