As with other factors in life, evaluations come in many levels of sophistication and expenditures.
As noted earlier, planning teams need to consider where they can make the best uses of limited resources. Very few actual evaluations would be able to meet all of the standards, criteria, and implementation procedures noted below. However, decisions to lower evaluation standards need to be made deliberately and with knowledge of possible consequences.
Evaluation Standards and Criteria :
Identified evaluation principles that, when addressed, should result in improved program evaluations containing the following four attributes:
ADVERTISEMENTS:
Evaluation Standards and Criteria:
Identified evaluation principles that, when addressed, should result in improved program evaluations containing the following four attributes:
1. Utility:
The utility standards are intended to ensure that an evaluation will serve the information needs of intended users. Special attention is given to (1) stakeholder identification, (2) evaluator credibility, (3) information scope and selection, (4) values identification, (5) report clarity, (6) report timelines and dissemination, and (7) evaluation impact.
ADVERTISEMENTS:
2. Feasibility:
The feasibility standards are intended to ensure that an evaluation will be realistic, prudent, diplomatic, and frugal. Special attention is given to (1) practical procedures, (2) political viability, and (3) cost effectiveness.
3. Propriety:
The propriety standards are intended to ensure that an evaluation will be conducted legally, ethically, and with due regard for the welfare of those involved in the evaluation, as well as those affected by its results. Special attention is given to (1) service orientation, (2) formal agreements, (3) rights of human subjects, (4) human interactions, (5) complete and fair assessment, (6) disclosure of findings, (7) conflict of interest, and (8) fiscal responsibility.
ADVERTISEMENTS:
4. Accuracy:
The accuracy standards are intended to ensure that an evaluation will reveal and convey technically adequate information about the features that determine worth of merit of the program being evaluated. Special attention is given to (1) program documentation, (2) context analysis, (3) described purposes and procedures, (4) defensible information sources, (5) valid information, (6) reliable information, (7) systematic information, (8) analysis of quantitative information, (9) analysis of qualitative information, (10) justified conclusions, (11) impartial reporting, and (12) meta-evaluation.