Social Construction of Reality - Bad Request

Preskill, 2001, p. 6). Patton (1997) categorizes evaluation approaches according to
focus. In this way, he negotiates the distinction between approaches based upon the types
of questions a given approach is best suited to answering. He provides 58 possible
options, but notes that his list “by no means exhaust[s] all possibilities…and encourages
evaluators to remember various options can be and often are used to together within the
same evaluation or in a sequence over time” (pp. 192-194). Newcomer, Hatry, and
Wholey (2004) are proponents of just such a sequential approach to program evaluation.
Indeed, several of the types found on Patton’s (1997) list are specifically noted key
elements in what they deem “site-specific” program evaluation: logic modeling,
evaluability assessment, implementation evaluation, ongoing performance monitoring,
and experiential (or quasi) designs (p. 1).
Stufflebeam and Shinkfield (2007) distill the approaches to a more concise list of
26 (Appendix A). While this list possesses echoes of Patton’s (1997), for the most part, it
subsumes the details found in Patton’s work and groups the 26 identified approaches into
five categories (See table 1). The categories are listed here to provide schema regarding
an overview of the field of evaluation approaches and to identify the location of the UFE
approach relative to other generally accepted approaches.
1. Pseduoevaluations (5 approaches)
2. Questions-and Methods-Oriented Evaluations/Quasi-Evaluation
Studies (14 approaches/ 3 in top 8)
3. Improvement-and Accountability-Oriented Evaluation (3 approaches/
2 in top 8)
4. Social Agenda and Advocacy Evaluation (3 approaches/ 2 in top 8)
21