Does quality matter? who cares about the quality of evaluative information?

Quality Matters: Seeking Confidence in Evaluating, Auditing, and Performance Reporting

Volumn 11, Issue , 2018, Pages 301-322

  Schwartz, Robert ^a   Mayne, John Winston ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF HAIFA   (Israel)

^b Government of Canada   (Canada)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 80054119705     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.4324/9781351322447-15     Document Type: Book

References (27)

1. Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants (CICA). 2003. CICA Handbook. Retrieved July 12, 2003from http://www.cica.ca.
2. Canadian Comprehensive Auditing Foundation. 2002. Reporting Principles-Taking Public Performance Reporting to a New Level. CCAF-FCVI. Ottawa. Retrieved July 14, 2003 from http://www.ccaf-fcvi.com/english/reporting_principles_entry.html
3. Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants. 2002. Management Discussion and Analysis: Guidance on Preparation and Disclosure. Review Draft. Retrieved July 14, 2003 from http://www.cica.ca/index.cfm/ci_id/10383/la_id/l.htm
4. Firestone, W. 1993. “Alternative Arguments for Generalizing from Data as Applied to Qualitative Research.” Educational Researcher 22 (4): 16-22.
5. General Accounting Office. 1994. The Comptroller General of the United States. Government Auditing Standards, 1994 revision. Washington, DC: US-GAO.
6. Government Accounting Standards Board. (2003). Reporting Performance Information: Suggested Criteria for Effective Communication. Retrieved January 30, 2004 from http://www.gasb.org
7. Greene, J. 1990. “Technical Quality Versus User Responsiveness in Evaluation Practice.” Evaluation and Program Planning 13: 261-214.
8. House, E. 1987. “The Evaluation Audit.” Evaluation Practice 8 (2): 52-56.
9. International Federation of Accountants (IFAC). 2003. Standards and Guidance. Retrieved July 12, 2003 from http://www.ifac.org/Guidance
10. Institute of Public Administration Australia. 2001. The Judging Criteria. Retrieved July 12, 2003 from www.wa.ipaa.org.au/lonnie/criteria.html
11. INTOSAI (International Organization of Supreme Audit Institutions). 1992. Auditing Standards. Auditing Standards Committee.
12. Joint Committee of Public Accounts of the Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia. 1989. The Auditor General: Ally of the People and Parliament; Reform of the Australian Audit Office. Report 296. Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service.
13. Joint Committee on Standards for Educational Evaluation. 1994. The Program Evaluation Standards: How to Assess Evaluations of Educational Programs, 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
14. Law, J. 2001. “Accountability and Annual Reports: The Case of Policing.” Public Policy and Administration 16 (1): 75-90.
15. Lonsdale, J. 2000. “Advancing beyond Regularity: Development in Value for Money Methods at the National Audit Office 1984-1999” Ph.D. diss., Brunei University.
16. National Academy of Public Administration. 1994. The Roles, Mission and Operation of the U.S. General Accounting Office. Report Prepared for the Committee on Governmental Affairs, United States Senate.
17. National Audit Office. 2001. Measuring the Performance of Government Departments. HC301. London: The Stationery Office.
18. Patton, M. Q. 2001. “Use as a Criterion of Quality in Evaluation.” In Benson, A., Hinn, D. M., and Lloyd, C. (eds.), Visions of Quality: How Evaluators Define, Understand and Represent Program Quality, 155-180. Advances in Program Evaluation 7. Amsterdam: JAI.
19. Power, M. 1997. The Audit Society. Oxford University Press.
20. Russon, C. (ed.). 2000. Evaluation Center Occasional Papers Series, vol. 17. Kalamazoo: Western Michigan University.
21. Schwandt, T. A. 1990. “Defining ‘Quality’ in Evaluation.” Evaluation and Program Planning 13: 177-188.
22. Schwandt, T. A. 1992. “Constructing Appropriate and Useful Metaevaluative Frameworks: Further Reflections on the ECAJETC Audit Experience.” Evaluation and Program Planning 15: 95-100.
23. Schwandt, T. A., and Halpem, E. S. 1988. Linking Auditing and Metaevaluation: Enhancing Quality in Applied Research. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
24. Schwartz, R. 1998. “The Politics of Evaluation Reconsidered: A Comparative Study of Israeli Programs.” Evaluation 4 (3): 294-309.
25. Smith, Peter. 1995. “On the Unintended Consequences of Publishing Performance Data in the Public Sector.” International Journal of Public Administration 18 (2&3): 277-310.
26. Stierhoff, K. 1999. “The Certification of Program Evaluators: A Pilot Survey of Clients and Employers.” Retrieved July 8, 2003 from http://www.evaluationcanada.ca/txt/certification_survey_sep99.pdf
27. Stufflebeam, D. L. 2001. “The Metaevaluation Imperative.” American Journal of Evaluation 22: 183-209.