IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/epplan/v76y2019ic7.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Evaluation logic in practice

Author

Listed:
  • Ozeki, Satoshi
  • Coryn, Chris L.S.
  • Schröter, Daniela C.

Abstract

Surveys of two independent random samples of American Evaluation Association (AEA) members were conducted to investigate application of the logic of evaluation in their evaluation practice. This logic consists of four parts: (1) establish criteria, (2) set standards, (3) measure performance on criteria and compare to standards, and (4) synthesize into a value judgment. Nearly three-fourths (71.84% ± 5.98%) of AEA members are unfamiliar with this logic, yet a majority also indicate its importance and utility for evaluation practice. Moreover, and despite unfamiliarity with the four steps of the logic of evaluation, many AEA members identify evaluative criteria (82.41% ± 3.34%), set performance standards (60.55% ± 7.39%), compare performance to standards (62.14% ± 5.98%), and synthesize into an evaluative conclusion (75.00% ± 5.80%) in their evaluation practice. Much like the working logic of evaluation, however, application of the general logic varies widely.

Suggested Citation

  • Ozeki, Satoshi & Coryn, Chris L.S. & Schröter, Daniela C., 2019. "Evaluation logic in practice," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 76(C), pages 1-1.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:epplan:v:76:y:2019:i:c:7
    DOI: 10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2019.101681
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0149718919301429
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2019.101681?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. William R. Shadish JR & Roberta Epstein, 1987. "Patterns of Program Evaluation Practice Among Members of the Evaluation Research Society and Evaluation Network," Evaluation Review, , vol. 11(5), pages 555-590, October.
    2. Patton, Michael Quinn & Horton, Douglas, 2008. "Utilization-focused evaluation for agricultural innovation," ILAC Briefs 52533, Institutional Learning and Change (ILAC) Initiative.
    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. Gullickson, Amy M., 2020. "The whole elephant: Defining evaluation," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 79(C).
    2. Davidson, Angus Alexander & Young, Michael Denis & Leake, John Espie & O’Connor, Patrick, 2022. "Aid and forgetting the enemy: A systematic review of the unintended consequences of international development in fragile and conflict-affected situations," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 92(C).
    3. Aura María García Pabón, editor & Ana María Pérez Herrán, editor & Ismael Beltrán Prado, editor, 2019. "Competencia económica : reflexiones sobre los diez años de la Ley 1340 de 2009," Books, Universidad Externado de Colombia, Facultad de Economía, number 80, August.

    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. Lifshitz, Chen Chana, 2017. "Fostering employability among youth at-risk in a multi-cultural context: Insights from a pilot intervention program," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 76(C), pages 20-34.
    2. LaVelle, John M. & Davies, Randall, 2021. "Seeking consensus: Defining foundational concepts for a graduate level introductory program evaluation course," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 88(C).
    3. Melz, Heidi & Fromknecht, Anne E. & Masters, Loren D. & Richards, Tammy & Sun, Jing, 2023. "Incorporating multiple data sources to assess changes in organizational capacity in child welfare systems," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 97(C).
    4. Wingate, Lori A. & Smith, Nick L. & Perk, Emma, 2018. "The project vita: A dynamic knowledge management tool," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 71(C), pages 22-27.
    5. Metta, Matteo & Ciliberti, Stefano & Obi, Chinedu & Bartolini, Fabio & Klerkx, Laurens & Brunori, Gianluca, 2022. "An integrated socio-cyber-physical system framework to assess responsible digitalisation in agriculture: A first application with Living Labs in Europe," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 203(C).
    6. Arbour, Ghislain, 2020. "Teaching programme evaluation: A problem of knowledge," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 83(C).
    7. Jan Činčera & Grzegorz Mikusiński & Bohuslav Binka & Luis Calafate & Cristina Calheiros & Alexandra Cardoso & Marcus Hedblom & Michael Jones & Alex Koutsouris & Clara Vasconcelos & Katarzyna Iwińska, 2019. "Managing Diversity: The Challenges of Inter-University Cooperation in Sustainability Education," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(20), pages 1-16, October.
    8. 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.
    9. Picciotto, Robert, 2019. "Is evaluation obsolete in a post-truth world?," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 88-96.
    10. Kupiec, Tomasz, 2022. "Does evaluation quality matter? Quantitative analysis of the use of evaluation findings in the field of cohesion policy in Poland," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 93(C).
    11. Gullickson, Amy M. & King, Jean A. & LaVelle, John M. & Clinton, Janet M., 2019. "The current state of evaluator education: A situation analysis and call to action," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 75(C), pages 20-30.
    12. Harman, Elena & Azzam, Tarek, 2018. "Incorporating public values into evaluative criteria: Using crowdsourcing to identify criteria and standards," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 71(C), pages 68-82.
    13. Pleasant, Andrew & O’Leary, Catina & Carmona, Richard H., 2020. "Using formative research to tailor a community intervention focused on the prevention of chronic disease," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 78(C).
    14. Bean, Corliss N. & Kendellen, Kelsey & Halsall, Tanya & Forneris, Tanya, 2015. "Putting program evaluation into practice: Enhancing the Girls Just Wanna Have Fun program," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 49(C), pages 31-40.
    15. Purkus, Alexandra & Lüdtke, Jan, 2020. "A systemic evaluation framework for a multi-actor, forest-based bioeconomy governance process: The German Charter for Wood 2.0 as a case study," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 113(C).
    16. Bundi, Pirmin, 2018. "Parliamentarians’ strategies for policy evaluations," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 130-138.
    17. Zaveri, Sonal, 2020. "Making evaluation matter: Capturing multiple realities and voices for sustainable development," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 127(C).
    18. Birdthistle, Naomi & Eversole, Robyn & Walo, Megerssa, 2022. "Creating an inclusive entrepreneurial ecosystem for women entrepreneurs in a rural region," Journal of Business Venturing Insights, Elsevier, vol. 18(C).
    19. Gagnon, France & Aubry, Tim & Cousins, J. Bradley & Goh, Swee C. & Elliott, Catherine, 2018. "Validation of the evaluation capacity in organizations questionnaire," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 166-175.
    20. Szijarto, Barbara & Milley, Peter & Svensson, Kate & Cousins, J. Bradley, 2018. "On the evaluation of social innovations and social enterprises: Recognizing and integrating two solitudes in the empirical knowledge base," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 66(C), pages 20-32.

    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:76:y:2019:i:c:7. 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.