Outcome measurement in the USA: State of the art

Research Evaluation

Volumn 11, Issue 2, 2002, Pages 85-93

  Roessner, J David ^a  

^a SRI INTERNATIONAL   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0347934565     PISSN: 09582029     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3152/147154402781776880     Document Type: Article

References (34)

1. M N Baily, R Z Lawrence and Data Resources, Inc. (1985), The Need for a Permanent Tax Credit for Industrial Research and Development, Report Commissioned by the Coalition for the Advancement of Industrial Technology, February.
2. Battelle Memorial Institute (1973), Interaction of Science and Technology in the Innovative Process: Some Case Studies (Columbus, OH: Battelle Memorial Institute).
3. B Bozeman and J Rogers (1999), 'Use-and-transformation': an elementary theory of knowledge and innovation' (Atlanta, GA: School of Public Policy, Georgia Institute of Technology) (draft paper).
4. B Bozeman, J Rogers, D Roessner, H Klein and J Park (1998) The R&D Value Mapping Project: Final Report, Report to the Department of Energy, Office of Basic Energy Sciences (Atlanta, GA: Georgia Institute of Technology).
5. M Callon, P Larédo and P Mustar (1997), 'Technico-economic networks and the analysis of structural effects', in M Callon, P Larédo and P Mustar (editors), The Strategic Management of Research and Technology: Evaluation of Programmes (Paris: Economica International).
6. S Cozzens (1997), 'The knowledge pool: measurement challenges in evaluating fundamental research programs', Evaluation and Program Planning, 20(1), pages 77-89.
7. P Dasgupta and P A David (1994) 'Toward a new economics of science', Research Policy, 23, pages 487-521.
8. R Eisner (1985), 'A flawed tool', Issues in Science and Technology, Summer, pages 79-86.
9. R Eisner, S H Albert and M A Sullivan (1984), 'The new incremental tax credit for R&D: incentive or disincentive?', National Tax Journal, 37(2). June, pages 171-183.
10. L Georghiou and D Roessner (2000), 'Evaluating technology programs: tools and methods', Research Policy, 29, pages 657-678.
11. H Hertzfeld (1992), 'Measuring the returns to space research and development', in H Hertzfeld and J Greenberg (editors), Space Economics (Washington: American Institute of Astronautics.
12. Illinois Institute of Technology Research Institute (1968), Technology in Retrospect and Critical Events in Science (Washington, DC: National Science Foundation).
13. G J Knezo (2001), 'Government performance and results act: brief history and implementation activities,' Congressional Research Service, Order code RS20257, updated May 15.
14. J Logsdon and C B Rubin (1985), Federal Research Evaluation Activities (Cambridge, MA: Abt Associates).
15. E Mansfield (1980), 'Basic research and productivity increase in manufacturing', American Economic Review, 70.
16. E Mansfield, J Rapoport, A Romeo, S Wagner and G Beardsley (1977), 'Social and private rates of return from industrial innovations', Quarterly Journal of Economics, 91(2), pages 221-240.
17. Mathematica, Inc. (1976), Quantifying the Benefits to the National Economy from Secondary Applications of NASA Technology (Washington, DC: NASA).
18. Mathtech, Inc. (1977), A Cost-Benefit Analysis of Selected Technology Utilization Office Programs (Washington, DC: NASA).
19. J Melkers (1993), 'Bibliometrics as a tool for analysis of R&D impacts', in B Bozeman and J Melkers (editors), Evaluating R&D Impacts: Methods and Practice (Boston: Kluwer).
20. F Narin (1987), 'Bibliometric techniques in the evaluation of research programs,' Science and Public Policy, 14(2), pages 99-106.
21. National Academies (2000), Implementing the Government Performance and Results Act for Research: A Status Report (Washington, DC: NA Press).
22. David Roessner (2000), 'Quantitative and qualitative methods and measures in the evaluation of research', Research Evaluation, 9(2), August, pages 125-132.
23. David Roessner (2002 forthcoming), 'A short history of research evaluation in the United States', La Revue pour l'histoire de la recherche.
24. David Roessner, Robert Carr, Nils Newman and Katherine Johnston (2001), Evaluation of the Georgia Traditional Industries Program (TIP), Prepared for the Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia (Arlington, VA: SRI International), December 17.
25. J D Roessner (1989), 'Evaluating government innovation programs: lessons from the US experience'. Research Policy, 18, pages 343-359.
26. J D Roessner (1993), 'Use of quantitative methods to support research in business and government', in B Bozeman and J Melkers (editors), Evaluating R&D Impacts: Methods and Practice (Boston: Kluwer).
27. J Rogers and B Bozeman (1998), 'Creation of knowledge value: a taxonomy of knowledge value alliances', paper prepared for presentation at Workshop on Research Evaluation, Ecoles des Mines, Paris, France, June 30-July 2.
28. R Ruegg (1998), 'The advanced technology program, its evaluation plan and progress in implementation', Journal of Technology Transfer, 23(2), pages 5-9.
29. F M Scherer and D Harhoff (2000), 'Technology policy for a world of skew-distributed outcomes', Research Policy, 29, pages 559-566.
30. C W Sherwin and R S lsenson (1967), 'Project hindsight: defense department study of the utility of research'. Science, 156, pages 1571-1577.
31. J G Tewksbury, M S Crandall and W E Crane (1980), 'Measuring the societal benefits of innovation', Science, 209, pages 658-662.
32. L G Tornatzky, P G Waugaman and J S Bauman (1997), Benchmarking Technology Transfer in the South: 1995-1996 Data (Research Triangle Park, NC: Southern Growth
33. Policies Board).US Congress, Office of Technology Assessment (1986), Research Funding as an Investment: Can We Measure the Returns? Technical Memorandum, April.
34. US General Accounting Office (1996), Measuring Performance: The Advanced Technology Program and Private-Sector Funding, GAO/RCED-96-47, January.