Talk:Logic model

In regards to the notability of "logic model," I think it is good to have this article -- I didn't write it, I looked it up because managers in my agency and other nonprofit agencies are always going on about "logic models" and the term doesn't really describe exactly what it is. It would probably be better for agencies to use a different term ("outcome plan" or "long-range plan" or something) but in fact, they use the term "logic model," and so it is good to have a Wikipedia page that reminds you what they are talking about. Yes, the concept itself is pretty simple and self-explanatory, as with so much business jargon that uses a fancy-sounding word to describe an obvious concept. But that again is all the more reason to have a Wikipedia page to translate the business jargon into regular language.

Agreed - logic models are definitely notable in program evaluation in education, and there are substantial secondary sources (e.g. the WK Kellogg guide) that reference them. Alansz (talk) 13:28, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed- Logic models are essential for program planning and evaluation. I propose removing the notability warning. SalahMahmud (talk)

To increase interest and put this topic in context, I would rename it Logic Model - Tools for performance evaluation I am an author referenced in the current page, developed conceptual model and wrote Building Team Capability to Fully Implement and Utilize the Self-Adjusting Treatment Evaluation Model, which utilizes a logic model framework and explains step by step how to practically apply the framework to carry out performance evaluation. (Melody Moore, former Managing Associate, Caliber Associate, Fairfax, VA) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Melody33333 (talk • contribs) 23:52, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The validity of using the logical framework (Logframe)or logical matrix has been proven for over 35 years now. Government agencies for international development like USAID, CIDA (Canadian) BRITISH OVERSEAS CORPORATION, SIDA (Swedish) and others have been requiring its use by all fund applicants for program development and for evaluation. This framework, form or model is called "logical" because it follows logical reasoning; where deductive reasoning is use in identifying a hierarchy of problems, using the cause and effect process and then deductive reasoning is used to design the Goal, Objectives (outcomes), Activities (outputs), Verifiable Indicators and the Means of Verification. It is all a LOGICAL process; and if we want to call it a model then it is a LOGICAL MODEL. Logic is branch of philosophy and conveys the abstract process of valid reasoning. Any concept or person that uses this process can be call LOGICAL, since they subscribe to logical form; but cannot be called "logic" any more that we can call a person intelligence instead of intelligent. Please excuse my questioning, but where has the name of logic model come from, to describe programmatic representation? Thank you.Yemanegm (talk) 22:51, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Logic model. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130729034729/http://www.nist.gov/baldrige/publications/criteria.cfm to http://www.nist.gov/baldrige/publications/criteria.cfm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:21, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Logic model. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:28, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note relationship to theory of change and causal diagrams?

I'm more familiar with the idea of theory of change (and theory of change diagrams) and causal diagrams than I am with logic models. But from what I've heard about logic models and from the lead section of this page, it seems like they're quite similar to ToCs and causal diagrams. So it seems like this page should include links to those two pages, and should at least briefly describe how the concepts are related/distinct?

I don't know enough about this / have enough time to make this change myself, unfortunately. --BreakfastJr (talk) 00:55, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Progressive Outcomes Scale (POS) logic models

A section about "Progressive Outcomes Scale (POS) logic models" keep being added by HumanisticCare user despite being flagged by myself and another user in the past. As the user wrote me an email instead of writing on the talk page, here is the user message. I prefer to answer here instead than by email for future reference:

"I am Quisha Brown [...]"

Pleasure talking to you Quisha.

"[...] and I notice that you keep removing my entry regarding the POS Logic Model".

The entry is about logic models as tool used in program planning. The entry about POS Logic Model is being added under the two types of model presented in the page - the Inputs → Activities → Outputs → Outcomes and the Intervention Mapping - are broadly used templates that have been extensively studied, documented in peer-reviewed scientific journal and used in numerous domains (as can be seen in the History section and references).

Unfortunately, as I can see so far, POS Logic Model seems an application to racial equity of a framework quite similar to the Inputs → Activities → Outputs → Outcomes model, aka a matrix model similar to the Logical Framework Approach.

"You said that it was from an unreliable source. Everything written in the article can be verified"

First, from [Verifiability page]:

All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution.

As of now, the addition doesn't include links, neither reference to source. The only information I found is a self-published book on Amazon and content on the Humanistic Care website.

More information about what counts as a Reliable source on Wikipedia might be found here: [[1]], including criteria for self-published book.

Finally, notwithstanding my remarks concerning the lack of reliable sources, the main issue about the inclusion of POS Logic Model is mostly highlighted in my first deletion on April 5, namely that the section into which POS Logic Model was included was about the main approaches to logic model as they can be broadly found in the scientific and practitioners literature. I honestly considered including it as an example of application in the second paragraph of the introduction, but the fact it was self-published made it hard to justify its addition so far.

"Please share what your real issue is regarding my entry because all of it is true. Are you attempting to steal my creation of the POS Logic Model? I am the original creator of this model and what you are attempting to do appears to be dishonest."

I hope the above information and comments on the edit answer to your questions. As per your latest comment, here is some piece of advice that can be found on the [to policies and guidelines] page:

Being civil entails remaining polite and assuming good faith when interacting with others, and focusing on the content of edits rather than on personal issues. It requires participating in a respectful and considerate way, without ignoring the positions and conclusions of others. Assuming good faith means that we assume by default that other people's intentions are to improve the project. If criticism or moderation is needed, we discuss editors' actions but do not accuse them of harmful motives without clear evidence.

To conclude, I have no doubt that you have worked hard on the POS Logic Model and that it can be a useful tool to design better intervention. But at the same time, the article should [it's scope] and be [relevant].

--Mathias Hoffnung (talk) 00:57, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]