![]() |
![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
||
![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Although the literature includes over a hundred different kinds of evaluation (see Patton, 1982), the vast majority boil down to two types: those that aim to determine if the program has been implemented as planned, and those that measure its success in achieving its objectives (i.e., its impact). The label most often associated with the first type is "process evaluation," although it is sometimes called formative evaluation. The latter type is known as "summative evaluation," also known as impact, outcome, or effectiveness evaluation. Process Evaluation The main objective is to provide feedback to managers on whether the program is being carried out as planned and in an efficient manner. Guidance should be provided for modifying the program to help ensure it meets its objectives. With this information, the program can be modified so it is carried out as planned, or the plan itself can be modified if it is found lacking. Summative Evaluation The remainder of this report will focus on the summative side, in particular summative evaluations with quasi-experimental designs. Before plunging into the arcane field of quasi-experimental design however, the paper sets a proper context through a discussion of the main types of summative evaluation designs.
|