Editing Evaluation (section)

===Summary of approaches===
The following table is used to summarize each approach in terms of four [[Abstraction|attributes]]—organizer, purpose, strengths, and weaknesses. The organizer represents the main considerations or cues practitioners use to organize a study. The purpose represents the desired [[Outcome (Game theory)|outcome]] for a study at a very general level. Strengths and weaknesses represent other attributes that should be considered when deciding whether to use the approach for a particular study. The following narrative highlights differences between approaches grouped together.

{| class="wikitable"
|-
! colspan=5 align=center| Summary of approaches for conducting evaluations
|-
! rowspan=2| Approach
! colspan=4 align="center"| Attribute
|-
! Organizer
! Purpose
! Key strengths
! Key weaknesses
|-
! [[Politics|Politically]] controlled
| Threats
| Get, keep or increase influence, power or money.
| Secure evidence advantageous to the client in a conflict.
| Violates the principle of full & frank disclosure.
|-
! [[Public relations]]
| Propaganda needs
| Create positive public image.
| Secure evidence most likely to bolster public support.
| Violates the principles of balanced reporting, justified conclusions, & objectivity.
|-
! [[Experiment|Experimental research]]
| Causal relationships
| Determine causal relationships between variables.
| Strongest paradigm for determining causal relationships.
| Requires controlled setting, limits range of evidence, focuses primarily on results.
|-
! [[Management information system]]s
| Scientific efficiency
| Continuously supply evidence needed to fund, direct, & control programs.
| Gives managers detailed evidence about complex programs.
| Human service variables are rarely amenable to the narrow, quantitative definitions needed.
|-
! [[Educational assessment|Testing]] programs
| Individual differences
| Compare test scores of individuals & groups to selected norms.
| Produces valid & reliable evidence in many performance areas. Very familiar to public.
| Data usually only on testee performance, overemphasizes test-taking skills, can be poor sample of what is taught or expected.
|-
! [[Project objective|Objectives]]-based
| Objectives
| Relates outcomes to objectives.
| Common sense appeal, widely used, uses behavioral objectives & testing technologies.
| Leads to terminal evidence often too narrow to provide basis for judging the value of a program.
|-
! [[Content analysis]]
| Content of a communication
| Describe & draw conclusion about a communication.
| Allows for unobtrusive analysis of large volumes of unstructured, symbolic materials.
| Sample may be unrepresentative yet overwhelming in volume. Analysis design often overly simplistic for question.
|-
! [[Accountability]]
| Performance expectations
| Provide constituents with an accurate accounting of results.
| Popular with constituents. Aimed at improving quality of products and services.
| Creates unrest between practitioners & consumers. Politics often forces premature studies.
|-
! [[Decision making|Decision]]-oriented
| Decisions
| Provide a knowledge & value base for making & defending decisions.
| Encourages use of evaluation to plan & implement needed programs. Helps justify decisions about plans & actions.
| Necessary collaboration between evaluator & decision-maker provides opportunity to bias results.
|-
! [[Policy analysis|Policy studies]]
| Broad issues
| Identify and assess potential costs & benefits of competing policies.
| Provide general direction for broadly focused actions.
| Often corrupted or subverted by politically motivated actions of participants.
|-
! [[Customer|Consumer]]-oriented
| Generalized needs & values, effects
| Judge the relative merits of alternative goods & services.
| Independent appraisal to protect practitioners & consumers from shoddy products & services. High public credibility.
| Might not help practitioners do a better job. Requires credible & competent evaluators.
|-
! [[Accreditation of Certification Body|Accreditation]] / [[Professional certification|certification]]
| Standards & guidelines
| Determine if institutions, programs, & personnel should be approved to perform specified functions.
| Helps public make informed decisions about quality of organizations & qualifications of personnel.
| Standards & guidelines typically emphasize intrinsic criteria to the exclusion of outcome measures.
|-
! [[Connoisseur]]
| Critical guideposts
| Critically describe, appraise, & illuminate an object.
| Exploits highly developed expertise on subject of interest. Can inspire others to more insightful efforts.
| Dependent on small number of experts, making evaluation susceptible to subjectivity, bias, and corruption.
|-
! [[Adversary evaluation|Adversary Evaluation]]
| "Hot" issues
| Present the pro & cons of an issue.
| Ensures balances presentations of represented perspectives.
| Can discourage cooperation, heighten animosities.
|-
! Client-centered
| Specific concerns & issues
| Foster understanding of activities & how they are valued in a given setting & from a variety of perspectives.
| Practitioners are helped to conduct their own evaluation.
| Low external credibility, susceptible to bias in favor of participants.
|-
| colspan=5| Note. Adapted and condensed primarily from House (1978) and Stufflebeam & Webster (1980).<ref name=Stufflebeam/>
|}