Does evaluation quality enhance evaluation use?

IF 1.8 3区 社会学 Q2 SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY
Pirmin Bundi, Kathrin Frey, T. Widmer
{"title":"Does evaluation quality enhance evaluation use?","authors":"Pirmin Bundi, Kathrin Frey, T. Widmer","doi":"10.1332/174426421X16141794148067","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Evaluations are a useful tool to learn more about the effectiveness of public measures. In the era of evidence-based policymaking, recent research suggests that quality is an important determinant of the utilisation of evaluations. Despite this claim, hardly any empirical study has investigated whether the quality of an evaluation – measured by a meta-evaluation – influences its perceived utilisation by decision makers.Aims and objectives: This article asks how the quality of an evaluation study is related to its perceived use, and investigates the relationship between the quality of an evaluation, assessed through a meta-evaluation, and how the evaluation is perceived and accepted by the parties concerned.Methods: The basis for the empirical analyses were 34 external evaluations, conducted from 2006 to 2014, of upper secondary schools in the canton of Zurich, as well as a standardised survey conducted among 307 representatives of these schools (teachers, administrators, members of quality development teams, and the heads of school oversight commissions).Findings: We conclude that the quality of the evaluation, as assessed in a meta-evaluation, is not particularly associated with the perception of evaluation quality and the perceived use of the evaluation. The perceived quality, however, is related to the perceived impact of an evaluation.Discussion and conclusion: These findings are relevant for evaluation research and practice, since they show that the quality of an evaluation and evaluation use do not necessarily go hand in hand.Key messagesEvaluators have to be aware that a systematically assessed quality of an evaluation does not go hand in hand with the perceived quality of that evaluation;Evaluators often focus on the instrumental form of evaluation use, but they should not ignore other forms of use and maybe try to maximise these utilisation forms in the design of their evaluation;Evaluators should be more active in advising stakeholders when it comes to evaluation use, for example, through policy narratives;Evaluators should carefully think about the measurement of evaluation quality and evaluation effects in research on evaluation.","PeriodicalId":51652,"journal":{"name":"Evidence & Policy","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"5","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Evidence & Policy","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1332/174426421X16141794148067","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 5

Abstract

Background: Evaluations are a useful tool to learn more about the effectiveness of public measures. In the era of evidence-based policymaking, recent research suggests that quality is an important determinant of the utilisation of evaluations. Despite this claim, hardly any empirical study has investigated whether the quality of an evaluation – measured by a meta-evaluation – influences its perceived utilisation by decision makers.Aims and objectives: This article asks how the quality of an evaluation study is related to its perceived use, and investigates the relationship between the quality of an evaluation, assessed through a meta-evaluation, and how the evaluation is perceived and accepted by the parties concerned.Methods: The basis for the empirical analyses were 34 external evaluations, conducted from 2006 to 2014, of upper secondary schools in the canton of Zurich, as well as a standardised survey conducted among 307 representatives of these schools (teachers, administrators, members of quality development teams, and the heads of school oversight commissions).Findings: We conclude that the quality of the evaluation, as assessed in a meta-evaluation, is not particularly associated with the perception of evaluation quality and the perceived use of the evaluation. The perceived quality, however, is related to the perceived impact of an evaluation.Discussion and conclusion: These findings are relevant for evaluation research and practice, since they show that the quality of an evaluation and evaluation use do not necessarily go hand in hand.Key messagesEvaluators have to be aware that a systematically assessed quality of an evaluation does not go hand in hand with the perceived quality of that evaluation;Evaluators often focus on the instrumental form of evaluation use, but they should not ignore other forms of use and maybe try to maximise these utilisation forms in the design of their evaluation;Evaluators should be more active in advising stakeholders when it comes to evaluation use, for example, through policy narratives;Evaluators should carefully think about the measurement of evaluation quality and evaluation effects in research on evaluation.
评价质量是否提高了评价的使用?
背景:评估是了解更多公共措施有效性的有用工具。在基于证据的决策时代,最近的研究表明,质量是评估利用的一个重要决定因素。尽管有这种说法,但几乎没有任何实证研究调查了评估的质量——由元评估衡量——是否影响决策者对其感知的利用。目的和目标:本文探讨了评价研究的质量与其感知用途之间的关系,并调查了通过元评价评估的评价质量与有关各方如何感知和接受评价之间的关系。方法:实证分析的基础是2006年至2014年对苏黎世州高中进行的34项外部评估,以及对这些学校的307名代表(教师、管理人员、质量发展团队成员和学校监督委员会负责人)进行的标准化调查。研究结果:我们得出结论,在meta评估中评估的评估质量与评估质量的感知和评估的感知使用并不特别相关。然而,感知质量与评价的感知影响有关。讨论和结论:这些发现与评估研究和实践相关,因为它们表明评估的质量和评估的使用不一定是齐头并进的。关键messagesEvaluators必须意识到,系统地评估质量的评估并不齐头并进的感知质量评估,评估者经常关注评估使用的辅助形式,但他们不应忽视其他形式的使用,也许试图最大化这些利用形式的设计评估,评估者应更积极地为利益相关者评估时使用,例如,评估者在评估研究中应认真思考评估质量的度量和评估效果。
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
Evidence & Policy
Evidence & Policy SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY-
CiteScore
4.50
自引率
14.30%
发文量
53
×
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