Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 251

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Methods of Rapid Evaluation, Assessment, and Appraisal

McNall, Miles, Foster-Fishman, Pennie G.·2007·American Journal of Evaluation

Abstract

A central issue in the use of rapid evaluation and assessment methods (REAM) is achieving a balance between speed and trustworthiness. In this article, the authors review the key differences and common features of this family of methods and present a case example that illustrates how evaluators can use rapid evaluation techniques in their own work. In doing so, the authors hope to (a) introduce readers to a family of techniques with which they may be unfamiliar, (b) highlight their strengths and limitations, and (c) suggest appropriate contexts for use. Ultimately, the authors hope that REAM becomes a valuable addition to evaluators' toolkits.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/1098214007300895

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

See all 251

Metadata

Authors
McNall, M., & Foster-Fishman, P. G.
Venue
American Journal of Evaluation
Published
2007-06
Volume
28
Issue
2
Pages
151-168
ISSN
  • 1098-2140 (ISSN-L)
  • 1557-0878
OpenAlex
W2032709693
Cited by
251
References
0
FWCI
3.81
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Methods of Rapid Evaluation, Assessment, and Appraisal. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1177/1098214007300895
The paper
McNall, M., & Foster-Fishman, P. G. (2007). Methods of Rapid Evaluation, Assessment, and Appraisal. American Journal of Evaluation. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098214007300895

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.