如何进行元评估?:元评估实践

IF 0.2 Q4 SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY
Esra Kerimoğlu, Muazzez Nihal Öykü Ülker, Ş. Berk
{"title":"如何进行元评估?:元评估实践","authors":"Esra Kerimoğlu, Muazzez Nihal Öykü Ülker, Ş. Berk","doi":"10.3138/cjpe.71619","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"A metaevaluation is a quality cross-check to examine the conduct of an evaluation and validate the results. Of the few metaevaluation studies, almost none have reported on the metaevaluation procedure through a practical example evaluation. This study reports on the strengths and weaknesses of a program evaluation study in terms of the four main standards: utility, feasibility, propriety, and accuracy. It includes a metaevaluation process that involves both quantitative and qualitative analysis of data from eight meta-evaluators. It was found that while the evaluation study had very good utility and accuracy standards, the feasibility and propriety standards were only fair.","PeriodicalId":43924,"journal":{"name":"Canadian Journal of Program Evaluation","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.2000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"How to Conduct a Metaevaluation?: A Metaevaluation Practice\",\"authors\":\"Esra Kerimoğlu, Muazzez Nihal Öykü Ülker, Ş. Berk\",\"doi\":\"10.3138/cjpe.71619\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"A metaevaluation is a quality cross-check to examine the conduct of an evaluation and validate the results. Of the few metaevaluation studies, almost none have reported on the metaevaluation procedure through a practical example evaluation. This study reports on the strengths and weaknesses of a program evaluation study in terms of the four main standards: utility, feasibility, propriety, and accuracy. It includes a metaevaluation process that involves both quantitative and qualitative analysis of data from eight meta-evaluators. It was found that while the evaluation study had very good utility and accuracy standards, the feasibility and propriety standards were only fair.\",\"PeriodicalId\":43924,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Canadian Journal of Program Evaluation\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-06-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Canadian Journal of Program Evaluation\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3138/cjpe.71619\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Canadian Journal of Program Evaluation","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3138/cjpe.71619","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

元评估是一种质量交叉检查,用于检查评估的实施并验证结果。在为数不多的元评价研究中,几乎没有通过实例评价来报道元评价过程。本研究报告了项目评估研究的优点和缺点,主要依据四个标准:实用性、可行性、适当性和准确性。它包括一个元评估过程,包括对来自8个元评估者的数据进行定量和定性分析。发现评价研究具有很好的效用和准确性标准,而可行性和适当性标准仅为公平标准。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
How to Conduct a Metaevaluation?: A Metaevaluation Practice
A metaevaluation is a quality cross-check to examine the conduct of an evaluation and validate the results. Of the few metaevaluation studies, almost none have reported on the metaevaluation procedure through a practical example evaluation. This study reports on the strengths and weaknesses of a program evaluation study in terms of the four main standards: utility, feasibility, propriety, and accuracy. It includes a metaevaluation process that involves both quantitative and qualitative analysis of data from eight meta-evaluators. It was found that while the evaluation study had very good utility and accuracy standards, the feasibility and propriety standards were only fair.
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
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