IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/epplan/v68y2018icp64-73.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The effects of stakeholder involvement on perceptions of an evaluation’s credibility

Author

Listed:
  • Jacobson, Miriam R.
  • Azzam, Tarek

Abstract

This article presents a study of the effects of stakeholder involvement on perceptions of an evaluation’s credibility. Crowdsourced members of the public and a group of educational administrators read a description of a hypothetical program and two evaluations of the program: one conducted by a researcher and one conducted by program staff (i.e. program stakeholders). Study participants were randomly assigned versions of the scenario with different levels of stakeholder credibility and types of findings. Results showed that both samples perceived the researcher’s evaluation findings to be more credible than the program staff’s, but that this difference was significantly reduced when the program staff were described to be highly credible. The article concludes with implications for theory and research on evaluation dissemination and stakeholder involvement.

Suggested Citation

  • Jacobson, Miriam R. & Azzam, Tarek, 2018. "The effects of stakeholder involvement on perceptions of an evaluation’s credibility," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 64-73.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:epplan:v:68:y:2018:i:c:p:64-73
    DOI: 10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2018.02.006
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0149718917303555
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2018.02.006?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. repec:mpr:mprres:6821 is not listed on IDEAS
    2. Hansen, Mark & Alkin, Marvin C. & Wallace, Tanner LeBaron, 2013. "Depicting the logic of three evaluation theories," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 34-43.
    3. Daigneault, Pierre-Marc, 2014. "Taking stock of four decades of quantitative research on stakeholder participation and evaluation use: A systematic map," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 45(C), pages 171-181.
    4. Luskin, Rebecca J.C. & Ho, Timothy, 2013. "Comparing the intended consequences of three theories of evaluation," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 61-66.
    5. Azzam, Tarek & Levine, Bret, 2015. "Politics in evaluation: Politically responsive evaluation in high stakes environments," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 53(C), pages 44-56.
    6. Thayer, Colette E. & Fine, Allison H., 2001. "Evaluation and outcome measurement in the non-profit sector: stakeholder participation," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 24(1), pages 103-108, February.
    7. Paul R. Brandon & Nick L. Smith & Christopher Trenholm & Barbara Devaney, "undated". "Evaluation Exemplar: The Critical Importance of Stakeholder Relations in a National Experimental Abstinence Education Evaluation," Mathematica Policy Research Reports 2cfa13cbfa784f8fb996f96ea, Mathematica Policy Research.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Peterson, Christina & Skolits, Gary, 2020. "Value for money: A utilization-focused approach to extending the foundation and contribution of economic evaluation," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 80(C).
    2. Evans, S. & Dadich, A. & Stout, B. & Plath, D., 2020. "Clarifying the role of belief-motive explanations in multi-stakeholder realist evaluation," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 80(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Miriam R. Jacobson & Tarek Azzam, 2016. "Methodological Credibility," Evaluation Review, , vol. 40(1), pages 29-60, February.
    2. Wu, Huang & Shen, Jianping & Jones, Jeffrey & Gao, Xingyuan & Zheng, Yunzheng & Krenn, Huilan Y., 2019. "Using logic model and visualization to conduct portfolio evaluation," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 69-75.
    3. Miller, Robin Lin, 2013. "Logic models: A useful way to study theories of evaluation practice?," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 77-80.
    4. Cousins, J. Bradley, 2013. "When does a conceptual framework become a theory? Reflections from an accidental theorist," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 67-70.
    5. Dillman, Lisa M., 2013. "Comparing evaluation activities across multiple theories of practice," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 53-60.
    6. Mark, Melvin M. & Henry, Gary T., 2013. "Logic models and content analyses for the explication of evaluation theories: The case of emergent realist evaluation," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 74-76.
    7. Schalock, Robert L. & Lee, Tim & Verdugo, Miguel & Swart, Kees & Claes, Claudia & van Loon, Jos & Lee, Chun-Shin, 2014. "An evidence-based approach to organization evaluation and change in human service organizations evaluation and program planning," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 45(C), pages 110-118.
    8. Gargani, John, 2013. "What can practitioners learn from theorists’ logic models?," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 81-88.
    9. Schalock, Robert L. & Verdugo, Miguel & Lee, Tim, 2016. "A systematic approach to an organization’s sustainability," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 56(C), pages 56-63.
    10. Massey, Oliver T., 2011. "A proposed model for the analysis and interpretation of focus groups in evaluation research," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 34(1), pages 21-28, February.
    11. Yakovleva, Natalia & Alabaster, Tony, 2003. "Tri-sector partnership for community development in mining: a case study of the SAPI Foundation and Target Fund in the Republic of Sakha (Yakutia)," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 29(3-4), pages 83-98.
    12. Teasdale, Rebecca M., 2022. "Representing the values of program participants: Endogenous evaluative criteria," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 94(C).
    13. Vo, Anne T., 2013. "Visualizing context through theory deconstruction: A content analysis of three bodies of evaluation theory literature," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 44-52.
    14. Holte-McKenzie, Merydth & Forde, Sarah & Theobald, Sally, 2006. "Development of a participatory monitoring and evaluation strategy," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 29(4), pages 365-376, November.
    15. Luskin, Rebecca J.C. & Ho, Timothy, 2013. "Comparing the intended consequences of three theories of evaluation," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 61-66.
    16. Azzam, Tarek & Wanzer, Dana Linnell & Knight, Ciara & Codd, Heather, 2021. "The manifestations of politics in evaluation: An exploratory study across the evaluation process," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 88(C).
    17. Hansen, Mark & Alkin, Marvin C. & Wallace, Tanner LeBaron, 2013. "Depicting the logic of three evaluation theories," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 34-43.
    18. Jean Damascene Mvunabandi & Charmaine Lathleiff & Paul-Francois Muzindutsi, 2022. "Financial Accounting as a Tool to Enhance Non-Government Organisations Performance: A Case Study of a Large NGO in Durban, South Africa," International Journal of Economics and Financial Issues, Econjournals, vol. 12(3), pages 10-17, May.
    19. Bergsmann, Evelyn & Schultes, Marie-Therese & Winter, Petra & Schober, Barbara & Spiel, Christiane, 2015. "Evaluation of competence-based teaching in higher education: From theory to practice," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 52(C), pages 1-9.
    20. Roseland, Denise & Lawrenz, Frances & Thao, Mao, 2015. "The relationship between involvement in and use of evaluation in multi-site evaluations," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 48(C), pages 75-82.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:epplan:v:68:y:2018:i:c:p:64-73. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/evalprogplan .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.