Pre- and post-planned evaluation: Which is preferable?
dc.contributor.author | Strasser, Stephen | en_US |
dc.contributor.author | Deniston, O. Lynn | en_US |
dc.date.accessioned | 2006-04-07T17:05:07Z | |
dc.date.available | 2006-04-07T17:05:07Z | |
dc.date.issued | 1978 | en_US |
dc.identifier.citation | Strasser, 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.uri | http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/B6V7V-469KV38-4/2/507c387cbbc28036541f68fda5199254 | en_US |
dc.identifier.uri | https://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/22720 | |
dc.description.abstract | This 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.extent | 711922 bytes | |
dc.format.extent | 3118 bytes | |
dc.format.mimetype | application/pdf | |
dc.format.mimetype | text/plain | |
dc.language.iso | en_US | |
dc.publisher | Elsevier | en_US |
dc.title | Pre- and post-planned evaluation: Which is preferable? | en_US |
dc.type | Article | en_US |
dc.rights.robots | IndexNoFollow | en_US |
dc.subject.hlbsecondlevel | Statistics and Numeric Data | en_US |
dc.subject.hlbsecondlevel | Southeast Asian and Pacific Languages and Cultures | en_US |
dc.subject.hlbsecondlevel | Social Sciences (General) | en_US |
dc.subject.hlbtoplevel | Science | en_US |
dc.subject.hlbtoplevel | Humanities | en_US |
dc.subject.hlbtoplevel | Social Sciences | en_US |
dc.description.peerreviewed | Peer Reviewed | en_US |
dc.contributor.affiliationum | School of Public Health University of Michigan, USA | |
dc.description.bitstreamurl | http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/22720/1/0000275.pdf | en_US |
dc.identifier.doi | http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0149-7189(78)90071-X | en_US |
dc.identifier.source | Evaluation and Program Planning | en_US |
dc.owningcollname | Interdisciplinary and Peer-Reviewed |
Files in this item
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.