Editors’ notes: Current federal policies and controversies over methodology in evaluation

New Directions for Evaluation

Volumn 2007, Issue 113, 2007, Pages 1-12

  Julnes, George ^a   Rog, Debra J ^b,c  

^a UTAH STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b WESTAT   (United States)

^c Rockville Institute   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 51249149690     PISSN: 10976736     EISSN: 1534875X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/ev.212     Document Type: Editorial

References (37)

1. Boruch, R., de Moya, D., and Snyder, B., “The Importance of Randomized Field Trials in Education and Related Areas.” In F.Mosteller, and R. F.Boruch (eds.), Evidence Matters: Randomized Trials in Education Research.Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution, 2002.
2. Bunker J. P., Barnes, B. A., and Mosteller, F., Costs, Risks and Benefits of Surgery.New York: Oxford University Press, 1977.
3. Campbell, D. T., “Reforms as Experiments.“American Psychologist, 1969, 24, 409-429.
4. Caracelli, V. J., and Greene, J. C., “Crafting Mixed-Method Evaluation Designs.” In J. C.Greene, and V. J.Caracelli (eds.), Advances in Mixed-Method Evaluation: The Challenges and Benefits of Integrating Diverse Paradigms.New Directions for Evaluation, no. 74. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1997.
5. Cook, T. D., and Payne, M. R., “Objecting to the Objections to Using Random Assignment in Educational Research.” In F.Mosteller, and R. F.Boruch (eds.), Evidence Matters: Randomized Trials in Education Research.Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution, 2002.
6. Cousins, J. B., “Minimizing Evaluation Misutilization as Principled Practice.“American Journal of Evaluation, 2004, 25, 391-397.
7. Cronbach, L. J., and Associates.Toward Reform of Program Evaluation: Aims, Methods, and Institutional Arrangements.San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1980.
8. Datta, L-e., “Paradigm Wars: A Basis for Peaceful Coexistence and Beyond.” In C. S.Reichardt, and S. F.Rallis (eds.), The Quantitative-Qualitative Debate: New Perspectives.New Directions for Program Evaluation, no. 61. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1994.
9. de Lancer Julnes, P., “Performance Measurement: An Effective Tool for Government Accountability? The Debate Goes On.“Evaluation, 2006, 12(2), 219-235.
10. Donaldson, S. I., and Christie, C. A., “The 2004 Claremont Debate: Lipsey vs. Scriven. Determining Causality in Program Evaluation and Applied Research: Should Experimental Evidence Be the Gold Standard?" Journal of Multidisciplinary Evaluation, 2005, 3, 60-77.
11. Donaldson, S. I., Christie, C. A., and Mark, M. M., (eds.).“What Counts as Evidence in Evaluation and Evidence-Based Practice?" Forthcoming.
12. Greenberg, D. H., Michalopoulos, C., and Robins, P. K., “Do Experimental and Nonexperimental Evaluations Give Different Answers About the Effectiveness of Government-Funded Training Programs?" Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 2006, 25(3), 523-552.
13. Guba, E. G., “The Alternative Paradigm Dialog.” In E. G.Guba (ed.), The Paradigm Dialog.Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage, 1990.
14. Gueron, J., “The Politics of Random Assignment.” In F.Mosteller, and R.Boruch (eds.), Evidence Matters.Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution, 2002.
15. Henry, G. T., and Julnes, G., “Values and Realist Valuation.” In G. T.Henry, G.Julnes, and M. M.Mark (eds.), Realist Evaluation: An Emerging Theory in Support of Practice.New Directions for Evaluation, no. 78. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1998.
16. Julnes, G., “Experiment, Overview.” In K.Kempf-Leonard (ed.), Encyclopedia of Social Measurement.San Diego: Academic Press, 2005.
17. Julnes, G., and Foster, E. M., “Crafting Evaluation in Support of Welfare Reform.” In G.Julnes, and E. M.Foster (eds.), Outcomes of Welfare Reform for Families Who Leave TANF.New Directions for Evaluation, no. 91. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2001.
18. Julnes, G., and Mark, M., “Evaluation as Sensemaking: Knowledge Construction in a Realist World.” In G. T.Henry, G.Julnes, and M. M.Mark (eds.), Realist Evaluation: An Emerging Theory in Support of Practice.New Directions for Evaluation, no. 78. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1998.
19. Julnes, G., McCormick, S., Nolan, R., and Sheen, J., “Experiences and Outcomes of the Utah Medicaid Work Incentive Program.“Technical report, 2006.
20. Julnes, G., and others.“The Process of Training in Processes.“Journal of Community Psychology, 1987, 15, 387-396.
21. Kirkhart, K. E., “Reconceptualizing Evaluation Use: An Integrated Theory of Influence.” In V. J.Caracelli, and H.Preskill (eds.), The Expanding Scope of Evaluation Use.New Directions for Evaluation, no. 88. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2000.
22. LeLonde, R., and Maynard, R., “How Precise Are Evaluations of Employment and Training Programs? Evidence from a Field Experiment.“Evaluation Review, 1987, 11, 428-451.
23. Lincoln, Y., F. Mosteller., and R. Boruch., (eds.), ‘Evidence Matters.'" Academe, 2004.Available http://www.aaup.org/publications/Academe/2004/04nd/04ndbr.htm
24. Lipsey, M. W., and Derzon, J. H., “Predictors of Violent or Serious Delinquency in Adolescence and Early Adulthood.” In R.Loeber, and D. P.Farrington (eds.), Serious and Violent Juvenile Offenders: Risk Factors and Successful Interventions.Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage, 1998.
25. Mark, M. M., Henry, G. T., and Julnes, G., Evaluation: An Integrated Framework for Understanding, Guiding, and Improving Public and Nonprofit Policies and Programs.San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2000.
26. Mosteller, F., and Boruch, R., Evidence Matters.Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution, 2002.
27. Reichardt, C. S., and Cook, T. D., “Beyond Qualitative Versus Quantitative Methods.” In T. D.Cook, and C. S.Reichardt (eds.), Qualitative and Quantitative Methods in Evaluation Research. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage, 1979.
28. Reichardt, C. S., and Rallis, S. F. (eds.).The Qualitative-Quantitative Debate: New Perspectives. New Directions for Program Evaluation, no. 61. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1994.
29. Rossi, P. H., Lipsey, M. W., and Freeman, H. E., Evaluation: A Systematic Approach. (7th ed.) Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage, 2004.
30. Scriven, M. S., (ed.).Hard-Won Lessons in Program Evaluation.New Directions for Evaluation, no. 58. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1993.
31. U.S. Department of Education.“Scientifically Based Evaluation Methods.“Federal Register, Nov. 4, 2003, pp. 62445-62447.
32. U.S. Department of Education.“Scientifically Based Evaluation Methods.“Federal Register, Jan. 25, 2005, pp. 3585-3589.
33. Vinovskis, M. A., “Missing in Practice? Development and Evaluation at the U.S. Department of Education.” In F.Mosteller, and R. F.Boruch (eds.), Evidence Matters: Randomized Trials in Education Research.Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution, 2002.
34. Weiss, C. H., “Evaluation for Decisions: Is Anybody There? Does Anybody Care?" Evaluation Practice, 1988, 9(1), 5-20.
35. Weiss, C. H., Evaluation: Methods for Studying Programs and Policies.Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Prentice Hall, 1998.
36. Weiss, C. H., Murphy-Graham, E., and Birkeland, S., “An Alternate Route to Policy Influence: How Evaluations Affect DARE.“American Journal of Evaluation, 2005, 26(1), 12-30.
37. Yin, R. K., Case Study Research: Design and Methods. (2nd ed.) Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage, 1994.