Improving data quality for performance measures: Results from a GAO study of verification and validation

Evaluation and Program Planning

Volumn 24, Issue 1, 2001, Pages 83-94

  Divorski, S ^a   Scheirer, M A ^b  

^a US General Accounting Office   (United States)

^b Consultant in Eval and Perf Msrmt ^*  (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0006060141     PISSN: 01497189     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S0149-7189(00)00049-5     Document Type: Article

References (29)

1. Auditor General of Canada (1997). Moving toward managing for results. Report of the Auditor General of Canada. Ottawa, Ontario, 11-26.
2. Broom, C. A., & Jackson, M. (1997). Performance measurement training that works. New Directions for Evaluation, 75, 79-90.
3. Ferris, N. (2000). Benefits balancing act. GoveExec.com, March.
4. Hatry, H. P. (1997). Where the rubber meets the road: performance measurement for state and local public agencies. New Directions for Evaluation, 75, 31-44.
5. Landauer, B. & McElveen, R. (2000). Performance reports leave room to improve. Federal Times, April 17, Washington, DC
6. National Academy of Sciences and National Academy of Engineering Institue of Medicine (1999). Evaluating federal research programs, Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
7. Radin, B. A. (1998). The Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA): hydra-headed monster or flexible management tool? Public Administration Review, 58(4).
8. Redman, T. C. (1996). Data quality for the information age, Norwood, MA: Artech.
9. US Department of Education (1991). SEDCAR (Standards for Education Data Collection and Reporting), Washington, DC.
10. US Department of Education (1998). Moving towards a results-oriented audit organzation. A report on the status of ED's implementation of the Results Act (ACNN 17-70007). Washington, DC.
11. US Department of Education (2000). 1999 Performance Report and 2001 Annual Plan, (Vol. 1), Washington, DC, March.
12. US Department of Transportation (1999). Performance Plan. Fiscal Year 2000. Washington, DC.
13. US Department of Transportation (2000). Performance Plan. Fiscal Year 2001. Washington, DC.
14. US Department of Veteran's Affairs. Office of the Inspector General (1998). Accuracy of data used to measure claims processing timeliness (No. 9R5-B01-005). Washington, DC.
15. US Department of Veterans Affairs (1999). FY 2000 Budget Submission. Departmental Performance Plan. 6, Washington, DC.
16. US Department of Veterans Affairs (2000). Annual Performance Report FY 1999. Washington, DC.
17. US General Accounting Office (1990). Assessing the Reliability of Computer-Processed Data (GAO/OP-8.1.3). Washington, DC.
18. US General Accounting Office (1994). Government Auditing Standards, 1994 Revision. Washington, DC.
19. US General Accounting Office (1996). Executive Guide. Effectively Implementing the Government Performance and Results Act (GAO/GGD-96-118). Washington, DC.
20. US General Accounting Office (1997). Managing for Results. Analytic Challenges in Measuring Performance (GAO/HEHS/GGD-97-138. Washington, DC.
21. US General Accounting Office (1998a). The Results Act: An Evaluator's Guide to Assessing Agency Plans (GAO/GGD-10.1.20). Washington, DC.
22. US General Accounting Office (1998b). Program Evaluation. Agencies Challenged by New Demand for Information on Program Results (GAO/GGD-98-53). Washington, DC.
23. US General Accounting Office (1998c). Managing for Results. An Agenda to Improve the Usefulness of Agencies' Annual Performance Plans (GAO/GGD/AIMD-98-228). Washington DC.
24. US General Accounting Office (1999a). Agency Performance Plans. Examples of Practices that Can Improve Usefulness to Decisionmakers (GAO/GGD/AIMD-99-69). Washington, DC.
25. US General Accounting Office (1999b). Performance Plans: Selected Approaches for Verification and Validation of Agency Performance Information (GAO/GGD-99-139). Washington, DC.
26. US General Accounting Office (1999c). Managing for Results: Opportunities for Continued Improvements in Agencies' Performance Plans (GAO/GGD/AIMD-99-215). Washington, DC.
27. US General Accounting Office (2000). Managing for Results. Challenges Agencies Face in Producing Credible Performance Information (GAO/ GGD-00-52). Washington, DC.
28. US Office of Personnel Management (1999). Congressional Budget Justification. Annual Performance Plan. Washington, DC
29. United Way of America (1996). Measuring program outcomes: A practical approach, Alexandria, VA: United Way of America.