Data Portal @ linkeddatafragments.org

Matches in Harvard for { <http://id.lib.harvard.edu/aleph/008608083/catalog> ?p ?o. }

• catalog abstract ""Faced with a growing array of program evaluation approaches, evaluators should periodically take stock of their options. In this spirit, this monograph identifies, analyzes, and judges twenty-two evaluation approaches thought to cover most program evaluation efforts. Two approaches - labeled Pseudoevaluations - are politically oriented and often used illegitimately to misrepresent a program's value. The remaining twenty are judged to be legitimate and categorized for their orientations as Questions/ Methods, Improvement/Accountability, and Social Agenda/Advocacy. The best and most applicable approaches were judged to be Client-Centered/Responsive, Utilization-Focused, Decision/Accountability, Consumer-Oriented, Constructivist, Deliberative Democratic, Case Study, Outcome/Value Added Assessment, and Accreditation. The approaches judged least defensible or least useful include Public Relations, Politically Controlled, Accountability (especially payment by results), Clarification Hearing, and Program Theory-Based. The rest - including Objectives-Based, Experimental Studies, Management Information Systems, Criticism and Connoisseurship, Mixed Methods, Benefit-Cost Analysis, Performance Testing, and Objective Testing Programs - were judged to have restricted, though beneficial program evaluation applications. No evaluation approach is always best, and my analysis is intended to assist evaluators to choose that one or combination of approaches that best fits particular evaluation assignments. The approaches were judged for adherence to professional standards for evaluations. The employed standards-based, metaevaluation checklist is referenced, so that interested parties can examine its validity and/or apply it themselves. In introducing this issue, the co-editor of New Directions for Evaluation invites readers to study, discuss, critique, and/or build upon my analyses and judgments, and especially to consider which approaches work best in which circumstances. I join Dr. Henry in his invitation and look forward to productive exchanges with AEA members and others on how best to strengthen evaluators' choices and uses of evaluation approaches."--Jacket.".
• catalog contributor b12051080.
• catalog contributor b12051081.
• catalog created "c2001.".
• catalog date "2001".
• catalog date "c2001.".
• catalog dateCopyrighted "c2001.".
• catalog description ""Faced with a growing array of program evaluation approaches, evaluators should periodically take stock of their options. In this spirit, this monograph identifies, analyzes, and judges twenty-two evaluation approaches thought to cover most program evaluation efforts. Two approaches - labeled Pseudoevaluations - are politically oriented and often used illegitimately to misrepresent a program's value. The remaining twenty are judged to be legitimate and categorized for their orientations as Questions/ Methods, Improvement/Accountability, and Social Agenda/Advocacy. The best and most applicable approaches were judged to be Client-Centered/Responsive, Utilization-Focused, Decision/Accountability, Consumer-Oriented, Constructivist, Deliberative Democratic, Case Study, Outcome/Value Added Assessment, and Accreditation. ".
• catalog description "In introducing this issue, the co-editor of New Directions for Evaluation invites readers to study, discuss, critique, and/or build upon my analyses and judgments, and especially to consider which approaches work best in which circumstances. I join Dr. Henry in his invitation and look forward to productive exchanges with AEA members and others on how best to strengthen evaluators' choices and uses of evaluation approaches."--Jacket.".
• catalog description "Includes bibliographical references (p.92-98) and index.".
• catalog description "The approaches judged least defensible or least useful include Public Relations, Politically Controlled, Accountability (especially payment by results), Clarification Hearing, and Program Theory-Based. The rest - including Objectives-Based, Experimental Studies, Management Information Systems, Criticism and Connoisseurship, Mixed Methods, Benefit-Cost Analysis, Performance Testing, and Objective Testing Programs - were judged to have restricted, though beneficial program evaluation applications. No evaluation approach is always best, and my analysis is intended to assist evaluators to choose that one or combination of approaches that best fits particular evaluation assignments. The approaches were judged for adherence to professional standards for evaluations. The employed standards-based, metaevaluation checklist is referenced, so that interested parties can examine its validity and/or apply it themselves. ".
• catalog extent "106 p. :".
• catalog identifier "0787957550".
• catalog isPartOf "New directions for evaluation ; no. 89.".
• catalog isPartOf "New directions for evaluation, 1097-6736 ; no. 89, Spring 2001/".
• catalog issued "2001".
• catalog issued "c2001.".
• catalog language "eng".
• catalog publisher "San Francisco : Jossey-Bass,".
• catalog subject "Evaluation Methodology.".
• catalog subject "H61 .S784".
• catalog title "Evaluation models / Daniel L. Stufflebeam, author.".
• catalog type "text".