The Program Evaluation Standards in International Settings

More documents

Recommendations

Info

4Table 1: Comparison of Findings From Three Empirical PapersStandard Smith Jang WidmerU1 Stakeholder Identification XU2U3U4U5U6U7F1F2Evaluator CredibilityInformation Scope and SelectionValues IdentificationReport ClarityReport Timeliness and DisseminationEvaluation ImpactPractical ProceduresPolitical ViabilityF3 Cost Effectiveness XP1 Service Orientation X XP2 Formal Agreements XP3 Rights of Human Subjects X XP4 Human Interactions XP5 Complete and Fair Assessment XP6 Disclosure of Findings X XP7 Conflict of Interest X XP8A1A2A3Fiscal ResponsibilityProgram DocumentationContext AnalysisDescribed Purposes and ProceduresA4 Defensible Information Sources X XA5 Valid Information XA6A7A8A9Reliable InformationSystematic InformationAnalysis of Quantitative InformationAnalysis of Qualitative InformationA10 Justified ConclusionsA11 Impartial ReportingA12 MetaevaluationX
5Cross-Cultural Transferabilityof The Program Evaluation Standards“ . . . there is no such thing as human nature independent of culture” (Geertz,1973)Sandy TautVisiting ScholarThe Evaluation CenterAbstractThe paper addresses the cross-cultural transferability of The Program EvaluationStandards (Joint Committee on Standards for Educational Evaluation, 1994).Based on cross-cultural psychological and anthropological literature, culturalvalues are identified and discussed for each of the 30 standards. Examples aregiven as to the cross-cultural differences regarding these values. The analysisincludes a review of the relevant literature dealing with the standards’transferability. The author concludes that Utility and Propriety Standards, inparticular, have limited applicability in cultures differing from their NorthAmerican origin. Hence, evaluators from other cultural contexts should be awareof the underlying values limiting the standards’ cross-cultural applicability.
Page 1 and 2: The Program Evaluation Standardsin
Page 3 and 4: The editor acknowledges the valuabl
Page 5 and 6: ForewordOn February 18-20, 2000, th
Page 7: Hopefully, this volume will contrib
Page 11 and 12: Cross-Cultural Transferability of t
Page 31: Cross-Cultural Transferability of t
Page 34 and 35: 30 Nick L. Smith, Saviour Chircop a
Page 46 and 47: 42 Soojung Jangyears. Due to the sc
Page 48 and 49: 44 Soojung JangThis test-based sele
Page 50 and 51: 46 Soojung JangTable 1. Descriptive
Page 52 and 53: 48 Soojung JangU2 Evaluator Credibi
Page 54 and 55: 50 Soojung Janggenerous to foreigne
Page 56 and 57: 52 Soojung Jangfeelings. This partl
Page 58 and 59:
54 Soojung JangReporting Informatio
Page 60 and 61:
56 Soojung JangU4 Values Identifica
Page 62 and 63:
58 Soojung JangReferencesBecker, C.
Page 64 and 65:
60Standards for Evaluation:On the W
Page 66 and 67:
62 Wolfgang BeywlThe advantage of t
Page 68 and 69:
64 Wolfgang BeywlA more direct way
Page 71 and 72:
67Evaluating Evaluations: Does the
Page 73 and 74:
Evaluating Evaluations 69Bussmann 1
Page 75 and 76:
Evaluating Evaluations 71• Housin
Page 77 and 78:
Evaluating Evaluations 73Table 1: C
Page 79 and 80:
Evaluating Evaluations 75• Contra
Page 81 and 82:
Evaluating Evaluations 77References
Page 83 and 84:
Evaluating Evaluations 79Raven, J.
Page 85 and 86:
81Evaluation StandardsRecommended b
Page 87 and 88:
Evaluation Standard Recommended by
Page 89 and 90:
Page 91 and 92:
Page 93 and 94:
Page 95 and 96:
Page 97 and 98:
Page 99 and 100:
Page 101 and 102:
Page 103 and 104:
Page 105 and 106:
Page 107 and 108:
103AnnexThe complete list of the or
Page 109:
Annex 105A4 Defensible Information
show all

The Program Evaluation Standards in International Settings

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?