Show simple item record

Pre- and post-planned evaluation: Which is preferable?

dc.contributor.authorStrasser, Stephenen_US
dc.contributor.authorDeniston, O. Lynnen_US
dc.date.accessioned2006-04-07T17:05:07Z
dc.date.available2006-04-07T17:05:07Z
dc.date.issued1978en_US
dc.identifier.citationStrasser, Stephen, Deniston, O. Lynn (1978)."Pre- and post-planned evaluation: Which is preferable?." Evaluation and Program Planning 1(3): 195-202. <http://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/22720>en_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/B6V7V-469KV38-4/2/507c387cbbc28036541f68fda5199254en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/22720
dc.description.abstractThis paper compares the advantages and disadvantages of the "pre-planned" and "post-planned" approaches to evaluating program effectiveness. These evaluative approaches are compared along a number of dimensions which include: (a) Reliability of data and the cost of collecting it; (b) Internal validity; (c) External validity; (d) Evaluation obtrusiveness and threat; and (e) Program goal displacement and program direction. A model designed to help program managers decide when and under what conditions either of these two evaluative approaches should be employed is presented. One major theme throughout this discussion is that despite the growing interest in and use of pre-planned evaluation, the post-planned method has many advantages which often go unnoticed. This paper will help program administrators, planners and evaluators in selecting and implementing these two methods in light of their respective strengths and limitations.en_US
dc.format.extent711922 bytes
dc.format.extent3118 bytes
dc.format.mimetypeapplication/pdf
dc.format.mimetypetext/plain
dc.language.isoen_US
dc.publisherElsevieren_US
dc.titlePre- and post-planned evaluation: Which is preferable?en_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dc.rights.robotsIndexNoFollowen_US
dc.subject.hlbsecondlevelStatistics and Numeric Dataen_US
dc.subject.hlbsecondlevelSoutheast Asian and Pacific Languages and Culturesen_US
dc.subject.hlbsecondlevelSocial Sciences (General)en_US
dc.subject.hlbtoplevelScienceen_US
dc.subject.hlbtoplevelHumanitiesen_US
dc.subject.hlbtoplevelSocial Sciencesen_US
dc.description.peerreviewedPeer Revieweden_US
dc.contributor.affiliationumSchool of Public Health University of Michigan, USA
dc.description.bitstreamurlhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/22720/1/0000275.pdfen_US
dc.identifier.doihttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0149-7189(78)90071-Xen_US
dc.identifier.sourceEvaluation and Program Planningen_US
dc.owningcollnameInterdisciplinary and Peer-Reviewed


Files in this item

Show simple item record

Remediation of Harmful Language

The University of Michigan Library aims to describe library materials in a way that respects the people and communities who create, use, and are represented in our collections. Report harmful or offensive language in catalog records, finding aids, or elsewhere in our collections anonymously through our metadata feedback form. More information at Remediation of Harmful Language.

Accessibility

If you are unable to use this file in its current format, please select the Contact Us link and we can modify it to make it more accessible to you.