Influential evaluations

American Journal of Evaluation

Volumn 24, Issue 4, 2003, Pages 515-524

  Henry, Gary T ^a  

^a GEORGIA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0344392701     PISSN: 10982140     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.ameval.2003.10.001     Document Type: Article

References (41)

1. Bahar L.B. The Fort Bragg evaluation: A snapshot in time American Psychologist 52 1997 557-559
2. Barnett W.S. Benefits of compensatory preschool education Journal of Human Resources 27 1992 279-312
3. Berruta-Clement, J. R., Schweinhart, L. J., Barnett, W. S., Epstein, A. S., & Weikart, D. P. (1984). Changed lives: The effects of the Perry Preschool Program on youths through age 19. Ypsilanti, MI: High/Scope Press.
4. Bickman L. A Continuum of care: More is not always better American Psychologist 51 1996 698-701
5. Bryk, A. S., & Raudenbush, S. W. (1983). The potential contributions of program evaluation to social problem solving: A view based on the CIS and Push-Excel experiences. In A. S. Bryk (Ed.), Stakeholder-based evaluation. New Directions for Program Evaluation (Vol. 17, pp. 97-108). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
6. Caplan, N. (1977). A minimal set of condition necessary for the utilization of social science knowledge in the policy formulation at the national level. In C. H. Weiss (Ed.), Using social research in public policy making. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
7. Cousins, J. B. (2003). Utilization effects of participatory evaluation. In T. Kelligan & D. L. Stufflebeam (Eds.), International handbook of educational evaluation (pp. 245-266). Dordrecth: Kluwer.
8. Covert, R. W. (1995). A twenty-year veteran's reflection on the Guiding Principles for Evaluators. In W. R. Shadish, D. L. Newman, M. A. Scheirer, & C. Wye (Eds.), Guiding principles for evaluators. New directions for evaluation (Vol. 66, pp. 35-46). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
9. Dahl, R.A. (1956). A preface to democratic theory. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
10. Ennett S.T. Tobler N.S. Ringwalt C.L. Flewelling R.L. How effective is Drug Abuse Resistance Education? A meta-analysis of Project DARE outcome evaluations American Journal of Public Health 84 1994 1394-1401
11. Glass, S. (1997). Don't You D.A.R.E. The New Republic, March 3, 18-28.
12. Greene J.C. Technical quality versus user responsiveness in evaluation practice Evaluation and Program Planning 13 1990 267-274
13. Henry, G. T. (2000). Why not use? In V. Caracelli & H. Preskill (Ed.), The expanding scope of evaluation use. New directions for evaluation (Vol. 88, pp. 85-98). San Francisco, Jossey-Bass.
14. Henry G.T. Mark M.M. Beyond use: Understanding evaluation's influence on attitudes and actions American Journal of Evaluation 24 2003
15. Hurley, S. (1989). Natural reasons: Personality and polity. New York: Oxford University Press.
16. Kingdon, J. (1995). Agendas, alternatives, and public policies (2nd ed.). New York: HarperCollins.
17. Kirkhart, K. (2000). Reconceptualizing evaluation use: An integrated theory of influence. In V. Caracelli & H. Preskill (Eds.), The expanding scope of evaluation use. New directions for evaluation (Vol. 88, pp. 5-24). San Fransisco: Jossey-Bass.
18. Knorr, K. D. (1977). Policymakers' use of social science knowledge: Symbolic or instrumental? In C. H. Weiss (Ed.), Using social research in public policy making. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
19. Lipsey M.W. Re: Unsolved problems and unfinished business American Journal of Evaluation 22 2001 325-328
20. Lowi, T. J. (1969). The end of liberalism: Ideology, policy and the crisis of public authority. New York, NY: Norton.
21. Mark, M. M. & Henry, G. T. (2004). The mechanisms and outcomes of evaluation influence: Evaluation, 10(1).
22. Mark, M. M., Henry, G. T., & Julnes, G. (2000). Evaluation: An integrated framework for understanding, guiding, and improving policies and programs. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
23. Melkers J.E. Willoughby K.G. Budgeters views of state performance-budgeting systems: Distinctions across branches Public Administration Review 61 2001 54-64
24. Meyer, L., Orlofsky, G.F., Skinner, R.A. & Spicer, S. (2002). Quality counts. Education Week, January 10: http//www.edweek.org/sreports/qc02/templates/article.cfm?slug=17sos.h21, downloaded September 2003.
25. Mintrom M. Policy entrepreneurs and the diffusion of innovation American Journal of Political Science 41 1997 738-770
26. National Center for Educational Statistics. (2002). Retrieved September 2003, from NCES website http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/ reading/results2002/stateachieve-g4-compare.asp
27. NICHD Early Child Care Research Network. (2002). Early child care and children's development prior to school entry: Results from the NICHD study of early child care. American Educational Research Journal, 39, 133-164.
28. NICHD Early Child Care Research Network, & Duncan, G. J. (2003). Impacts of child care quality on children's preschool cognitive development (pp. 23-24).
29. Patton, M. Q. (1997). Utilization-focused evaluation: The new-century text. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
30. Patton, M. Q., Grimes, P. S., Guthrie, K. M., Brennan N. J., French, B. D., & Blyth, D. A. (1977). In search of impact: An analysis of the utilization of federal health evaluation research. In C. H. Weiss (Ed.), Using social research in public policy making. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
31. Peisner-Feinberg E.S. Burchinal M.R. Relations between preschool children's child care experiences and concurrent development: The cost quality, and outcomes study Merrill-Palmer Quarterly 43 1997 451-477
32. Saxe L. Cross T.P. Interpreting the Fort Bragg children's mental health demonstration project: The cup is half full American Psychologist 52 1997 553-556
33. Schweinhart, L. J., & Weikart, D. P. (1980). Young children grow up: The effects of the Perry Preschool Program on youths through age 15. Ypsilanti, MI.: High/Scope Press.
34. Schweinhart L.J. Weikart D.P. The high/scope preschool curriculum comparison study through age 23 Early Childhood Research Quarterly 12 1997 117-143
35. Sechrest L. Walsh M. Dogma or data: Bragging rights American Psychologist 52 1997 536-540
36. Shulha L.M. Cousins J.B. Evaluation use: Theory, research, and practice since 1986 Evaluation Practice 18 1997 195-208
37. Smith M.F. Evaluation: Preview of the future #2 American Journal of Evaluation 22 2001 281-300
38. Weiss, C. H. (1998). Improving the use of evaluations: Whose job is it anyway? Advances in Educational Productivity, 7, 263-276.
39. Weiss, C. H., & Bucuvalas, M. J. (1977). The challenge of social research to decision making, In C. H. Weiss (Ed.), Using social research in public policy making. Lexington Books: Lexington, MA.
40. Weisz J.R. Han S.S. Valeri S.M. More of what? Issues raised by the Fort Bragg Study American Psychologist 52 1997 541-545
41. Wysong E. Aniskiewicz R. Wright D. Truth and DARE: Tracking drug education to graduation and as symbolic politics Social Problems 41 1994 448-472