Evaluation Utility Metrics (EUMs) in Reflective Practice.

IF 0.2 Q4 SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY
Canadian Journal of Program Evaluation Pub Date : 2022-06-01 Epub Date: 2022-04-25 DOI:10.3138/cjpe.72386
Ralph Renger, Jessica Renger, Richard N Van Eck, Marc D Basson, Jirina Renger
{"title":"Evaluation Utility Metrics (EUMs) in Reflective Practice.","authors":"Ralph Renger,&nbsp;Jessica Renger,&nbsp;Richard N Van Eck,&nbsp;Marc D Basson,&nbsp;Jirina Renger","doi":"10.3138/cjpe.72386","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The article proposes three evaluation utility metrics to assist evaluators in evaluating the quality of their evaluation. After an overview of reflective practice in evaluation, the different ways in which evaluators can hold themselves accountable are discussed. It is argued that reflective practice requires evaluators to go beyond evaluation <i>quality</i> (i.e., technical quality and methodological rigor) when assessing evaluation practice to include an evaluation of evaluation <i>utility</i> (i.e., specific actions taken in response to evaluation recommendations). Three Evaluation Utility Metrics (EUMs) are proposed to evaluate utility: whether recommendations are considered (EUM<sub>c</sub>), adopted (EUM<sub>a</sub>), and (if adopted) level of influence of recommendations (EUM<sub>li</sub>). The authors then reflect on their experience in using the EUMs, noting the importance of managing expectations through negotiation to ensure EUM data is collected and the need to consider contextual nuances (e.g., adoption and influence of recommendations are influenced by multiple factors beyond the control of the evaluators). Recommendations for increasing EUM rates by paying attention to the frequency and timing of recommendations are also shared. Results of implementing these EUMs in a real-world evaluation provide evidence of their potential value: practice tips led to an EUM<sub>c</sub> = 100% and EUM<sub>a</sub> > 80%. Methods for considering and applying all three EUMs together to facilitate practice improvement are also discussed.</p>","PeriodicalId":43924,"journal":{"name":"Canadian Journal of Program Evaluation","volume":"37 1","pages":"142-154"},"PeriodicalIF":0.2000,"publicationDate":"2022-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9380988/pdf/nihms-1751090.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Canadian Journal of Program Evaluation","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3138/cjpe.72386","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2022/4/25 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The article proposes three evaluation utility metrics to assist evaluators in evaluating the quality of their evaluation. After an overview of reflective practice in evaluation, the different ways in which evaluators can hold themselves accountable are discussed. It is argued that reflective practice requires evaluators to go beyond evaluation quality (i.e., technical quality and methodological rigor) when assessing evaluation practice to include an evaluation of evaluation utility (i.e., specific actions taken in response to evaluation recommendations). Three Evaluation Utility Metrics (EUMs) are proposed to evaluate utility: whether recommendations are considered (EUMc), adopted (EUMa), and (if adopted) level of influence of recommendations (EUMli). The authors then reflect on their experience in using the EUMs, noting the importance of managing expectations through negotiation to ensure EUM data is collected and the need to consider contextual nuances (e.g., adoption and influence of recommendations are influenced by multiple factors beyond the control of the evaluators). Recommendations for increasing EUM rates by paying attention to the frequency and timing of recommendations are also shared. Results of implementing these EUMs in a real-world evaluation provide evidence of their potential value: practice tips led to an EUMc = 100% and EUMa > 80%. Methods for considering and applying all three EUMs together to facilitate practice improvement are also discussed.

反思实践中的评估效用度量(EUMs)。
本文提出了三个评估效用指标,以帮助评估人员评估其评估的质量。在回顾了评估中的反思性实践之后,我们讨论了评估者对自己负责的不同方式。有人认为,反思性实践要求评估人员在评估评估实践时超越评估质量(即技术质量和方法严密性),包括对评估效用的评估(即,针对评估建议采取的具体行动)。提出了三个评估效用指标(EUMs)来评估效用:建议是否被考虑(EUMc)、是否被采纳(EUMa)和(如果被采纳)建议的影响程度(EUMli)。然后,作者反思了他们使用EUM的经验,指出通过协商来管理期望的重要性,以确保收集EUM数据,并需要考虑上下文的细微差别(例如,建议的采用和影响受到评估者无法控制的多种因素的影响)。还分享了通过注意建议的频率和时间来提高欧元汇率的建议。在实际评估中实施这些EUMa的结果为其潜在价值提供了证据:实践提示导致EUMc = 100%, EUMa > 80%。本文还讨论了如何同时考虑和应用这三个EUMs以促进实践改进的方法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Canadian Journal of Program Evaluation
Canadian Journal of Program Evaluation SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY-
CiteScore
1.60
自引率
25.00%
发文量
32
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信