An Analysis of Alternative Approaches to Evaluation

Part of the Evaluation in Education and Human Services book series (EEHS, volume 8)


Three major approaches to evaluating programs are set forth in this unit. The first —pseudoevaluation —includes attempts to mislead through evaluation. The second — quasievaluation — encompasses studies that are preoccupied with answering given questions of interest instead of assessing the value of something. The third — true evaluation — considers what we see as comprehensive efforts to examine the worth and merit of an object. Particular study types that are associated with each approach are examined in detail and contrasted with each other. In general, this unit provides an overview of 12 types of evaluation studies.


True Evaluation Evaluation Work Study Type Policy Study American Educational Research Association 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Alkin, M.C. 1969. Evaluation theory development. Evaluation Comment, 2, 2–7.Google Scholar
  2. Anderson, S.; Ball, S.; Murphy, R.; and Associates. 1973. Encyclopedia of educa tional evaluation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, p. 142.Google Scholar
  3. Bloom, B.S.; Englehart, M.D.; Furst, E. J; Hill, W.H.; and Krathwohl, D.R. 1956. Taxonomy of educational objectives. Handbook I: Cognitive domain. New York: David McKay.Google Scholar
  4. Campbell, D.T., and Stanley, J.C. 1963. Experimental and quasi-experimental de signs for research on teaching. In N.L. Gage (ed.), Handbook of research on training. Chicago: Rand McNally.Google Scholar
  5. Clark, K. Dark ghetto. New York: Harper and Row, 1963.Google Scholar
  6. Coleman, J.S.; Campbell, E.Q.; Hobson, C. J.; McPartland, J.; Mook, A.M.; Weinfeld, F.D.; and York, R.L. 1966. Equality of educational opportunity. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Office of Education.Google Scholar
  7. Cook, D. L. 1966. Program evaluation and review techniques, applications in education. U.S. Office of Education Cooperative Monograph, 17 (OE–12024).Google Scholar
  8. Cronbach, L.J. 1963. Course improvement through evaluation. Teachers College Record, 64, 672–683.Google Scholar
  9. Cronbach, L.J. and Snow, R.E. Individual Differences in Learning Ability as a Function of Instructional Variables. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press, 1969.Google Scholar
  10. Ebel, R.L. 1965. Measuring educational achievement. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  11. Fisher, R.L. 1951. The design of experiments ( 6th ed. ). New York: Hafner.Google Scholar
  12. Glass, G.V., and Maquire, T.O. 1968. Analysis of time-scires quasi-experiments. (U.S. Office of Education Report No. 6–8329.) Boulder, Col.: Laboratory of Educational Research, University of Colorado.Google Scholar
  13. Guba, E.G. 1978. Toward a methodology of naturalistic inquiry in educational evaluation. CSE Monograph Series in Evaluation, Los Angeles, Calif. Center for the Study of Evaluation.Google Scholar
  14. Hammond, R.L. 1972. Evaluation at the local level (mimeograph). Tucson, Ariz.: EPIC Evaluation Center.Google Scholar
  15. Jencks, C; Smith, M.; Adand, H. B., M. J.; Cohen, D.; Gintis, H.; Heynes, B.; and Michelson, S. Inequality: A reassessment of the effect of family and schooling in America, New York: Basic Books, 1972.Google Scholar
  16. Kaplan, A. 1964. The conduct of inquiry. San Francisco: Chandler.Google Scholar
  17. Lessinger, L.M. 1970. Every kid a winner: Accountability in education. New York: Simon & Schuster.Google Scholar
  18. Linquist, E.F. 1953. Design and analysis of experiments in psychology and educa tion. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
  19. McDonald, B. 1975. Evaluation and the control of education. In D. Tawney (ed.), Evaluation: The state of the art. London: Schools Council.Google Scholar
  20. Metfessel, N.S., and Michael, W.B. 1967. A paradigm involving multiple criterion measures for the evaluation of the effectiveness of school programs. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 27, 931–943.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Owens, T. 1971. Application of adversary proceedings to educational evaluation and decision making. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New York.Google Scholar
  22. Popham, W.J. 1969. Objectives and instruction. In R. Stake (ed.), Instructional objectives. AERA Monograph Series on Curriculum Evaluation (vol. 3 ). Chicago: Rand McNally.Google Scholar
  23. Provus, M.N. 1971. Discrepancy evaluation. Berkeley: McCutcheon.Google Scholar
  24. Reinhard, D.L. Methodology Development for Input Evaluation Using Input Evaluation Using Advocate and Design Teams. Ph.D. dissertation, Ohio State University, 1972.Google Scholar
  25. Rippey, R.M. (ed.). Studies in Transactional Evaluation. Berkeley: McCutcheon, 1973.Google Scholar
  26. Scriven, M.S. 1967. The methodology of evaluation. In R.E. Stake (ed.), Curric- lum evaluation. AERA Monograph Series on Curriculum Evaluation (vol. 1 ). Chicago: Rand McNally.Google Scholar
  27. Stake, R.E. 1967. The countenance of educational evaluation. Teachers College Record, 68, 523–540.Google Scholar
  28. Stake, R.E. Program Evaluation, particularly Responsive Evaluation. Occasional Paper Series No. 5, Western Michigan University, Evaluation Center 1975.Google Scholar
  29. Stufflebeam, D.L. 1966. A depth study of the evaluation requirement. Theory into Practice, 5 (June), 121–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Stufflebeam, D.L. 1967. The use and abuse of evaluation in Title III. Theory into Practice, 6 (June), 126–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Stufflebeam, D.L. and Webster, W.J. “An Analysis of Alternative Approaches to Evaluation.” Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, no. 3.2 (May–June 1980), 5–19. Copyright © 1980, American Educational Research Association, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  32. Suchman, E. A. 1967. Evaluative research. New York; Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
  33. Taylor, J.P. 1974. An administrator’s perspective of evaluation. Kalamazoo: Western Michigan University. (Occasional Paper #2).Google Scholar
  34. Thorndike, R.L. 1971. Educational measurement ( 2nd ed. ). Washington, D.C: American Council on Education, 1971.Google Scholar
  35. Webster, W.J. “The Organization and Functions of Research and Evaluation in Large Urban School Districts.” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Washington, D.C, March 1975.Google Scholar
  36. Weiss, C Evaluation Research: Methods of Assessing Program Effectiveness, Engle-wood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1972.Google Scholar
  37. Wiley, D.E. and Bock, R.D. Quasi-experimentation in Educational Settings: Comment. The School Review, Winter, 1967, 35 3–66.Google Scholar
  38. Wolf, R.L. “How teachers feel toward evaluation.” In E.R. House (ed.), School evaluation: The Politics and Process. Berkeley: McCutcheon, 1973.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer-Nijhoff Publishing 1985

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Western Michigan UniversityKalamazooUSA

Personalised recommendations