Evaluation Models

Publisher Website
Google Scholar
Abstract
In entering a new millennium, it is a good time for evaluators to critically appraise their program evaluation approaches and decide which ones are most worthy of continued application and further development. It is equally important to decide which approaches are best abandoned. In this spirit, this monograph identifies and assesses twenty‐two approaches often employed to evaluate programs. These approaches, in varying degrees, are unique and cover most program evaluation efforts. Two of the approaches, reflecting the political realities of evaluation, are often used illegitimately to falsely characterize a program's value and are labeled pseudo‐evaluations. The remaining twenty approaches are typically used legitimately to judge programs and are divided into questions/methods‐oriented approaches, improvement/accountability approaches, and social agenda/advocacy approaches. The best and most applicable of the program evaluation approaches appear to be Client‐Centered/Responsive, Utilization‐Focused, Decision/Accountability, Consumer‐Oriented, Constructivist, Case Study, Outcome/Value‐Added Assessment, and Accreditation, with the new Deliberative Democratic approach showing promise. The approaches judged indefensible or least useful were Politically Controlled, Public Relations, 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 use in program evaluation. All legitimate approaches are enhanced when keyed to and assessed against professional standards for evaluations.