AMEE Education Guide no. 29: Evaluating educational programmes

Medical Teacher

Volumn 28, Issue 3, 2006, Pages 210-224

  Goldie, John ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF GLASGOW   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT; DECISION MAKING; DISCIPLINES RELATING TO BIOMEDICINE; EDUCATION PROGRAM; ETHICS; EVALUATION; EXPERIENCE; GOVERNMENT; MEDICAL EDUCATION; METHODOLOGY; POLITICS; QUESTIONNAIRE; REVIEW;

CURRICULUM; EDUCATION; PROGRAM EVALUATION; PSYCHOMETRICS; TEACHING;

EID: 33744938193     PISSN: 0142159X     EISSN: 1466187X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/01421590500271282     Document Type: Review

References (79)

1. Alkin, MC. (1969) Evaluation theory development Evaluation Comment., 2, pp. 2-7.
2. American Educational Research Association. (1992) standards Educational Researcher., 21, pp. 23-26.
3. American Evaluation Association.(1995) Guiding principles for evaluators. In New Directions for Program Evaluation. (pp. 19-26). Guiding principles for evaluators
4. Amie, M. (1995) The Australasian Evaluation Society Evaluation., 1, pp. 124-125.
5. Atkin, MC and Ellett, FS.(1985) Evaluation models: Development. In International Encyclopedia of Education: Research and Studies. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
6. Bloom, BS.(1956) The Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. London: Longman.
7. Canadian Evaluation Society. (1992) Standards for program evaluation in Canada: A discussion paper Canadian Journal of Program Evaluation., 7, pp. 157-170.
8. Chelimsky, E and Shadish, WR.(1997) Evaluation for the 21st Century: A Handbook. Thousand Oaks CA: Sage.
9. Coles, CR and Grant, JG. (1985) Curriculum evaluation in medical and health-care education. ASME Medical Education Research Booklet 1 Medical Education., 19, pp. 405.
10. Collins English Dictionary.(1994) Collins English Dictionary, 3rd ed. Glasgow: Harper Collins.
11. Cook, TD.(1974) The potential and limitations of secondary evaluations. In. Educational Evaluation: Analysis and
12. Cook, TD.(1985) Postpositivist critical multiplism. In Social Science and Social Policy. Beverly Hills CA: Sage.
13. Cronbach, LJ. (1963) Course improvement through evaluation Teachers College Record., 64, pp. 672-683.
14. Cronbach, LJ.(1982a) In praise of uncertainty. In Standards for evaluation practice. (pp. 49-58). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
15. Cronbach, LJ.(1982b) Designing Evaluations of Educational and Social Programs. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
16. Cronbach, LJ and Ambron, SR and Dornbusch, SM and Hess, RD and Hornik, RC and Phillips, DC and Walker, DF and Weiner, SS.(1980) Towards Reform of Program Evaluation. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
17. Eisner, EW.(1975) Occasional Papers of the Stanford Evaluation Consortium. In The Perceptive Eye: Toward the Reformation of Educational Evaluation. Stanford CA: Stanford University.
18. Eisner, EW.(1991) Taking a second look: Educational connoisseurship revisited. In Evaluation and Education: At Quarter Century. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Ninetieth Yearbook of the National Association for the Study of Education, Part 2
19. Elliot, J and Adelman, C. (1973) Reflecting where the action is Education for Teaching., 92, pp. 8-20.
20. Glymour, C and Scheines, R. (1986) Causal modelling with the TETRAD program Synthese., 68, pp. 37-63.
21. Gronlund, NE.(1976) Measurement and Evaluation in Teaching, 3rd edn. New York: Macmillan.
22. Guba, EG and Lincoln, YS.(1981) Effective Evaluation: Improving the Usefulness of Evaluation Results through Responsive and Naturalistic Approaches. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
23. Guba, EG and Lincoln, YS.(1989) Fourth Generation Evaluation. Thousand Oaks CA: Sage.
24. Hammond, RL.(1973) Evaluation at the local level. In Educational Evaluation: Theory and Practice. (pp. 157-169). Belmont CA: Wordsworth.
25. Hawkridge, D. (1979) Persuading the dons? British Journal of Educational Technology., 10, pp. 164-174.
26. Hennigan, KM and Flay, BR and Cook, TD.(1980) 'Give me the facts' some suggestions for using social science knowledge in national policy making. In Advances in Applied Social Psychology. Hillsdale NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
27. Holt, M.(1981) Evaluating the Evaluators. Sevenoaks: Hodder & Stoughton.
28. Honea, GE.(1992) Ethics and public sector evaluators: Nine case studies, unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Virginia, Department of Educational Studies.
29. House, ER.(1976) Justice in evaluation. In Evaluation Studies Review Annual. Beverly Hills CA: Sage.
30. House, ER.(1983) Assumptions underlying evaluation models. In Evaluation Models: Viewpoints on Educational and Human Services Evaluation. Boston: Kluwer-Nijhoff.
31. House, ER.(1995) Principled evaluation: A critique of the AEA Guiding Principles. In Guiding Principles for evaluators. New Directions for Program Evaluation. (pp. 27-34). San-Francisco: Josey Bass.
32. Joint Committee On Standards For Educational Evaluation.(1994) The Program Evaluation Standards, 2nd edn. Thousand Oaks CA: Sage.
33. Kelly, AV.(1989) The Curriculum: Theory and Practice, 3rd edn. London: Paul Chapman Publishing.
34. Kourilsky, M. (1973) An adversary model for educational evaluation Evaluation Comment., 4, pp. 3-6.
35. Lazarsfeld, PF and Rosenberg, M.(1955) The Language of Social Research. Glencoe IL: Free Press.
36. Levine, M and Brown, E and Fitzgerald, C and Goplerud, E and Gordon, ME and Jayne-Lararus, C and Rosenberg, N and Slater, J. (1978) Adapting the jury trial for program evaluation: A report of an experience Evaluation and Program Planning., 1, pp. 177-186.
37. Lewin, K.(1948) Resolving Social Conflicts: Selected Papers on Group Dynamics. New York: Harper & Brothers.
38. Lincoln, YS and Guba, EG.(1985) Naturalistic Inquiry. Beverly Hills CA: Sage.
39. Love, AJ.(1994) Should evaluators be certified?. In The Preparation of Professional Evaluators: Issues, Perspectives, and Programs. (pp. 29-40). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. New Directions for Program Evaluation, 62
40. Madaus, GF and Scriven, MS and Stufflebeam, DL.(1983) Evaluation Models: Viewpoints on Educational and Human Services Evaluation. Boston: Klewer-Nijhoff.
41. Mehrens, WA.(1991) Measurement and Evaluation in Education and Psychology, 4th edn. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
42. Metfessel, NS and Michael, WB. (1967) A paradigm involving multiple criterion measures for the evaluation of the effectiveness of school programs Educational and Psychological Measurement, 27, pp. 931-943.
43. Morrisett, I and Stevens, WW.(1967) Steps in Curriculum Analysis Outline. Boulder: University of Colorado, Social Science Education Consortium.
44. Muraskin, L.(1997) Understanding Evaluation: The Way to Better Prevention Programs. Rockville MD: Westat Inc.
45. Newble, D and Cannon, R.(1994) A Handbook for Medical Teachers, 3rd edn. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
46. Owens, TR.(1973) Educational evaluation by adversary proceeding. In School Evaluation: The Politics and Process. Berkeley CA: McCutchan.
47. Parlett, M and Hamilton, D.(1976) Evaluation as illumination: A new approach to the study of innovatory programs. In Evaluation Studies Review Annual. Beverly Hills CA: Sage.
48. Patton, MQ.(1986) Utilization-focused Evaluation, 2nd edn. Beverly Hills CA: Sage.
49. Popham, WJ.(1988) Educational Evaluation, 2nd edn. Englewood Cliffs NJ: Prentice Hall.
50. Provus, MM.(1973) Evaluation of ongoing programs in the public school system. In Educational Evaluation: Theory and Practice. Belmont CA: Wadsworth.
51. Rossi, PH and Freeman, HE.(1985) Evaluation: A Systematic Approach, 3rd edn. Beverly Hills CA: Sage.
52. Scriven, M.(1967) The methodology of evaluation. In Perspectives of Curriculum Evaluation. (pp. 39-83). Chicago: Rand McNally.
53. Scriven, M. (1972) Pros and cons about goal-free evaluation Evaluation Comment., 3, pp. 1-7.
54. Scriven, M.(1974) Goal-free evaluation. In School Evaluation: The Politics and Process. (pp. 319-328). Berkley CA: McCutchin.
55. Scriven, M.(1980) The Logic of Evaluation. Inverness CA: Edgepress.
56. Scriven, M.(1983) The evaluation taboo. In Philosophy of Evaluation. (pp. 75-82). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
57. Scriven, M.(1984) Evaluation ideologies. In Evaluation Studies Review Annual. Beverly Hills: CA, Sage.
58. Scriven, M.(1991) Key evaluation checklist. In Evaluation Thesaurus, 4th edn. Beverly Hills CA: Sage.
59. Sechrest, L and West, SG and Phillips, M and Redner, R and Yeaton, W. (1979) Some neglected problems in evaluation research Evaluation Studies Review Annual., 4, pp. 15-35.
60. Shadish, WR.(1993) Critical multiplism: A research strategy and its attendant tactics. In Program Evaluation: A Pluralistic Enterprise. (pp. 13-57). San Francisco CA: Jossey-Bass. New Directions for Program Evaluation, 60
61. Shadish, WR and Cook, TD and Leviton, LC.(1991) Foundations of Program Evaluation: Theories of Practice. Newbury Park CA: Sage.
62. Smith, ER and Tyler, RW.(1942) Appraising and Recording Student Progress. New York: Harper & Row.
63. Stake, RE. (1967) The countenance of educational evaluation Teachers College Record., 68, pp. 523-539.
64. Stake, RE.(1975) Program Evaluation, particularly Responsive Evaluation. Kalamazoo: Western Michigan University Evaluation Centre. Occasional paper No. 5
65. Stake, RE.(1976) Evaluating Educational Programmes: The Need and the Response. Menlo Park CA: CERI/OECD.
66. Stufflebeam, DL.(1971) Educational Evaluation and Decision Making. Itasca IL: F.E. Peacock.
67. Stufflebeam, DL.(1991) Professional standards and ethics for evaluators. In Evaluation and Education: At Quarter Century. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Ninetieth Yearbook of the National Association for the Study of Education, Part 2
68. Taba, H.(1962) Curriculum Development: Theory and Practice. New York: Harcourt, Brace and World.
69. Trend, MG.(1979) On the reconciliation of qualitative and quantitative analyses: A case study. In Qualitative and Quantitative Methods in Evaluation Research. (pp. 68-86). Beverley Hills CA: Sage.
70. Tukey, JW.(1977) Exploratory Data Analysis. Reading MA: Addison-Wesley.
71. Tyler, RW. (1935) Evaluation: A challenge to progressive education Education Research Bulletin., 14, pp. 9-16.
72. Tyler, RW.(1949) Basic Principles of Curriculum and Instruction. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
73. Weiss, CH.(1983a) The stakeholder approach to evaluation: Origins and promise. In Stakeholder-based Evaluation. (pp. 3-14). San Francisco CA: Jossey-Bass.
74. Weiss, CH.(1983b) Towards the future of stakeholder approaches in evaluation. In Stakeholder-based Evaluation. (pp. 83-96). San Francisco CA: Jossey-Bass.
75. Wholley, JS.(1983) Evaluation and Effective Public Management. Boston: Little, Brown.
76. Wholley, JS.(1994) Assessing the feasibility and likely usefulness of evaluation. In Handbook of Practical Program Evaluation. San Francisco CA: Jossey-Bass.
77. Wolf, RL. (1975) Trial by jury: A new evaluation method Phi Delta Kappan., 57, pp. 185-187.
78. Wolf, RL. (1979) The use of judicial evaluation methods in the formulation of educational policy Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis., 1, pp. 19-28.
79. Worthen, BL and Sanders, JR and Fitzpatrick, JL.(1997) Program Evaluation: Alternative Approaches and Practical Guidelines, 2nd edn. New York: Longman.