Table 2
Summary of approaches for conducting evaluations | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Approach | Attribute | |||
Organizer | Purpose | Key strengths | Key weaknesses | |
Politically controlled | Threats | Get, keep or increase influence, power or money. | Secure evidence advantageous to the client in a conflict. | Violates the principle of full & frank disclosure. |
Public relations | Propaganda needs | Create positive public image. | Secure evidence most likely to bolster public support. | Violates the principles of balanced reporting, justified conclusions, & objectivity. |
Experimental research | Causal relationships | Determine causal relationships between variables. | Strongest paradigm for determining causal relationships. | Requires controlled setting, limits range of evidence, focuses primarily on results. |
Management information systems | Scientific efficiency | Continuously supply evidence needed to fund, direct, & control programs. | Gives managers detailed evidence about complex programs. | Human service variables are rarely amenable to the narrow, quantitative definitions needed. |
Testing programs | Individual differences | Compare test scores of individuals & groups to selected norms. | Produces valid & reliable evidence in many performance areas. Very familiar to public. | Data usually only on testee performance, overemphasizes test-taking skills, can be poor sample of what is taught or expected. |
Objectives-based | Objectives | Relates outcomes to objectives. | Common sense appeal, widely used, uses behavioral objectives & testing technologies. | Leads to terminal evidence often too narrow to provide basis for judging to value of a program. |
Content analysis | Content of a communication | Describe & draw conclusion about a communication. | Allows for unobtrusive analysis of large volumes of unstructured, symbolic materials. | Sample may be unrepresentative yet overwhelming in volume. Analysis design often overly simplistic for question. |
Accountability | Performance expectations | Provide constituents with an accurate accounting of results. | Popular with constituents. Aimed at improving quality of products and services. | Creates unrest between practitioners & consumers. Politics often forces premature studies. |
Decision-oriented | Decisions | Provide a knowledge & value base for making & defending decisions. | Encourages use of evaluation to plan & implement needed programs. Helps justify decisions about plans & actions. | Necessary collaboration between evaluator & decision-maker provides opportunity to bias results. |
Policy studies | Broad issues | Identify and assess potential costs & benefits of competing policies. | Provide general direction for broadly focused actions. | Often corrupted or subverted by politically motivated actions of participants. |
Consumer-oriented | Generalized needs & values, effects | Judge the relative merits of alternative goods & services. | Independent appraisal to protect practitioners & consumers from shoddy products & services. High public credibility. | Might not help practitioners do a better job. Requires credible & competent evaluators. |
Accreditation / certification | Standards & guidelines | Determine if institutions, programs, & personnel should be approved to perform specified functions. | Helps public make informed decisions about quality of organizations & qualifications of personnel. | Standards & guidelines typically emphasize intrinsic criteria to the exclusion of outcome measures. |
Connoisseur | Critical guideposts | Critically describe, appraise, & illuminate an object. | Exploits highly developed expertise on subject of interest. Can inspire others to more insightful efforts. | Dependent on small number of experts, making evaluation susceptible to subjectivity, bias, and corruption. |
Adversary | “Hot” issues | Present the pro & cons of an issue. | Ensures balances presentations of represented perspectives. | Can discourage cooperation, heighten animosities. |
Client-centered | Specific concerns & issues | Foster understanding of activities & how they are valued in a given setting & from a variety of perspectives. | Practitioners are helped to conduct their own evaluation. | Low external credibility, susceptible to bias in favor of participants. |
Note. Adapted and condensed primarily from House (1978) and Stufflebeam & Webster (1980). |
Read more about this topic: Evaluation Approaches, Summary of Approaches
Famous quotes containing the word table:
“A sigh for every so many breath,
And for every so many sigh a death.
Thats what I always tell my wife
Is the multiplication table of life.”
—Robert Frost (18741963)