Evaluation

Evaluation is the systematic acquisition and assessment of information to provide useful feedback about some object
The Goals of Evaluation
The generic goal of most evaluations is to provide "useful feedback" to a variety of audiences. Most often, feedback is perceived as "useful" if it aids in decision-making. But the relationship between an evaluation and its impact is not a simple one -- studies that seem critical sometimes fail to influence short-term decisions, and studies that initially seem to have no influence can have a delayed impact when more congenial conditions arise. Despite this, there is broad consensus that the major goal of evaluation should be to influence decision-making or policy formulation through the provision of empirically-driven feedback.

Types of Evaluation
There are many different types of evaluations depending on the object being evaluated and the purpose of the evaluation. Perhaps the most important basic distinction in evaluation types is that between formative and summative evaluation. Formative evaluations strengthen or improve the object being evaluated -- they help form it by examining the delivery of the program, the quality of its implementation, and the assessment of the organizational context, personnel, procedures, inputs, and so on. Summative evaluations, in contrast, examine the effects or outcomes of some object -- they summarize it by describing what happens subsequent to delivery of the program; assessing whether the object can be said to have caused the outcome; determining the overall impact of the causal factor beyond only the immediate target outcomes; and, estimating the relative costs associated with the object.
Formative evaluation includes several evaluation types:

•needs assessment determines who needs the program, how great the need is, and what might work to meet the need
•evaluability assessment determines whether an evaluation is feasible and how stakeholders can help shape its usefulness
•structured conceptualization helps stakeholders define the program or technology, the target population, and the possible outcomes
•implementation evaluation monitors the fidelity of the program or technology delivery
•process evaluation investigates the process of delivering the program or technology, including alternative delivery procedures
Summative evaluation can also be subdivided:
•outcome evaluations investigate whether the program or technology caused demonstrable effects on specifically defined target outcomes
•impact evaluation is broader and assesses the overall or net effects -- intended or unintended -- of the program or technology as a whole
•cost-effectiveness and cost-benefit analysis address questions of efficiency by standardizing outcomes in terms of their dollar costs and values.
•secondary analysis reexamines existing data to address new questions or use methods not previously employed
•meta-analysis integrates the outcome estimates from multiple studies to arrive at an overall or summary judgement on an evaluation question.

Evaluation Questions and Methods
Evaluators ask many different kinds of questions and use a variety of methods to address them. These are considered within the framework of formative and summative evaluation as presented above.

In formative research the major questions and methodologies are:

What is the definition and scope of the problem or issue, or what's the question?

Formulating and conceptualizing methods might be used including brainstorming, focus groups, nominal group techniques, Delphi methods, brain writing, stakeholder analysis, lateral thinking, input-output analysis, and concept mapping.

Where is the problem and how big or serious is it?

The most common method used here is "needs assessment" which can include: analysis of existing data sources, and the use of sample surveys, interviews of constituent populations, qualitative research, expert testimony, and focus groups.

How should the program be delivered to address the problem?

Some of the methods already listed apply here, as do detailing methodologies like simulation techniques, or multivariate methods like multi attribute utility theory or exploratory causal modeling; decision-making methods; and project planning and implementation methods like flow charting, PERT/CPM, and project scheduling.
How well is the program or technology delivered?
Qualitative and quantitative monitoring techniques, the use of management information systems, and implementation assessment would be appropriate methodologies here.


The questions and methods addressed under summative evaluation include:
What type of evaluation is feasible?

Evaluability assessment can be used here, as well as standard approaches for selecting an appropriate evaluation design.
What was the effectiveness of the program?
One would choose from observational and correlational methods for demonstrating whether desired effects occurred, and quasi-experimental and experimental designs for determining whether observed effects can reasonably be attributed to the intervention and not to other sources.

What is the net impact of the program?

Econometric methods for assessing cost effectiveness and cost/benefits would apply here, along with qualitative methods that enable us to summarize the full range of intended and unintended impacts.
Clearly, this introduction is not meant to be exhaustive. Each of these methods, and the many not mentioned, is supported by an extensive methodological research literature. This is a formidable set of tools. But the need to improve, update and adapt these methods to changing circumstances means that methodological research and development needs to have a major place in evaluation work.

Confirmative evaluation goes beyond formative and summative evaluation;it moves traditional evaluation a step closer to full-scope evaluation. During confirmative evaluation, the evaluation, training, or HPT practitioner collects, analyzes, and interprets data related to behavior, accomplishment, and results in order to determine “the continuing competence of learners or the continuing effectiveness of instructional materials” (Hellebrandt and Russell, 1993, p. 22) and to verify the continuous quality improvement of education and training programs (Mark and Pines, 1995). The concept of going beyond formative and summative evaluation is not new. The first reference to confirmative evaluation came in the late 1970s:
“The formative-summative description set ought to be expanded to include a third element, confirmative evaluation” (Misanchuk, 1978, p. 16). Eight years later, Beer and Bloomer (1986) from Xerox suggested a limited strategy for going beyond the formative and summative distinctions in evaluation by focusing on three levels for each type of evaluation:

1. Level one: evaluate programs while they are still in draft form, focusing on the needs of the learners and the developers.

2. Level two: continue to monitor programs after they are fully implemented, focusing on the needs of the learners and the program objectives.

3. Level three: assess the transfer of learning to the real world Geis and Smith (1992, p. 133) report: “The current emphasis is on evaluation as a means of finding out what is working well, why it is working well, and what can be done to improve things.” However, when the quality movement gained prominence and business thinking raised the bar, educators and trainers began to agree, at least in principle, that “quality control requires continuous evaluation including extending the cycle beyond summative evaluation”
(Seels and Richey,1994, p. 59). Summative evaluation has immediate usefulness, but it does not help planners make decisions for the future. Confirmative evaluation, on the other hand, is future-oriented; it focuses on enduring, long-term effects or results over the life cycle of an instructional or non instructional performance intervention: “Enduring or long-term effects refer to those changes that can be identified after the passage of time and are directly linked to participation in [education or training]” (Hanson and
Siegel, 1995, pp. 27–28).