Estimating an Evaluation Utilization Model Using Conjoint Measurement and Analysis
- 1 June 1995
- journal article
- research article
- Published by SAGE Publications in Evaluation Review
- Vol. 19 (3) , 313-338
- https://doi.org/10.1177/0193841x9501900305
Abstract
The conjoint approach to measurement and analysis is demonstrated in this article through a test of an evaluation utilizationprocess-model that includes two endogenous variables (predicted participation and predicted instrumental utilization). Conjoint measurement involves having respondents rate attribute profiles that are analogous to concepts based on cells in a factorial analysis of variance. Such multidimensional ratings result in ecologically valid measurements because respondents examine and react to wholes, rather than to single unidimensional items as in traditional survey research. Statistically, conjoint analysis is a "decompositional" technique in which respondents' overall reactions to profiles (hypothetical situations) are decomposed to determine how much importance is given to attributes (variables used in the profiles) and to levels of the attributes.Keywords
This publication has 23 references indexed in Scilit:
- Enhancing Knowledge Utilization as a Strategy for School ImprovementKnowledge, 1993
- The Case for Participatory EvaluationEducational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 1992
- Factors Influencing the Use of Health Evaluation Research in CongressEvaluation Review, 1991
- Linkage Between Researchers and Practitioners: A Qualitative StudyAmerican Educational Research Journal, 1990
- Stakeholder Participation and Utilization in Program EvaluationEvaluation Review, 1988
- Steps Toward an Integrated Model of Research UtilizationKnowledge, 1987
- Current Empirical Research on Evaluation UtilizationReview of Educational Research, 1986
- Studying Evaluation Utilization Through SimulationsEvaluation Review, 1982
- Stimulating Evaluation Use by Integrating Academia and PracticeKnowledge, 1980
- Simultaneous conjoint measurement: A new type of fundamental measurementJournal of Mathematical Psychology, 1964