This article describes a project designed to provide evaluators, their clients, and other stake-holders with checklists for guiding and assessing formative and summative evaluations. The checklists pertain to program, personnel, and product evaluations, and reflect different conceptualizations of evaluation. They are constructed for use in planning, contracting, conducting, reporting, and judging evaluations. The checklists, along with papers on the logic and methodology of checklists and guidelines for developing checklists, are conveniently available on the Western Michigan University Evaluation Center’s Web site www.wmich.edu/evalctr/checklists/.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
House, E. R., & Howe, K. R. (2000a). Evaluation as a democratic process: Promoting deliberation, dialogue, and inclusion. In K. E. Ryan & L. DeStefano (Eds.), Deliberative democratic evaluation. New Directions for Evaluation, 85 (pp. 3-12). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
2.
House, E. R., & Howe, K. R. (2000b). Deliberative democratic evaluation in practice. In D. L. Stufflebeam, G. F. Madaus, & T. Kellaghan (Eds.), Evaluation models (pp. 409-421). Boston: Kluwer.
3.
Joint Committee on Standards for Educational Evaluation. (1988). The personnel evaluation standards: How to assess systems for evaluating educators. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
4.
Joint Committee on Standards for Educational Evaluation. (1994). The program evaluation standards: How to assess evaluations of educational programs. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
5.
Scriven, M. (1991). Evaluation thesaurus. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
6.
Stufflebeam, D. L. (2000). The methodology of metaevaluation as reflected in metaevaluations by the Western Michigan University Evaluation Center. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 14 (1), 95-125.
7.
Stufflebeam, D. L. (2001). Lessons in contracting for evaluations. American Journal of Evaluation, 21, 293-314.
