How to Conduct a Metaevaluation?: A Metaevaluation Practice

IF 0.2 Q4 SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY Canadian Journal of Program Evaluation Pub Date : 2023-06-01 DOI:10.3138/cjpe.71619
Esra Kerimoğlu, Muazzez Nihal Öykü Ülker, Ş. Berk
{"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}
引用次数: 0

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.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
如何进行元评估?:元评估实践
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。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 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
期刊最新文献
Arts-Based Evaluation Process Evaluation of a Cooking Circle Program in the Arctic: Developing the Mukluk Logic Model and Identifying Key Enablers and Barriers for Program Implementation Community-Based Evaluation When Localizing Sustainable Development Goals Employing Mixed-Methods Citation Analysis to Investigate Transnational Influence in Evaluation Theory Indigenous Feminist Evaluation Methods: A Case Study in “My Two Aunties”
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1