Skip to main content
×
Home

Disaster Metrics: A Comprehensive Framework for Disaster Evaluation Typologies

  • Diana F. Wong (a1) (a2), Caroline Spencer (a1), Lee Boyd (a3) (a4), Frederick M. Burkle (a1) (a5) (a6) and Frank Archer (a1)...
Abstract
Abstract Introduction

The frequency of disasters is increasing around the world with more people being at risk. There is a moral imperative to improve the way in which disaster evaluations are undertaken and reported with the aim of reducing preventable mortality and morbidity in future events. Disasters are complex events and undertaking disaster evaluations is a specialized area of study at an international level.

Hypothesis/Problem

While some frameworks have been developed to support consistent disaster research and evaluation, they lack validation, consistent terminology, and standards for reporting across the different phases of a disaster. There is yet to be an agreed, comprehensive framework to structure disaster evaluation typologies.

The aim of this paper is to outline an evolving comprehensive framework for disaster evaluation typologies. It is anticipated that this new framework will facilitate an agreement on identifying, structuring, and relating the various evaluations found in the disaster setting with a view to better understand the process, outcomes, and impacts of the effectiveness and efficiency of interventions.

Methods

Research was undertaken in two phases: (1) a scoping literature review (peer-reviewed and “grey literature”) was undertaken to identify current evaluation frameworks and typologies used in the disaster setting; and (2) a structure was developed that included the range of typologies identified in Phase One and suggests possible relationships in the disaster setting.

Results

No core, unifying framework to structure disaster evaluation and research was identified in the literature. The authors propose a “Comprehensive Framework for Disaster Evaluation Typologies” that identifies, structures, and suggests relationships for the various typologies detected.

Conclusion

The proposed Comprehensive Framework for Disaster Evaluation Typologies outlines the different typologies of disaster evaluations that were identified in this study and brings them together into a single framework. This unique, unifying framework has relevance at an international level and is expected to benefit the disaster, humanitarian, and development sectors. The next step is to undertake a validation process that will include international leaders with experience in evaluation, in general, and disasters specifically. This work promotes an environment for constructive dialogue on evaluations in the disaster setting to strengthen the evidence base for interventions across the disaster spectrum. It remains a work in progress.

Wong DF , Spencer C , Boyd L , Burkle FM Jr. , Archer F . Disaster Metrics: A Comprehensive Framework for Disaster Evaluation Typologies. Prehosp Disaster Med. 2017;32(5):501514.

Copyright
Corresponding author
Correspondence: Diana Wong, MCP Nsg Monash University Disaster Resilience Initiative (MUDRI) Monash University Accident Research Centre (MURAC) Building 70, Clayton Campus, Monash University Wellington Road, Clayton VIC 3800 Australia E-mail: Diana.F.Wong@monash.edu
Footnotes
Hide All

Conflicts of interest/previous presentations: This paper is based on a conference presentation delivered at the 19th World Conference on Disaster and Emergency Medicine (WCDEM), Cape Town, South Africa, April 2015 and a poster presentation delivered at the United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNISDR) Science and Technology Conference on the Implementation of the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015-2030, Geneva, Switzerland, January 2016. The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

*

Author names have been changed since original publication.

Footnotes
References
Hide All
1. Downton MA, Pielke RA. How accurate are disaster loss data? The case of US flood damage. Nat Hazards. 2005;35:211-228.
2. Koenig KL, Schultz CH. (eds). Koenig and Schultz’s Disaster Medicine: Comprehensive Principles and Practices. New York USA: Cambridge University Press; 2010.
3. Coppola DP. Introduction to International Disaster Management. (2nd Ed.). Amsterdam, Netherlands: Elsevier; 2011.
4. De Smet H, Schreurs B, Leysen J. The response phase of the disaster management life cycle revisited within the context of “disasters out of the box.” Homeland Security and Emergency Management. 2015;12(2):319-350.
5. World Health Organization (WHO), Health Protection Agency, United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (UNISDR). Disaster Risk Management for Health: Overview 2011. http://www.who.int/hac/events/drm_fact_sheet_overview.pdf. Accessed June 2016.
6. Buttenheim A. Impact Evaluation in the Post-Disaster Setting: A Conceptual Discussion in the Context of the 2005 Pakistan Earthquake. International Initiative for Impact Evaluation (3ie), 2009. http://reliefweb.int/sites/reliefweb.int/files/resources/ E709B504EC3925DCC125768D002B5F30-3ie-working-paper-5.pdf. Accessed June 2016.
7. Wisner B, Blaikie P, Vannon T, Davis I. At Risk: Natural Hazards, People’s Vulnerability and Disasters. (2nd Ed.). Abingdon, United Kingdom: Routledge; 2003.
8. Veenema TG (ed). Disaster Nursing and Emergency Preparedness for Chemical, Biological and Radiological Terrorism and Other Hazards. Second Edition. New York USA: Springer Publishing Company; 2007.
9. Sundnes KO. Task Force on Quality Control of Disaster Management (TFQCDM). Health disaster management: guidelines for evaluation and research in the “Utstein Style.” Structural framework, operational framework, and preparedness. Scandinavian J Public Health. 2014;42(Supplement 14):1-195.
10. Clarke PK, Darcy J. Insufficient Evidence? The Quality and Use of Evidence in Humanitarian Action. ALNAP Study. London, United Kingdom: Active Learning Network for Accountability and Performance in Humanitarian Action (ALNAP) Overseas Development Institute (ODI); 2014.
11. Puri J, Aladysheva A, Iversen V, Ghorpade Y, Bruck T. What Methods May Be Used in Impact Evaluations of Humanitarian Assistance? 3ie Working Paper 22. New Delhi, India: International Initiative for Impact Evaluation (3ie); 2014.
12. Clarke M, Allen C, Archer F, Wong D, Eriksson A, Puri J. What Evidence is Available and What is Required, in Humanitarian Assistance? 3ie Scoping Paper 1. New Delhi, India: International Initiative for Impact Evaluation (3ie); 2014.
13. Task Force on Quality Control of Disaster Management (TFQCDM). World Association for Disaster and Emergency Medicine (WADEM), Nordic Society for Disaster Medicine. Health disaster management guidelines for evaluation and research in the Utstein Style. Prehosp Disaster Med. 2003;17(Supplement 3):1-177.
14. Kulling P, Birnbaum M, Murray V, Rockenschaub G. Guidelines for reports on health crises and critical health events. Prehosp Disaster Med. 2010;25(4):377-382.
15. Stufflebeam DL, Coryn CLS. Evaluation Theory, Models and Applications. (2nd Ed.). San Francisco, California USA: Jossey-Bass; 2007.
16. Sanders RJ (ed). The Program Evaluation Standards: The Joint Committee on Standards for Educational Evaluation. Second Edition. Thousand Oaks, California USA: Sage Publications Inc; 1994.
17. Yarbrough DB, Shulha LM, Hopson RK, Caruthers FA. The Program Evaluation Standards, A Guide for Evaluators and Evaluation Users. 3rd Edition. Los Angeles, California USA: Sage Publications Inc; 2011.
18. Davidson EJ. Evaluation Methodology Basics. Los Angeles, California USA: Sage Publications; 2005.
19. Oxford University Press. Oxford University Press; 2016. [Definition of method]. http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/method. Accessed June 2016.
20. Oxford Dictionaries Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2016. [Definition of typology]. http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/typology. Accessed June 2016.
21. The Joanna Briggs Institute Reviewer’s Manual 2015: Methodology for JBI Scoping Reviews. Adelaide, Australia: Joanna Briggs Institute; 2015.
22. Smith E, Wasiak J, Sen A, Archer F, Burkle FM. Three decades of disasters: a review of disaster-specific literature from 1977-2009. Prehosp Disaster Med. 2009;24(4):306-311.
23. United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA). Relief Web. Geneva, Switzerland: United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA); 2016. http://reliefweb.int/about. Accessed June 2016.
24. Active Learning Network for Accountability and Performance in Humanitarian Action (ALNAP). London, United Kingdom: ALNAP Overseas Development Institute (ODI); 2016. http://www.alnap.org/who-we-are/our-role. Accessed June 2016.
25. Rådestad M, Jirwe M, Castrén M, Svensson L, Gryth D, Rüter A. Essential key indicators for disaster medical response suggested to be included in a national uniform protocol for documentation of major incidents: a Delphi study. Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med. 2013;21(1):1-11.
26. Leiba A, Schwartz D, Eran T, et al. DISAST-CIR: Disastrous Incidents Systematic Analysis Through Components, Interactions, and Results: application to a large-scale train accident. J Emerg Med. 2009;37(1):46-50.
27. Rüter A. Disaster Medicine - Performance Indicators, Information Support and Documentation. A Study of an Evaluation Tool. Linkoping: Linköping University; 2006.
28. von Schreeb J. Needs Assessment for International Humanitarian Health Assistance in Disasters. Stockholm, Sweden: Karolinska Insitutet; 2007.
29. Wong D, Spencer C, Boyd L, Burkle FJ, Archer F. A review of the history and use of ‘Health Disaster Management Guidelines for Evaluation and Research in the Utstein Style’ (Abstract). 19th World Conference on Disaster and Emergency Medicine; April 2015; Cape Town, South Africa: Prehospital and Disaster Medicine; 2015:170.
30. Kohl PA, O’Rourke AP, Schmidman DL, Dopkin WA, Birnbaum ML. The Sumatra-Andaman Earthquake and Tsunami of 2004: the hazards, events, and damage. Prehosp Disaster Med. 2005;20(6):356-363.
31. World Health Organization (WHO). Tsunami 2004: A Comprehensive Analysis, Volume I. New Delhi, India: World Health Organization (WHO), Regional Office for South-East Asia; 2013: 354.
32. World Health Organization (WHO). Tsunami 2004: A Comprehensive Analysis, Volume II. New Delhi, India: World Health Organization (WHO), Regional Office for South-East Asia; 2013: 321.
33. Wong D, Spencer C, Boyd L, McArdle D, Burkle FJ, Archer F. Thematic Analysis of Seven Australian Disaster Reports or Inquiries. 19th World Conference on Disaster and Emergency Medicine; April 2015. Cape Town, South Africa: Prehospital and Disaster Medicine; 2015: 170.
34. Adibhatia S, Dudek O, Ramsel-Miller J, Birnbaum M. Classification of disaster health publications. Presented at 19th World Congress on Disaster and Emergency Medicine. Cape Town, South Africa. April 2015. Prehosp Disaster Med. 2015;30(Suppl 1):s111.
35. Stratton S. Is there a scientific basis for disaster health and medicine? Prehosp Disaster Med. 2014;29(3):221-222.
36. Birnbaum ML, Daily EK, O’Rourke AP, Loretti A. Research and evaluations of the health aspects of disasters, Part I: an overview. Prehosp Disaster Med. 2015;30(5):512-522.
37. Inter-Agency Standing Committee (IASC). Geneva, Switzerland; 2016. https://interagencystandingcommittee.org/. Accessed June 2016.
38. Stephenson C. Impacts Framework for Natural Disasters and Fire Emergencies. Melbourne, Australia: RMIT University and Bushfire CRC; 2010.
39. Powers R, Daily E (eds). International Disaster Nursing. New York USA: Cambridge University Press; 2010.
40. Debacker M, Hubloue I, Dhondt E, et al. Utstein-style template for uniform data reporting of acute medical response in disasters. PLOS Curr. 2012;4:e4f6cf3e8df15a.
41 Fattah S, Rehn M, Reierth E, Wisborg T. Templates for reporting prehospital major incident medical management: systematic literature review. BMJ Open. 2012;2(e001082):5.
42. Fattah S, Rehn M, Reierth E, Wisborg T. Systematic literature review of templates for reporting prehospital major incident medical management. BMJ Open. 2013;3(8).
43. Fattah S, Rehn M, Lockey D, Thompson J, Lossius HM, Wisborg T. A consensus based template for reporting of prehospital major incident medical management. Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med. 2014;22(5):6.
44. Birnbaum ML, Daily EK, O’Rourke AP, Loretti A. Research and evaluations of the health aspects of disasters, Part II: the disaster health conceptual framework revisited. Prehosp Disaster Med. 2015;30(5):523-538.
45. Birnbaum ML, Daily EK, O’Rourke AP. Research and evaluations of the health aspects of disasters, Part III: framework for the temporal phases of disasters. Prehosp Disaster Med. 2015;30(6):628-632.
46. Birnbaum ML, Daily EK, O’Rourke AP. Research and evaluations of the health aspects of disasters, Part IV: framework for societal structures: the social systems. Prehosp Disaster Med. 2015;30(6):633-647.
47. Birnbaum ML, Daily EK, O’Rourke AP. Research and evaluations of the health aspects of disasters, Part V: epidemiological disaster research. Prehosp Disaster Med. 2015;30(6):648-656.
48. Birnbaum ML, Daily EK, O’Rourke AP, Kushner J. Research and evaluations of the health aspects of disasters, Part VI: interventional research and the disaster logic model. Prehosp Disaster Med. 2016;31(2):1-14.
49. Birnbaum ML, Daily EK, O’Rourke AP. Research and evaluations of the health aspects of disasters, Part VII: the relief/recovery framework. Prehosp Disaster Med. 2016;31(2):1-16.
50. Birnbaum ML, Loretti A, Daily EK, O’Rourke AP. Research and evaluations of the health aspects of disasters, Part VIII: risk, risk reduction, risk management, and capacity building. Prehosp Disaster Med. 2016;31(3):1-9.
51. Birnbaum ML, Daily EK, O’Rourke AP, Loretti A. Research and evaluations of the health aspects of disasters, Part IX: risk-reduction framework. Prehosp Disaster Med. 2016;31(3):1-17.
52. United Nations General Assembly. Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015-2030; 2015. http://www.wcdrr.org/uploads/Sendai_Framework_for_Disaster_Risk_Reduction_2015-2030.pdf. Accessed June 2016.
53. Council of Australian Governments (COAG). National Strategy on Disaster Resilience. Barton, Australia: Commonwealth of Australia; 2011: 29.
54. Australian Emergency Management Institute. Australian Emergency Management Arrangements. (2nd Ed.). Canberra, Australia: Australian Emergency Management Institute, Department AGA-Gs; 2014.
55. Victorian Emergency Management Strategic Action Plan 2015 - 2018. Melbourne, Australia: Emergency Management Victoria; 2015.
56. Twigg J. Characteristics of a Disaster Resilient Community: A Guidance Note Version 2. London, United Kingdom: University College; 2009.
57. Clark H. Building Resilience: The Importance of Prioritizing Disaster Risk Reduction – A United Nations Development Programme Perspective Hopkins Lecture, University of Canterbury; August 2012. Christchurch: United Nations Development Programme (UNDP); 2012.
58. Bahadur A, Lovell E, Wilkinson E, Tanner T. Resilience in the SDGs: Developing an Indicator for Target 1.5 that is Fit for Purpose. London, United Kingdom: Overseas Development Institute (ODI); 2015.
59. United Nations (UN). Sustainable Development Goals. 17 Goals to Transform Our World. Geneva, Switzerland: United Nations (UN); 2016. http://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/sustainable-development-goals/. Accessed June 2016.
60. United Nations (UN). United Nations Conference on Climate Change Paris. United Nations (UN); 2015. http://www.cop21.gouv.fr/en/. Accessed June 2016.
61. Global Facility for Disaster Risk Reduction and Recovery (GFDRR). 2016. https://www.gfdrr.org/who-we-are. Accessed June 2016.
62. Kete N. How to Build a Resilient City: The City Resilience Framework. Women in Clean Energy Symposium; September 2014. The Rockefeller Foundation, ARUP; 2014.
63. Cutter SL, Burton CG, Emrich CT. Resilience indicators for benchmarking baseline conditions. J Homeland Security Emergency Management. 2010;7(1, Article 51):24.
64. Fung V. Using GIS For Disaster Risk Reduction Geneva: United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNISDR); 2012. http://www.unisdr.org/archive/26424. Accessed June 2016.
65. Fowler J. Appliance of Science Key to Disaster Risk Reduction. Geneva, Switzerland: United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNISDR); 2015. http://www.unisdr.org/archive/47180. Accessed June 2016.
66. Carabine E. Revitalizing evidence-based policy for the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015-2030: lessons from existing international science partnerships. PLOS Curr. 2015;7.
67. Singh-Peterson L, Salmon P, Goode N, Gallina J. Translation and evaluation of the baseline resilience indicators for communities on the Sunshine Coast, Queensland Australia. International J Disaster Risk Reduction. 2014;10(Part A):116-126.
68. Bamberger M. Reconstructing baseline data for impact evaluation and results measurement. World Bank, Prem Notes. 2010;4:1-10.
69. Davies R. Evaluability Assessment: Better Evaluation; 2015. http://betterevaluation.org/themes/evaluability_assessment. Accessed June 2016.
70. Abbas SH, Srivastava RK, Tiwari RP, Ramudu PB. GIS-based disaster management. Management of Quality: An International Journal. 2009;20(1):33-51.
71. Renger R, Cimetta A, Pettygrove S, Rogan S. Geographical Information Systems (GIS) as an evaluation tool. AJE. 2002;23(4):469-479.
72. Burkle Jr. FM, Martone G, Greenough PG. The Changing face of humanitarian crises. Brown J World Affairs. 2014;XX(11):25-48.
73. Burkle FJ, Greenough PG. Impact of public health emergencies on modern taxonomy, planning, and response. Disaster Med Public Health Prep. 2008;2(3):192-199.
74. The Sphere Project. Humanitarian Charter and Minimum Standards in Humanitarian Response. Rugby, United Kingdom: Practical Action Publishing; 2011.
75. Core Humanitarian Standard on Quality and Accountability. Groupe URD, HAP International, People in Aid, Sphere Project; 2014.
76. Developing Early Warning Systems: A Checklist. EWC III Third International Conference on Early Warning from Concept to Action. Bonn, Germany: International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (ISDR); 2006: 13.
77. Health Impact Assessment. Main Concepts and Suggested Approach, Gothenburg Consensus Paper. Brussels, Belgium: World Health Organization (WHO) Region Office for Europe European Centre for Health Policy ECHP; 1999.
78. Multi-Cluster/Sector Initial Rapid Assessment (MIRA). Inter-Agency Standing Committee (IASC), 2012. https://docs.unocha.org/sites/dms/documents/mira_final_version2012.pdf. Accessed June 2016.
79. Pan American Health Organization (PAHO), Americas WHO. Rapid Needs Assessment 2016. http://www.paho.org/disasters/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=744%3Arapid-needs-assessment&Itemid=800&lang=en. Accessed June 2016.
80. Post-Disaster Needs Assessment, Guidelines, Volume A. Global Facility for Disaster Reduction and Recovery (GFDRR), 2013. https://www.gfdrr.org/sites/gfdrr/files/PDNA-Volume-A.pdf. Accessed June 2016.
81. Cosgrave J, Ramalingam B, Beck T. Real Time Evaluations of Humanitarian Action. An ALNAP Guide. London, United Kingdom: Overseas Development Institute (ODI); 2009.
82. Beck T, Buchanan-Smith M. Joint Evaluations Coming of Age? The Quality and Future Scope of Joint Evaluations. London, United Kingdom: Active Learning Network for Accountability and Performance (ALNAP); 2008.
83. United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNISDR). Disaster Statistics Geneva: United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNISDR); 2015. http://www.unisdr.org/we/inform/disaster-statistics. Accessed June 2016.
84. Bureau for Crisis Prevention and Recovery. A Comparative Review of Country-Level and Regional Disaster Loss and Damage Databases. Geneva, Switzerland: United Nations Development Programme (UNDP); 2013.
85. International Recovery Platform. Post Disaster Needs Assessments: International Recovery Platform; 2013. http://www.recoveryplatform.org/pdna/. Accessed June 2016.
86. Centre for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters (CRED) Geneva: PreventionWeb; 2016. http://www.preventionweb.net/organizations/712/view. Accessed June 2016.
87. The Australian Business Roundtable, 2016. http://australianbusinessroundtable.com.au/. Accessed June 2016.
88. After Action Review. Melbourne, Australia: Better Evaluation; 2015. http://betterevaluation.org/evaluation-options/after_action_review. Accessed June 2016.
89. The Monitoring and Assurance Framework for Emergency Management. Melbourne, Australia: Inspector-General for Emergency Management; 2015. www.igem.vic.gov.au/documents/CD/15/255352. Accessed June 2016.
90. Lessons Management. Canberra, Australia: Australian Emergency Management Institute; 2013.
91. Emergency Management Assurance Framework. Brisbane, Australia: Inspector-General Emergency Management; 2014.
92. The Federal Response to Hurricane Katrina: Lessons Learned. Washington, DC USA: White House; 2006. https://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/reports/katrina-lessons-learned/. Accessed June 2016.
93. The 2009 Victorian Bushfires Royal Commission Final Report. Melbourne, Australia: Victorian Bushfires Royal Commission; 2009. http://www.royalcommission.vic.gov.au/ Commission-Reports/Final-Report.html. Accessed June 2016.
94. Process Evaluations. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization (WHO), United Nations International Drug Control Programme (UNDCP), European Monitoring Center on Drugs and Drug Addiction (EMCDDA); 2000.
95. A Framework for Program Evaluation. Atlanta, Georgia USA: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC); 2016. http://www.cdc.gov/eval/framework/index.htm. Access June 2016.
96. Program Development and Evaluation: Logic Model. Madison, Wisconsin USA: University of Wisconsin-Extension; 2014. http://www.uwex.edu/ces/pdande/evaluation/evallogicmodel.html. Accessed June 2016.
97. Impact Evaluation Glossary. International Initiative for Impact Evaluation (3ie), 2012. Contract No.: Version No. 7. http://www.3ieimpact.org/media/filer_public/2012/07/11/impact_evaluation_glossary_-_july_2012_3.pdf. Accessed June 2016.
98. Bamberger M, Independent Evaluation Group (IEG). Institutionalizing Impact Evaluation Within the Framework of a Monitoring and Evaluation System. Washington, DC USA: World Bank; 2009.
99. Puri J, Aladysheva A, Iversen V, Ghorpade Y, Bruck T. What Methods May Be Used in Impact Evaluations of Humanitarian Assistance?2015. http://ftp.iza.org/dp8755.pdf. Accessed June 2016.
100. White H. Some Reflections on Current Debates in Impact Evaluation. New Delhi, India: International Initiative for Impact Evaluation (3ie); 2009.
101. Buttenheim A. Impact evaluation in the post-disaster setting: a case study of the 2005 Pakistan Earthquake. J Development Effectiveness. 2010;2(2):197-227.
102. Rogers PJ. Introduction to Impact Evaluation. InterAction, Better Evaluation, The Rockefeller Foundation; 2012. https://www.interaction.org/sites/default/files/1%20-%20Introduction%20to%20Impact%20Evaluation.pdf. Accessed June 2016.
103. Chambers R, Karlan D, Ravallion M, Rogers PJ. Designing Impact Evaluations: Different Perspectives. New Delhi, India: International Initiative for Impact Evaluation (3ie); 2011.
104. Brown LD, Moore MH. Accountability, Strategy, and International Non-Governmental Organizations. The Hauser Center for Nonprofit Organizations, The Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, 2001. Contract No.: Working Paper No. 7.
105. Tan YSA, von Schreeb J. Humanitarian assistance and accountability: what are we really talking about? Prehosp Disaster Med. 2015;30(3):264-270.
106. Griekspoor A, Sondorp E. Enhancing the quality of humanitarian assistance: taking stock and future initiatives. Prehosp Disaster Med. 2001;16(4):209-215.
107. Foran MP, Williams AR. Global uptake of the humanitarian accountability partnership over its first ten years. Prehosp Disaster Med. 2014;29(4):413-416.
108. Steering Committee for Humanitarian Response (SCHR). SCHR Peer Review on Accountability to Disaster Affected Populations. An Overview of Lessons Learned. Steering Committee for Humanitarian Response (SCHR); 2010. http://schr.info/assets/uploads/ docs/100212-SCHR-Peer-Review-lessons-paper-January-2010.pdf. Accessed June 2016.
109. Buchanan-Smith M, Cosgrave J. Evaluation of Humanitarian Action: Pilot Guide. London, United Kingdom: Active Learning Network for Accountability and Performance in Humanitarian Action (ALNAP); 2013.
110. 2013 Humanitarian Accountability Report. Humanitarian Accountability Partnership (HAP); 2013. http://www.chsalliance.org/files/files/2013-har.pdf. Accessed June 2016.
111. Morel D, Hagens C. Monitoring, Evaluation, Accountability and Learning in Emergencies: A Resource Pack for Simple and Strong MEAL. Catholic Relief Services (CRS); 2012. http://www.crs.org/sites/default/files/tools-research/monitoring-evaluation-accountability-and-learning-in-emergencies.pdf. Accessed June 2016.
112. Patton MQ. Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods. (4th Ed.). Los Angeles, California USA: Sage Publications; 2015.
113. Camfield L, Duvendack M. Impact evaluation - are we ‘off the gold standard’? European J Development Research. 2014;26(1):1-11.
114. United Nations Evaluation Group (UNEG). Standards for Evaluation in the UN System. Geneva, Switzerland: United Nations Evaluation Group (UNEG); 2005.
115. American Evaluation Association (AEA). The Program Evaluation Standards, Summary Form. Washington, DC USA: American Evaluation Association (AEA); 2016. http://www.eval.org/p/cm/ld/fid=103. Accessed June 2016.
116. DAC Principles for Evaluation of Development Assistance. Paris, France: Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD); 1991.
117. Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD). Principles for Evaluation of Development Assistance: Development Assistance Committee. Paris, France: Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD); 2008.
118. Hawe P, Degeling DE, Hall J, Brierley A. Evaluating Health Promotion: A Health Worker’s Guide. Sydney, Australia: MacLennan & Petty; 1990: 254.
119. International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (IFRC). Project/Programme Monitoring and Evaluation (M & E) Guide. Geneva, Switzerland: International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (IFRC); 2011; Contract No.: 1000400 E 3,000 08/2011.
120. O’Neill K. Evaluation Handbook. London, United Kingdom: Save the Children; 2012.
121. Buchanan-Smith M, Cosgrave J. Evaluation of Humanitarian Action. Pilot Guide. London, United Kingdom: The Active Learning Network for Accountability and Performance in Humanitarian Action (ALNAP); 2103.
122. International Initiative for Impact Evaluation (3ie). Principles for Impact Evaluation 2016. http://www.3ieimpact.org/media/filer_public/2014/01/15/principles_for_impact_evaluation.pdf. Accessed June 2016.
123. World Bank Group. World Bank Group Impact Evaluations: Relevance and Effectiveness. Washington, DC USA: The World Bank Group; 2012; License: Creative Commons Attribution CC BY 3.0.
124. Program Performance and Evaluation Office (PPEO) - Program Evaluation. Atlanta, Georgia USA: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC); 2016. http://www.cdc.gov/eval/. Accessed June 2016.
125. AusAID. NGO Cooperation Program: Monitoring, Evaluation, and Learning Framework. Canberra, Australia: AusAID; 2012.
126. United Nations Evaluation Group (UNEG). UNEG Ethical Guidelines for Evaluation. Geneva, Switzerland: United Nations Evaluation Group (UNEG); 2008.
127. Australian Council for International Development (ACFID). Guidelines for Ethical Research and Evaluation in Development. 2015:33. https://acfid.asn.au/sites/site.acfid/files/resource_document/ethics-guidelines.pdf. Accessed June 2016.
128. Australian Evaluation Society Inc. (AES). Guidelines for the Ethical Conduct of Evaluations 2010. http://www.aes.asn.au/images/stories/files/About/Documents - ongoing/AES Guidlines10.pdf. Accessed June 2016.
129. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR). The Cochrane Collaboration; 2015. http://community-archive.cochrane.org/editorial-and-publishing-policy-resource/cochrane-database-systematic-reviews-cdsr. Accessed June 2016.
130. The JBI Database of Systematic Reviews and Implementation Reports. Adelaide, Australia: Joanne Briggs Institute, University of Adelaide; 2016. http://joannabriggslibrary.org/index.php/jbisrir. Accessed June 2016.
131. Systematic Reviews: International Initiative for Impact Evaluation (3ie); 2016. http://www.3ieimpact.org/evidence/systematic-reviews/. Accessed June 2016.
132. Blanchet K, Sistenich V, Ramesh A, et al. An Evidence Review of Research on Health Interventions in Humanitarian Crises. London, United Kingdom: London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, Harvard School of Public Health, Overseas Development Institute (ODI) Enhancing Learning and Research for Humanitarian Assistance (ELHRA); 2015.
133. Gallardo AR, Ahmadreza D, Foletti M, et al. Core competencies in disaster management and humanitarian assistance: a systematic review. Disaster Med Public Health Prep. 2015;9(4):430-439.
134. Moslehi S, Ardalan A, Waugh W, Tirone DC, Akbarisari A. Characteristics of an effective international humanitarian assistance: a systematic review. PLoS Curr. 2016;(8).
135. Al Thobaity A, Williams B, Plummer V. A new scale for disaster nursing core competencies: development and psychometric testing. Australasian Emerg Nurs J. 2016;19(1):11-19.
136. Evidence Aid Priority Setting Group (EAPSG). Prioritization of themes and research questions for health outcomes in natural disasters, humanitarian crises, or other major health care emergencies. PLOS Curr. 2013; (1).
137. Olsen K, O’Reilly S. Evaluation Methodologies. Sheffield, England: International Organization Development (IOD PARC); 2011.
138. ALNAP Review of Humanitarian Action in 2003: Improving Monitoring to Enhance Accountability and Learning, Chapter 4 Meta-Evaluation. London, United Kingdom: Active Learning Network for Accountability and Performance in Humanitarian Action (ALNAP); 2003.
139. Groverman V, Hartmans J. Meta-Evaluation and Synthesis of the 2010 Pakistan Floods Response by SHO Participants: A Synthesis of Conclusions, Report Phase 2. Hague, The Netherlands: Cordaid; 2012.
140. Understanding Risk: Review of Open Source and Open Access Software Packages Available to Quantify Risk from Natural Hazards. Washington, DC USA: Global Facility for Disaster Reduction and Recovery (GFDRR); 2014.
141. Independent Evaluation Group (IEG), The World Bank Group. Evaluations. Washington, DC USA; 2014. http://ieg.worldbankgroup.org/webpage/evaluations. Accessed June 2016.
142. Active Learning Network for Accountability and Performance in Humanitarian Action (ALNAP). Humanitarian Evaluation and Learning Portal (HELP). London, United Kingdom: Overseas Development Institute (ODI); 2016. http://www.alnap.org/resources/. Accessed June 2016.
143. International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (IFRC). Evaluations. Geneva, Switzerland: International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (IFRC); 2016. http://www.ifrc.org/en/publications-and-reports/evaluations/. Accessed June 2016.
144. United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF). Evaluation and Research Database (ERD). United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF); 2014. http://www.unicef.org/evaldatabase/. Accessed June 2016.
145. International Initiative for Impact Evaluation (3ie). Impact Evaluations. International Initiative for Impact Evaluation (3ie); 2016. http://www.3ieimpact.org/en/evidence/impact-evaluations/. Accessed June 2016.
146. United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNISDR). 1st Information and Knowledge Management for Disaster Risk Reduction (IKM4DRR) Workshop: Final Report. Geneva, Switzerland: United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNISDR); 2013.
147. Archer F. WADEM Section: Disaster Metrics - Disaster Health Evaluation. Madison, Wisconsin USA: World Association for Disaster and Emergency Medicine (WADEM); 2015.
148. Oliver-Smith A. “What is a Disaster?” Anthropological Perspectives on a Persistent Questions. In Oliver-Smith A, Hoffman SM, (eds). The Angry Earth: Disaster in Anthrological Perspective. New York, USA: Routledge; 1999: 334.
149. Peek LA, Sutton JN. An exploratory comparison of disasters, riots, and terrorist acts. Disasters. 2003;27(4):319-335.
150. Kelly C. Simplifying disasters: developing a model for complex non-linear events. Austral J Emerg Manag. 1999;14(1):25-27.
151. James JJ. A rose by any other name. Disaster Med Public Health Prep. 2016;10(2):183-184.
Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

Prehospital and Disaster Medicine
  • ISSN: 1049-023X
  • EISSN: 1945-1938
  • URL: /core/journals/prehospital-and-disaster-medicine
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *
×

Keywords:

Type Description Title
PDF
Supplementary Materials

Wong supplementary material
Wong supplementary material 3

 PDF (2.6 MB)
2.6 MB
PDF
Supplementary Materials

Wong supplementary material
Wong supplementary material 6

 PDF (2.5 MB)
2.5 MB
PDF
Supplementary Materials

Wong supplementary material
Wong supplementary material 4

 PDF (2.6 MB)
2.6 MB
PDF
Supplementary Materials

Wong supplementary material
Wong supplementary material 5

 PDF (2.5 MB)
2.5 MB
PDF
Supplementary Materials

Wong supplementary material
Wong supplementary material 2

 PDF (2.6 MB)
2.6 MB
PDF
Supplementary Materials

Wong supplementary material
Wong supplementary material 8

 PDF (2.8 MB)
2.8 MB
PDF
Supplementary Materials

Wong supplementary material
Wong supplementary material 7

 PDF (2.5 MB)
2.5 MB
PDF
Supplementary Materials

Wong supplementary material
Wong supplementary material 1

 PDF (2.6 MB)
2.6 MB

Metrics

Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 3
Total number of PDF views: 69 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 819 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between 8th May 2017 - 17th November 2017. This data will be updated every 24 hours.