The query, "What works in program evaluation" can be answered on the basis of information already known to many evaluators. Documentation of procedures needed to justify evaluative conclusions in summative evaluations of the impact of large, expensive social programs has led to four propositions proffered as reflective of what works in any such outcome evaluation.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Bell, S., Orr, L., Blomquist, J., & Cain, G. (1995). Program applicants as a comparison group in evaluating training programs . Kalamazoo, MI: W.E. Upjohn Institute.
2.
Bozeman, B., & Landsbergen, D. (1989). Truth and credibility in sincere policy analysis: Alternative approaches for the production of policy-relevant knowledge. Evaluation Review, 13(4), 355-379.
3.
Hennessy, M. (1982). The end of methodology? A review essay on evaluation research methodsWestern Political Quarterly , 35(4), 606-612.
4.
Hennessy, M., & Sullivan, M. (1989). Good organizational reasons for bad evaluation research. Evaluation Practice, 10(4), 41-50.
5.
Horn, W., & Heerboth, J. (1982). Single case experimental designs and program evaluation . Evaluation Review, 6(3), 403-424.
6.
Moskowitz, J. (1993). Why reports of outcome evaluations are often biased or uninterpretable. Evaluation and Program Planning , 16, 1-9.
7.
Shadish, W., Cook, T. & Leviton, L. (1991). Foundations of program evaluation. Newbury Park: Sage.
8.
Trochim, W. (1984). Research design for program evaluation . Beverly Hills: Sage.
9.
Worthen, B. (1995). The unvarnished truth about logic-in-use and reconstructed logic in educational inquiry. Evaluation Practice , 16(2), 165-178.
