项目评估标准如何在评估中使用成本效益分析?

J. King
{"title":"项目评估标准如何在评估中使用成本效益分析?","authors":"J. King","doi":"10.56645/jmde.v19i43.829","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Cost-benefit analysis (CBA), like any other evaluation method, should be used in ways that uphold program evaluation standards and should be subjected to metaevaluation. In contrast to the broad remit of program evaluation standards, guidelines for economic evaluation focus mainly on technical aspects of evaluation quality, aimed at ensuring precision, accuracy, and reliability. Can CBA be conducted in adherence both to program evaluation standards and to its own methodological principles, or are there areas where expectations conflict?\nPurpose: Assess the potential for CBA to be conducted in keeping with the Program Evaluation Standards (PES) of the Joint Committee on Standards for Educational Evaluation.\nSetting: Analysis applies to any setting in which CBA is being considered as an evaluation method.\nIntervention: N/A\nResearch Design:  Methodological principles underpinning CBA were systematically assessed against the PES, to determine the extent to which CBA can be conducted in a manner aligned with these standards. CBA was rated according to whether it can follow each standard in principle, not the extent to which economists follow a given standard in practice.\nData Collection and Analysis: This assessment was undertaken from a theoretical perspective, through analysis of relevant literature. The ratings are evaluative; they represent the judgments of the author, made on the basis of explicit definitions.\nFindings: Some ethical principles espoused in the PES are also required in CBA. On the other hand, some of the PES are not explicit requirements in CBA, though they could be applied by evaluators or economists when conducting a CBA. However, some PES logically cannot be met by CBA if it is used as a stand-alone method. All PES can theoretically be met when an evaluation combines CBA with other methods. In order to use CBA in adherence to PES, evaluators and economists must take an explicit interest in the effects of their analysis on people’s lives. This has significant implications for the way CBA should be used, including the nature and extent of stakeholder involvement, the potential use of CBA in conjunction with other methods, and decisions about when not to use CBA. As with any evaluation method, deliberation is necessary over whether, when, and how to use CBA.\nKeywords: cost-benefit analysis, program evaluation standards, metaevaluation","PeriodicalId":91909,"journal":{"name":"Journal of multidisciplinary evaluation","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-04-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"How should Program Evaluation Standards inform the use of cost-benefit analysis in evaluation?\",\"authors\":\"J. King\",\"doi\":\"10.56645/jmde.v19i43.829\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Background: Cost-benefit analysis (CBA), like any other evaluation method, should be used in ways that uphold program evaluation standards and should be subjected to metaevaluation. In contrast to the broad remit of program evaluation standards, guidelines for economic evaluation focus mainly on technical aspects of evaluation quality, aimed at ensuring precision, accuracy, and reliability. Can CBA be conducted in adherence both to program evaluation standards and to its own methodological principles, or are there areas where expectations conflict?\\nPurpose: Assess the potential for CBA to be conducted in keeping with the Program Evaluation Standards (PES) of the Joint Committee on Standards for Educational Evaluation.\\nSetting: Analysis applies to any setting in which CBA is being considered as an evaluation method.\\nIntervention: N/A\\nResearch Design:  Methodological principles underpinning CBA were systematically assessed against the PES, to determine the extent to which CBA can be conducted in a manner aligned with these standards. CBA was rated according to whether it can follow each standard in principle, not the extent to which economists follow a given standard in practice.\\nData Collection and Analysis: This assessment was undertaken from a theoretical perspective, through analysis of relevant literature. The ratings are evaluative; they represent the judgments of the author, made on the basis of explicit definitions.\\nFindings: Some ethical principles espoused in the PES are also required in CBA. On the other hand, some of the PES are not explicit requirements in CBA, though they could be applied by evaluators or economists when conducting a CBA. However, some PES logically cannot be met by CBA if it is used as a stand-alone method. All PES can theoretically be met when an evaluation combines CBA with other methods. In order to use CBA in adherence to PES, evaluators and economists must take an explicit interest in the effects of their analysis on people’s lives. This has significant implications for the way CBA should be used, including the nature and extent of stakeholder involvement, the potential use of CBA in conjunction with other methods, and decisions about when not to use CBA. As with any evaluation method, deliberation is necessary over whether, when, and how to use CBA.\\nKeywords: cost-benefit analysis, program evaluation standards, metaevaluation\",\"PeriodicalId\":91909,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of multidisciplinary evaluation\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-04-28\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of multidisciplinary evaluation\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.56645/jmde.v19i43.829\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of multidisciplinary evaluation","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.56645/jmde.v19i43.829","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:成本效益分析(CBA),像任何其他评价方法一样,应该以维护项目评价标准的方式使用,并且应该接受元评价。与计划评估标准的广泛范围相比,经济评估的指导方针主要集中在评估质量的技术方面,旨在确保精度、准确性和可靠性。CBA的实施是否能够同时遵守项目评估标准和自己的方法原则,或者是否存在期望冲突的领域?目的:根据教育评估标准联合委员会的项目评估标准(PES)评估CBA的潜力。设置:分析适用于CBA被视为评估方法的任何设置。干预:N/研究设计:根据PES系统地评估支撑CBA的方法原则,以确定CBA可以在何种程度上以符合这些标准的方式进行。CBA的评级依据是它是否能在原则上遵循每一种标准,而不是经济学家在实践中遵循某一标准的程度。资料收集与分析:本评估从理论角度出发,通过分析相关文献。评级是可评估的;它们代表了作者在明确定义的基础上作出的判断。研究发现:一些道德原则在PES中也同样适用于CBA。另一方面,一些PES在CBA中并不是明确的要求,尽管它们可以被评估人员或经济学家在进行CBA时应用。但是,如果将其作为独立的方法使用,则CBA在逻辑上无法满足某些PES。当评价结合CBA和其他方法时,理论上可以满足所有PES。为了使用符合PES的CBA,评估人员和经济学家必须对他们的分析对人们生活的影响表现出明确的兴趣。这对CBA的使用方式具有重要意义,包括利益相关者参与的性质和程度,CBA与其他方法结合使用的潜在用途,以及何时不使用CBA的决定。与任何评估方法一样,是否使用、何时使用以及如何使用CBA都是必要的。关键词:成本效益分析,项目评价标准,元评价
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
How should Program Evaluation Standards inform the use of cost-benefit analysis in evaluation?
Background: Cost-benefit analysis (CBA), like any other evaluation method, should be used in ways that uphold program evaluation standards and should be subjected to metaevaluation. In contrast to the broad remit of program evaluation standards, guidelines for economic evaluation focus mainly on technical aspects of evaluation quality, aimed at ensuring precision, accuracy, and reliability. Can CBA be conducted in adherence both to program evaluation standards and to its own methodological principles, or are there areas where expectations conflict? Purpose: Assess the potential for CBA to be conducted in keeping with the Program Evaluation Standards (PES) of the Joint Committee on Standards for Educational Evaluation. Setting: Analysis applies to any setting in which CBA is being considered as an evaluation method. Intervention: N/A Research Design:  Methodological principles underpinning CBA were systematically assessed against the PES, to determine the extent to which CBA can be conducted in a manner aligned with these standards. CBA was rated according to whether it can follow each standard in principle, not the extent to which economists follow a given standard in practice. Data Collection and Analysis: This assessment was undertaken from a theoretical perspective, through analysis of relevant literature. The ratings are evaluative; they represent the judgments of the author, made on the basis of explicit definitions. Findings: Some ethical principles espoused in the PES are also required in CBA. On the other hand, some of the PES are not explicit requirements in CBA, though they could be applied by evaluators or economists when conducting a CBA. However, some PES logically cannot be met by CBA if it is used as a stand-alone method. All PES can theoretically be met when an evaluation combines CBA with other methods. In order to use CBA in adherence to PES, evaluators and economists must take an explicit interest in the effects of their analysis on people’s lives. This has significant implications for the way CBA should be used, including the nature and extent of stakeholder involvement, the potential use of CBA in conjunction with other methods, and decisions about when not to use CBA. As with any evaluation method, deliberation is necessary over whether, when, and how to use CBA. Keywords: cost-benefit analysis, program evaluation standards, metaevaluation
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信