Evaluation models

New Directions for Evaluation

Volumn 2001, Issue 89, 2001, Pages 7-98

  Stufflebeam, Daniel ^a  

^a WESTERN MICHIGAN UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84958097209     PISSN: 10976736     EISSN: 1534875X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/ev.3     Document Type: Article

References (145)

1. Aguaro, R., (1990). R. Deming: The American who taught the Japanese about quality. New York: Fireside.
2. Alkin, M. C., (1969). Evaluation theory development. Evaluation Comment, 2, 2-7.
3. Alkin, M. C., (1995, November). Lessons learned about evaluation use. Panel presentation at the International Evaluation Conference, American Evaluation Association, Vancouver, British Columbia.
4. Baker, E. L., O’Neil, H. R., Linn, R. L., >(1993). Policy and validity prospects for performance-based assessment. American Psychologist, 48, 1210-1218.
5. Bandura, A., (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
6. Bayless, D. & Massaro, G., (1992). Quality improvement in education today and the future: Adapting W. Edwards Deming’s quality improvement principles and methods to education.Kalamazoo, MI: Center for Research on Educational Accountability and Teacher Evaluation.
7. Becker, M. H.(ed.)(1974).The health belief model and personal health behavior Health Education Monographs, 2, 324-473.[ENTIRE ISSUE]
8. Bhola, H. S., (1998). Program evaluation for program renewal: A study of the national literacy program in Namibia (NLPN)Studies in Educational Evaluation, 24(4), 303-330.
9. Bickman, L., (1990). Using program theory to describe and measure program quality. In L.Bickman (ed.), Advances in Program Theory. New Directions in Program Evaluation.
10. Bloom, B. S., Englehart, M. D., Furst, E. J., Hill, W. H., & Krathwohl, D. R., (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: Handbook I: Cognitive domain. New York: David McKay.
11. Boruch, R. F., (1994). The future of controlled randomized experiments: A briefing. Evaluation Practice, (3), 265-274.
12. Campbell, D. T., (1975). Degrees of freedom and the case study. Comparative Political Studies, (8), 178-193.
13. Campbell, D. T., (1988). Methodology and epistemology for social science: Selected papersIn E. S.Overman (ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
14. Campbell, D. T., and Stanley, J. C., (1963). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for research on teaching. In N. L.Gage (ed.), Handbook of research on training.Chicago: Rand McNally.
15. Chelimsky, E., (1987). What have we learned about the politics of evaluation? Evaluation Practice, 81, 5-21.
16. Chen, H., (1990). Theory driven evaluations. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
17. Clancy, T., with Horner, C., (1999). Every man a tiger. New York: G. P. Putnam and Sons.
18. Cook, D. L. (1966). Program evaluation and review techniques, applications in education.Washington, DC: U.S. Office of Education Cooperative Monograph 17 (OE-12024).
19. Cook, T. D., &Reichardt, C. S., (eds.) (1979). Qualitative and quantitative methods in evaluation research. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
20. Cousins, J. B., and Earl, L. M., (1992). The case for participatory evaluation. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 144, 397-418.
21. Cronbach, L. J., (1963). Course improvement through evaluation. Teachers College Record, 64, 672-83.
22. Cronbach, L. J., (1982). Designing evaluations of educational and social programs. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
23. Cronbach, L. J., &Associates(1980). Toward reform of program evaluation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
24. Cronbach, L. J., & Snow, R. E., (1969). Individual differences in learning ability as a function of instructional variables. Stanford CA: Stanford University Press.
25. Davis, H. R., & Salasin, S. E., (1975). The utilization of evaluation. In E. L.Struening & M. Guttentag (eds.).Handbook of evaluation research, Vol. 1.Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
26. Deming, W. E., (1986). Out of the crisis. Cambridge, MA: Center for Advanced Engineering Study, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
27. Denny, T., (1978, November). Story telling and educational understanding. Occasional Paper No. 12. Kalamazoo, MI: Evaluation Center, Western Michigan University.
28. Ebel, R. L., (1965). Measuring educational achievement. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
29. Eisner, E. W., (1975, March). The perceptive eye: Toward a reformation of educational evaluation.Invited address, Division B, Curriculum and Objectives, American Educational Research Association, Washington, DC.
30. Eisner, E. W., (1983). Educational connoisseurship and criticism: Their form and functions in educational evaluation. In G. F.Madaus, M. Scriven, & D. L. Stufflebeam (eds.)Evaluation models.Boston: Kluwer-Nijhoff.
31. Ferguson, R., (1999, June). Ideological marketing. The Education Industry Report.
32. Fetterman, D. M., (1984). Ethnography in educational evaluation. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
33. Fetterman, D., (1994, February). Empowerment evaluation. Evaluation Practice, 151.
34. Fisher, R.A., (1951). The design of experiments (6th ed.).New York: Hafner.
35. Flanagan, J. C., (1939). General considerations in the selection of test items and a short method of estimating the product-moment coefficient from data at the tails of the distribution.Journal of Educational Psychology, 30, 674-80.
36. Flexner, A., (1910). Medical education in the United States and Canada. Bethesda, MD: Science and Health Publications.
37. Flinders, D. J., & Eisner, E. W., (2000).Educational criticism as a form of qualitativeinquiry. In D. L.Stufflebeam, G. F. Madaus, & T. Kellaghan (eds.)Evaluation models.Boston: Kluwer.
38. Glaser, B. G., and Strauss, A. L., (1967). The discovery of grounded theory. Chicago: Aldine.
39. Glass, G. V., (1975). A paradox about excellence of schools and the people in them. Educational Researcher, 4, 9-13.
40. Glass, G. V., and Maguire, T. O., (1968). Analysis of time-series quasi-experiments.(U.S. Office of Education Report No. 6-8329.) Boulder, CO: Laboratory of Educational Research, University of Colorado.
41. Greene, J. C., (1988). Communication of results and utilization in participatory program evaluation. Evaluation and Program Planning, 11, 341-351.
42. Green, L. W., and Kreuter, M. W., (1991). Health promotion planning: An educational and environmental approach, (2nd ed.) 22-30. Mountain View, CA: Mayfield Publishing.
43. Guba, E. G., (1969).The failure of educational evaluation.Educational Technology, 9, 29-38.
44. Guba, E. G., (1977). Educational evaluation: The state of the art. Keynote address at the annual meeting of the Evaluation Network, St. Louis.
45. Guba, E. G. (1978). Toward a methodology of naturalistic inquiry in evaluation. CSE Monograph Series in Evaluation. Los Angeles: Center for the Study of Evaluation.
46. Guba, E. G., (1990). The paradigm dialog. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
47. Guba, E. G., and Lincoln, Y. S., (1981). Effective evaluation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
48. Guba, E. G., and Lincoln, Y. S., (1989). Fourth generation evaluation. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
49. Hambleton, R. K., and Swaminathan, H. (1985). Item response theory. Boston: Kluwer-Nijhoff.
50. Hammond, R. L., (1972). Evaluation at the local level. (mimeograph).Tucson, AZ: EPIC Evaluation Center.
51. Hastings, T., (1976). A portrayal of the changing evaluation scene. Keynote speech at the annual meeting of the Evaluation Network, St. Louis.
52. Herman, J. L., Gearhart, M. G., &Baker, E. L. (1993). Assessing writing portfolios: Issues in the validity and meaning of scores. Educational Assessment, 1, 201-224.
53. House, E. R., (ed.)(1973).School evaluation: The politics and process. Berkeley, CA: McCutchan.
54. House, E. R., (1980). Evaluating with validity. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
55. House, E. R. (1983). Assumptions underlying evaluation models. In G. F.Madaus, M. Scriven, &D. L. Stufflebeam (eds.)Evaluation models. Boston: Kluwer-Nijhoff.
56. House, E. R., and Howe, K. R., (1998). Deliberative democratic evaluation in practice. Boulder: University of Colorado.
57. House, E. R., and Howe, K. R., (2000a, Spring). Deliberative democratic evaluation. New Directions for Evaluation, 85, 3-12.
58. House, E. R., and Howe, K. R., (2000b). Deliberative democratic evaluation in practice. In D. L.Stufflebeam, G. F. Madaus, & T. Kellaghan (eds.)Evaluation models. Boston: Kluwer.
59. Janz, N. K., and Becker, M. H., (1984). The health belief model: A decade later. Health Education Quarterly, 11, 1-47.
60. Joint Committee on Standards for Educational Evaluation. (1981).Standards for evaluations of educational programs, projects, and materials. New York: McGraw-Hill.
61. Joint Committee on Standards for Educational Evaluation. (1988). The personnel evaluation standards: How to assess systems for evaluating educators. Newbury Park, CA Sage.
62. Joint Committee on Standards for Educational Evaluation. (1994). The program evaluation standards: How to assess evaluations of educational programs. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
63. Kaplan, A., (1964). The conduct of inquiry. San Francisco: Chandler.
64. Karlsson, O., (1998). Socratic dialogue in the Swedish political context. In T. A.Schwandt (ed.) Scandinavian perspectives on the evaluator’s role in informing social policy. New Directions for Evaluation, 77, 21-38.
65. Kaufman, R. A., (1969, May). Toward educational system planning: Alice in educationland.Audiovisual Instructor, 14, 47-48.
66. Kee, J. E. (1995). Benefit-cost analysis in program evaluation. In J. S.Wholey, H. P. Hatry, K. E. Newcomer Handbook of practical program evaluation, pp. 456-488.San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
67. Kentucky Department of Education. (1993). Kentucky results information system, 1991-92 technical report. Frankfort, KY: Author.
68. Kidder, L., and Fine, M., (1987). Qualitative and quantitative methods: When stories converge. Multiple methods in program evaluation. New Directions for Program Evaluation, 35.
69. Kirst, M. W., (1990, July). Accountability: Implications for state and local policymakers.U.S. Department of Education - Policy Perspectives Series. Washington, DC: Information Services, Office of Educational Research and Improvement, U.S. Department of Education.
70. Koretz, D., (1996). Using student assessments for educational accountability. In R.Hanushek (ed.)Improving the performance of America’s schools, pp. 171-196.Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
71. Koretz, D. M., and Barron, S. I., (1998). The validity of gains in scores on the Kentucky Instructional Results Information System (KIRIS) Santa Monica, CA: Rand.
72. Lessinger, L. M., (1970). Every kid a winner: Accountability in education. New York: Simon and Schuster.
73. Levin, H. M., (1983). Cost-effectiveness: A primer. New Perspectives in Evaluation 4. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
74. Levine, M., (1974, September). Scientific method and the adversary model. American Psychologist, 666-677.
75. Lincoln, Y. S., and Guba, E. G., (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
76. Lindquist, E. F. (ed.)(1951). Educational measurement. Washington, DC: American Council on Education.
77. Lindquist, E. F., (1953). Design and analysis of experiments in psychology and education.Boston: Houghton-Mifflin.
78. Linn, R. L., Baker, E. L., and Dunbar, S. B., (1991). Complex, performance-based assessment: Expectations and validation criteria. Educational Researcher, 208 15-21.
79. Lord, F. M., and Novick, M. R., (1968). Statistical theories of mental test scores. Reading, MA Addison-Wesley.
80. MacDonald, B., (1975). Evaluation and the control of education. In D.Tawney, Evaluation: The state of the art. London: Schools Council.
81. Madaus, G. F., Scriven, M., and Stufflebeam, D. L., (1983). Evaluation models. Boston: Kluwer-Nijhoff.
82. Madaus, G. F., and Stufflebeam, D. L., (1988). Educational evaluation: The classical writings of Ralph W. Tyler. Boston: Kluwer.
83. Mehrens, W. A., (1972). Using performance assessment for accountability purposes. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 11(1), 3-10.
84. Messick, S. (1994). The interplay of evidence and consequences in the validation of performance assessments. Educational Researcher, 23(3), 13-23.
85. Metfessel, N. S., and Michael, W. B., (1967). A paradigm involving multiple criterion measures for the evaluation of the effectiveness of school programs. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 27, 931-43.
86. Miron, G., (1998). Choosing the right research methods: Qualitative? Quantitative? Orboth? In L.Buchert (ed.), Education reform in the south in the 1990s. Paris: UNESCO.
87. Mullen, P. D., Hersey, J., and Iverson, D. C., (1987). Health behavior models compared.Social Science and Medicine, 24, 973-981.
88. National Science Foundation. (1997). User-friendly handbook for mixed method evaluations.NSF 97-153. Arlington, VA: Author.
89. Nave, B., Miech, E. J., &Mosteller, (2000). A rare design: The role of field trials in eval-uatingschool practices. In D. L.Stufflebeam, G. F. Madaus, &T. Kellaghan (eds.), Evaluation models. Boston: Kluwer.
90. Nevo, D., (1993).The evaluation minded school: An application of perceptions from program evaluation.Evaluation Practice, 1(1), 39-47.
91. Owens, T., (1973). Educational evaluation by adversary proceeding. In E.House (ed.), School evaluation: The politics and process. Berkeley, CA McCutchan.
92. Parlett, M., and Hamilton, D., (1972). Evaluation as illumination: A new approach to the study of innovatory programs. Edinburgh: Centre for Research in the Educational Sciences, University of Edinburgh, Occasional Paper No. 9.
93. Patton, M. Q., (1980). Qualitative evaluation methods. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
94. Patton, M. Q., (1982). Practical evaluation. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
95. Patton, M. Q., (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods, (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
96. Patton, M. Q., (1994). Developmental evaluation. Evaluation Practice, 15(3)311-319.
97. Patton, M. Q., (1997). Utilization-focused evaluation: The new century text (3rd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
98. Patton, M. Q., (2000). Utilization-focused evaluation. In D. L.Stufflebeam, G. F. Madaus, & T. Kellaghan (eds.), Evaluation models. Boston: Kluwer.
99. Peters, T. J., &Waterman, R. H., (1982). In search of excellence.New York: Warner Books.
100. Platt, J., (1992).Case study in American methodological thought. Current Sociology, 40(1), 17-48.
101. Popham, W. J., (1969). Objectives and instruction. In R.Stake(ed.), Instructional objectives.AERA Monograph Series on Curriculum Evaluation, (Vol. 3). Chicago: Rand McNally.
102. Popham, W. J., &Carlson, D., (1983). Deep dark deficits of the adversary evaluation model. In G. F.Madaus, M. Scriven, & D. L. Stufflebeam, (eds.), Evaluation models.Boston: Kluwer-Nijhoff.
103. Prochaska, J. O., &DiClemente, C. C., (1992). Stages of change in the modification of problem behaviors.In M.Hersen, R. M. Eisler, & P. M. Miller (eds.), Progress in behavior modification, 28. Sycamore, IL Sycamore Publishing Company.
104. Provus, M. N., (1969). Discrepancy evaluation model. Pittsburgh: Pittsburgh Public Schools.
105. Provus, M. N., (1971). Discrepancy evaluation. Berkeley, CA: McCutcheon.
106. Rippey, R. M., (ed.). (1973).Studies in transactional evaluation. Berkeley, CA: McCutcheon.
107. Rogers, P. R., (2000). Program theory: Not whether programs work but how they work.In D. L.Stufflebeam, G. F. Madaus, & T. Kellaghan (eds.), Evaluation models. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
108. Rossi, P. H., &Freeman, H. E., (1993).Evaluation: A systematic approach (5th ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
109. Sanders, J. R., (1992). Evaluating school programs. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
110. Sanders, W. L., (1989).Using customized standardized tests. ERIC Digest No. ED 314429(Contract No. R-88-062003). Washington, DC: Office of Educational Research and Improvement, U.S. Department of Education.
111. Sanders, W. L. &Horn S. P., (1994). The Tennessee value-added assessment system (TVAAS): Mixed model methodology in educational assessment.Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 8(3), 299-311.
112. Schatzman, L., and Strauss, A. L., (1973). Field research. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
113. Schwandt, T. A., (1984). An examination of alternative models for socio-behavioral inquiry.Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Indiana University.
114. Schwandt, T. A., (1989). Recapturing moral discourse in evaluation. Educational Researcher, 18(8), 11-16.
115. Scriven, M. S., (1967). The methodology of evaluation. In R. E.Stake(ed.) Curriculum evaluation.AERA Monograph Series on Curriculum Evaluation (Vol. 1). Chicago: Rand McNally.
116. Scriven, M., (1974). Evaluation perspectives and procedures. In W. J.Popham (ed.), Evaluation in education: Current applications. Berkeley, CA: McCutchan.
117. Scriven, M., (1991). Evaluation thesaurus. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
118. Scriven, M., (1993, Summer). Hard-won lessons in program evaluation. New Directions for Program Evaluation, 58.
119. Scriven, M., (1994a). Evaluation as a discipline. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 20(1), 147-166.
120. Scriven, M. (1994b). The final synthesis. Evaluation Practice, 15(3), 367-382.
121. Scriven, M., (1994c). Product evaluation: The state of the art. Evaluation Practice, 151), 45-62.
122. Shadish, W. R., Cook, T. D., & Leviton, L. C., (1991). Foundations of program evaluation.Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
123. Smith, L. M., & Pohland, P. A., (1974). Educational technology and the rural high-lands.In L. M.Smith (ed.), Four examples: Economic, anthropological, narrative, and portrayal (AERA Monograph on Curriculum Evaluation). Chicago: Rand McNally.
124. Smith, M. F., (1986). The whole is greater: Combining qualitative and quantitative approaches in evaluation studies. New Directions for Program Evaluation: Naturalistic Evaluation, 30, 37-54.
125. Smith, M. F., (1989). Evaluability assessment: A practical approach. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
126. Smith, N. L., (1987). Toward the justification of claims in evaluation research. Evaluation and Program Planning, 104, 309-314.
127. Stake, R. E., (1967). The countenance of educational evaluation. Teachers College Record, 68, 523-540.
128. Stake, R. E., (1971). Measuring what learners learn (mimeograph). Urbana, IL: Center for Instructional Research and Curriculum Evaluation.
129. Tyler, R. W., (1966). The objectives and plans for a national assessment of educational progress. Journal of Educational Measurement, 3, 1-10.
130. Tyler, R. W., et al. (1932). Service studies in higher education. Columbus, OH: The Bureau of Educational Research, The Ohio State University.
131. Tymms, P., (1995). Setting up a national “value-added” system for primary education in England: Problems and possibilities. Paper presented at the National Evaluation Institute, Kalamazoo, MI.
132. Vallance, E. (1973). Aesthetic criticism and curriculum description. Ph.D. dissertation, Stanford University.
133. Webster, W. J.(1975, March). The organization and functions of research evaluation in a large urban school district. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Washington, DC. (ERIC Clearinghouse on Tests, Measurements, and Evaluation. ED 106 345)
134. Webster, W.J.(1995). The connection between personnel evaluation and school evaluation.Studies in Educational Evaluation, 21, 227-254.
135. Webster, W. J., Mendro, R. L., & Almaguer, T. O., (1994). Effectiveness indices: a “value-added” approach to measuring school effect. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 20, 113-145.
136. Weiss, C. H., (1972). Evaluation. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
137. Weiss, C. H., (1995). Nothing as practical as good theory: Exploring theory-based eval-uationfor comprehensive community initiatives for children and families. In J.Connell, A. Kubisch, L. B. Schorr, & C. H. Weiss (eds.), New approaches to evaluating community initiatives. New York: Aspen Institute.
138. Whitmore, E. (ed.)(1998). Understanding and practicing participatory evaluation. New Directions for Evaluation, 80.
139. Wholey, J. S., (1995). Assessing the feasibility and likely usefulness of evaluation. In J. S.Wholey, H. P. Hatry, & K. E. Newcomer. (1995). Handbook of practical program evaluation, pp. 15-39.San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
140. Wiggins, G.(1989). A true test: Toward more authentic and equitable assessment. Phi Delta Kappan, 70, 703-713.
141. Wiley, D. E. & Bock, R. D.(1967, Winter). Quasi-experimentation in educational settings: Comment. The School Review, 353-66.
142. Wolf, R. L. (1975, November). Trial by jury: A new evaluation method. Phi Delta Kappan, 57, 185-187.
143. Worthen, B. R., & Sanders, J. R., (1987). Educational evaluation: Alternative approaches and practical guidelines. White Plains, NY: Longman.
144. Worthen, B. R., Sanders, J. R., & Fitzpatrick, J. L.(1997). Program evaluation (2nd Ed.).New York: Longman.
145. Yin, R. K., (1992). The case study as a tool for doing evaluation. Current Sociology, 401, 121-137.