Assumptions Underlying Evaluation Models

Part of the Evaluation in Education and Human Services book series (EEHS, volume 6)


One way of understanding evaluation is to compare the numerous evaluation models with one another. There are many possibilities for comparison, but perhaps the most significant comparisons are those among the underlying theoretical assumptions on which the models are based. In this way, one might see how logically similar the models are to one another and determine what logical possibilities do and do not exist.


Direct Democracy Social Utility Transaction Model Good Judge Liberal Philosophy 
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. Callahan, R.E. Education and the cult of efficiency. Chicago, Illinois: University of Chicago Press, 1962.Google Scholar
  2. Ennis, R. On causality. Educational Researcher, 1973, 2, 6.Google Scholar
  3. Hamilton, D. A science of the singular? University of Illinois, 1976, mimeo.Google Scholar
  4. Hamilton, D. Making sense of curriculum evaluation. In Lee Shulman (ed.), Review of research in education, Itasca, Illinois: F.E. Peacock, 1977.Google Scholar
  5. House, E.R. Justice in evaluation. In Gene V. Glass (ed.), Evaluation studies review annual, Vol. 1, Beverly Hills, California: Sage Publishing Company, 1976.Google Scholar
  6. House, E.R. The logic of evaluative argument. Center for the Study of Evaluation, UCLA, Monograph 7, 1977.Google Scholar
  7. House, E.R. Evaluation as scientific management in U.S. school reform. Comparative and International Education Review, October 1978.Google Scholar
  8. Ittelson, W.H. and Cantril, H. Perception: A transactional approach. New York: Double-day Papers in Psychology, 1954.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Macdonald, B. Evaluation and the control of education. Norwich, England: Center for Applied Research in Education, 1974.Google Scholar
  10. MacPherson, C.B. The real world of democracy. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press, 1966.Google Scholar
  11. McLaughlin, M.W. Evaluation and reform. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Ballinger Publishing, 1975.Google Scholar
  12. Mill, J.S. A system of logic. (8th ed.) New York: Harper Publishing, 1893.Google Scholar
  13. Mill, J.S. Utilitarianism. Indianapolis, Illinois: Bobbs-Merrill Co., 1861.Google Scholar
  14. National Study of Secondary School Evaluation. Evaluative criteria. (4th ed.) Washington, D.C., 1969.Google Scholar
  15. Popham, W.J. Educational evaluation. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 1975.Google Scholar
  16. Rawls, J. A theory of justice. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Belknap Press, 1971.Google Scholar
  17. Rivlin, A.M. Systematic thinking for social action. Washington, D.C.: The Brookings Institution, 1971.Google Scholar
  18. Scriven, M. Objectivity and subjectivity in educational research. Philosophical Redirections in Educational Research, National Society for the Study of Education, 1972.Google Scholar
  19. Scriven, M. Evaluation bias and its control. Occasional Paper 4. Kalamazoo: The Evaluation Center, Western Michigan University, 1975.Google Scholar
  20. Scriven, M. Bias contol systems in evaluation. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, 1976.Google Scholar
  21. Snyder, W. Case studies in military systems analysis. Washington, D.C.: Industrial College of the Armed Forces, 1967.Google Scholar
  22. Stake, R.E. Some alternative presumptions. Urbana, Illinois: Center for Instructional Research and Curriculum Evaluation, October 1975, mimeo.Google Scholar
  23. Stake R.E. Evaluating educational programmes. Organization for Economic Co-Operational Development, 1976.Google Scholar
  24. Wolff, R.P. The poverty of liberalism. Boston, Massachusetts: Beacon Press, 1968.Google Scholar
  25. Worthen, B.R. and Sanders, J.R. Educational evaluation: Theory and practice. Worthington, Ohio: Charles A. Jones, 1973.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer-Nijhoff Publishing 1983

Authors and Affiliations

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations