Editors' notes

McLaughlin, John A.; Weber, Larry; Covert, Robert W.; Ingle, Robert B.

doi:10.1002/ev.1485

New Directions for Program Evaluation

1988

DOI: 10.1002/ev.1485

|View full text |Cite

Editors' notes

John A. McLaughlin

Larry Weber

Robert W. Covert

et al.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...

Citation Types

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Year Published

2007

2009

Publication Types

Select...

Article2

Relationship

Self Cite0

Independent2

Authors

Journals

Cited by 2 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…everal volumes of New Directions for Evaluation have focused on evaluation use and misuse (Caracelli & Preskill, 2000;McLaughlin, Weber, Covert & Ingle, 1988;Stevens & Dial, 1994). In this research, the terms utilization, use, and influence are often used, sometimes interchangeably, to suggest the ways in which evaluations-both specifically and generally-affect organizational operations, decisions and outcomes (Kirkhart, 2000;Patton, 1985;Weiss, 1981).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

An Evaluation Use Framework and Empirical Assessment

Peck¹,

Gorzalski²

2009

J Multidiscip Eval

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Research on evaluation use focuses on putting evaluation recommendations into practice. Prior theoretical research proposes varied frameworks for understanding the use (or lack) of program evaluation results. Purpose: Our purpose is to create and test a single, integrated framework for understanding evaluation use. This article relies on prior theoretical research regarding categories of utilization, typologies of recommendations, and factors affecting utilization to frame an empirical study of evaluation use that then tests the integrated theory. Setting: The empirical part of the article draws on post-evaluation interviews with sixteen agencies that have engaged in evaluation research. Subjects: The agencies are mostly local non-profits, but the sample also includes a state agency, a city agency, and two university-community partnerships. All agencies had undergone a program evaluation between 2003 and 2006. Intervention: Having participated in an evaluation is the main “intervention” of interest in this article, in which we consider the relationship between evaluation use theory and empirical evidence on the topic. Research Design: A qualitative approach, our research design involved examining each of the sixteen agencies within two years of their having been evaluated. Data Collection and Analysis: Data collection included structured in-person interviews with at least one key informant in each agency. In addition, a short, closed-ended survey was administered to research participants. Interview data were analyzed using content analysis of themes and grouping agencies according to their evaluation’s outcomes (favorable or not) and experiences. Survey data were analyzed with simple descriptive statistics and similarly involved a subgroup analysis, according to agencies’ reported use of evaluation. Findings: Most evaluation use is conceptual, and few agencies studied actually implemented specific evaluation recommendations. Agencies perceived recommendations as changes to rules and structure, which theory and prior research suggest suppresses use. An important human factor that influenced evaluation use was minimal post-evaluation interaction with evaluators. Some long-term influence of the evaluation is evident, but only as conceptual and not as instrumental. In fact, very little instrumental use existed in this empirical assessment. Conclusions: Evidence suggests that evaluation use in practice aligns with theory, specifically emphasizing the conceptual use dimension. The proposed integrated model of prior evaluation use theories may hold value for future theoretical and empirical work.

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

An Evaluation Use Framework and Empirical Assessment

Peck¹,

Gorzalski²

2009

J Multidiscip Eval

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…1 Compared to quantitative (positivist) paradigm, the qualitative paradigm used non-quantitative evaluation methods such as naturalistic observation and subjective exploratory techniques. 2 Alternative models in the 1980s ranged from stakeholder evaluation (Gold, 1981) to goal-focused evaluations (McLaughlin, 1988). 3 From the early 1980s to mid-1990s, increased attention has been paid to the role of multiple groups and stakeholder involvement in the evaluation process (Guba and Lincoln, 1981;Mark and Shotland, 1985;Sechrest and Sidani, 1995).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation, Sustainable Development, and the Environment in the South Pacific

Turvey¹

2007

J Multidiscip Eval

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article outlines the Results-Based Evaluation (RBE) framework proposed for the ex-post assessment of the National Environmental Management Strategies (NEMS) in 12 small-island developing states (SIDS) in the South Pacific. It gives an overview of the methods and basis of developing an evaluation framework in the context of SIDS in the region. Framework development is a) process-based because it integrated contextual, conceptual and empirical parameters for evaluation design, and b) spatially oriented because it involved vulnerability assessment, situational analysis and workshop-based consultation in Kiribati and Samoa. It concludes that RBE has potential value in the review process for updating the environmental strategies and action plans and for measuring what has been achieved within the managerial process for sustainable development in the region.

show abstract

scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.

Contact Info

customersupport@researchsolutions.com

10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614

Henderson, NV 89052, USA

Blog Terms and Conditions API Terms Privacy Policy Contact Cookie Preferences Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information

Made with 💙 for researchers

Part of the Research Solutions Family.

Editors' notes

Cited by 2 publications

References 0 publications

An Evaluation Use Framework and Empirical Assessment

An Evaluation Use Framework and Empirical Assessment

Evaluation, Sustainable Development, and the Environment in the South Pacific

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About