A Comparison of Participant and Practitioner Beliefs About Evaluation
Open accessAbstract
The move to build capacity for internal evaluation is a common organizational theme in social service delivery, and in many settings, the evaluator is also the practitioner who delivers the service. The goal of the present study was to extend our limited knowledge of practitioner evaluation. Specifically, the authors examined practitioner concerns about administering pretest and posttest evaluations within the context of a multisite 7-week family strengthening program and compared those concerns with self-reported attitudes of the parents who completed evaluations. The authors found that program participants ( n = 105) were significantly less likely to find the evaluation process intrusive, and more likely to hold positive beliefs about the evaluation process, than practitioners ( n = 140) expected. Results of the study may address a potential barrier to effective practitioner evaluation—the belief that having to administer evaluations interferes with establishing a good relationship with program participants.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
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.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The characteristics of this study sample closely resemble other SFP 10-14 facilitator samples.
“The characteristics of this study sample closely resemble other SFP 10-14 facilitator samples [34, 35].”
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
From dissertation abstracts international
(1974) · ACM SIGGRAPH Computer Graphics · doi:10.1145/988616.988619 · Cited by 12,207 · see citing works
Internet, Mail, and Mixed-Mode Surveys: The Tailored Design Method
Dillman, D. A., Smyth, J. D., & Christian, L. M. (2008) · Cited by 5,354 · see citing works
Internet, mail, and mixed-mode surveys: The tailored design method *
Wetzel, A. P. (2010) · Journal of Continuing Education in the Health Professions · doi:10.1002/chp.20083 · Cited by 2,572 · see citing works
Utilization-Focused Evaluation
(2018) · The SAGE Encyclopedia of Educational Research, Measurement, and Evaluation · doi:10.4135/9781506326139.n729 · Cited by 2,315 · see citing works
Short, homogeneous versions of the Marlow-Crowne Social Desirability Scale
Strahan, R. F., & Gerbasi, K. C. (1972) · Journal of Clinical Psychology · doi:10.1002/1097-4679(197204)28:2 · Cited by 1,652 · see citing works
Empowerment evaluation: From principles to practice
Flaspohler, P., Wandersman, A., & Cherniss, C. (2003) · PsycEXTRA Dataset · doi:10.1037/e628672012-221 · Cited by 491 · see citing works
Qualitative Research in Social Work
(2001) · doi:10.4135/9781849209694 · Cited by 425 · see citing works
Utilization-focused evaluation.
Weick, K. E. (1979) · Contemporary Psychology · doi:10.1037/017973 · Cited by 393 · see citing works
Revisiting the Retrospective Pretest
Hill, L. G., & Betz, D. (2005) · American Journal of Evaluation · doi:10.1177/1098214005281356 · Cited by 316 · see citing works
Self-citationSpoth, R. L., Trudeau, L., Guyll, M., Shin, C., & Redmond, C. R. (2009) · Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology · doi:10.1037/a0016029 · Cited by 139 · see citing works
Fook, J. (2002) · Qualitative Social Work · doi:10.1177/147332500200100106 · Cited by 132 · see citing works
Qualitative Research in Social Work
SHAW, I. F. (2023) · Routledge eBooks · doi:10.4324/9781003306740-17 · Cited by 132 · see citing works
Strategies for Managing Evaluation Anxiety: Toward a Psychology of Program Evaluation
Donaldson, S. I., Gooler, L. E., & Scriven, M. S. (2002) · American Journal of Evaluation · doi:10.1177/109821400202300303 · Cited by 127 · see citing works
Studying Self-Evaluation Capacity Building in a Large International Development Organization
Taut, S. M. (2007) · American Journal of Evaluation · doi:10.1177/1098214006296430 · Cited by 94 · see citing works
Practitioner Research: Evidence or Critique?
SHAW, I. F. (2005) · The British Journal of Social Work · doi:10.1093/bjsw/bch223 · Cited by 92 · see citing works
Building Capacity for Organizational Learning Through Evaluative Inquiry
Preskill, H. S., & Torres, R. T. (1999) · Evaluation · doi:10.1177/135638909900500104 · Cited by 89 · see citing works
Further Validation of Three Short Forms of the Marlowe-Crowne Scale of Social Desirability
Fraboni, M., & Cooper, D. (1989) · Psychological Reports · doi:10.2466/pr0.1989.65.2.595 · Cited by 81 · see citing works
Kegeles, S. M., Rebchook, G., & Tebbetts, S. (2005) · AIDS Education and Prevention · doi:10.1521/aeap.2005.17.4.284 · Cited by 67 · see citing works
Supervision as Collaboration in the Human Services: Building a Learning Culture
Austin, M. J., & Hopkins, K. (2004) · Sage eBooks · doi:10.4135/9781483328829 · Cited by 56 · see citing works
Program Staff Perceptions of Barriers to Evaluation Implementation
Taut, S. M. (2003) · American Journal of Evaluation · doi:10.1016/s1098-2140(03)00028-6 · Cited by 47 · see citing works
Building the evaluation capacity of a school district
King, J. A. (2002) · New Directions for Evaluation · doi:10.1002/ev.42 · Cited by 45 · see citing works
Practitioner Evaluation at Work
SHAW, I. F., & Faulkner, A. (2006) · American Journal of Evaluation · doi:10.1177/1098214005284968 · Cited by 39 · see citing works
Program Staff Perceptions of Barriers to Evaluation Implementation
Taut, S. M., & Alkin, M. C. (2003) · American Journal of Evaluation · doi:10.1177/109821400302400205 · Cited by 39 · see citing works
ETHNOGRAPHIES OF PRACTICE—PRACTISING ETHNOGRAPHY
Riemann, G. (2005) · Journal of Social Work Practice · doi:10.1080/02650530500072009 · Cited by 26 · see citing works
An Odd Couple with Promise: Researchers and Practitioners in Evaluation Settings*
Myers‐Walls, J. A. (2000) · Family Relations · doi:10.1111/j.1741-3729.2000.00341.x · Cited by 25 · see citing works
When Evaluation Meets the ‘Rough Ground’ in Communities
Schwandt, T. A., & Dahler‐Larsen, P. (2006) · Evaluation · doi:10.1177/1356389006073745 · Cited by 21 · see citing works
Extension as a Delivery System for Prevention Programming: Capacity, Barriers, and Opportunities
Hill, L. G., & Parker, L. A. (2005) · Journal of Extension · doi:10.66752/1077-5315.4569 · Cited by 13 · see citing works
Self-citationMorford, S., Kozak, R. A., Suvedi, M., et al. (2006) · Journal of Extension · doi:10.66752/1077-5315.4453 · Cited by 10 · see citing works
Harvey, J., Oliver, M., & Smith, J. W. (2002) · Strathprints: The University of Strathclyde institutional repository (University of Strathclyde) · Cited by 7 · see citing works
Participatory Evaluation in Adult and Nonformal Education
Kinsey, D. C. (1981) · Adult Education · doi:10.1177/074171368103100303 · Cited by 6 · see citing works
Examining the structural and philosophical positions of community-based organization practitioners
Mills, D. S. (2001) · doi:10.23860/diss-1757 · Cited by 2 · see citing works
Collecting and Using Data for Organizational Learning
Cherin, D. A. (2004) · Sage eBooks · doi:10.4135/9781483328829.n20 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- Fetterman DM Wandersman A 2005 Empowerment evaluation principles in practice New York, NY Guilford Press
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Cooper, B. R., Hill, L. G., Parker, L., Jenkins, G. J., Shrestha, G., & Funaiole, A. (2022) · Implementation Science Communications · doi:10.1186/s43058-022-00303-4 · Cited by 7 · see citing works
“The characteristics of this study sample closely resemble other SFP 10-14 facilitator samples [34, 35].”
ResultSelf-citation
- Authors
- Whitehall, A. K., Hill, L. G., & Koehler, C. R.
- Affiliations
- Department of Human Development, Washington State University, Pullman, WA, USA
- Washington State University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Hill, Laura G.
- ORCID
- Hill, Laura G.
- Venue
- American Journal of Evaluation
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2011-10-14
- Volume
- 33
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 208-220
- ISSN
- 1098-2140 (ISSN-L)
- 1557-0878
- PMC
- PMC4198306
- OpenAlex
- W1963843579
- Cited by
- 15
- References
- 32
- Citations by year
- 2024: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 1 · 2019: 1 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 1
- FWCI
- 1.30
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
- Locations
- American Journal of Evaluation (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
- PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
- Funders
- Washington State Department of Social and Health Services
- National Institutes of Health
- National Institute on Drug Abuse (R21DA025139, R21DA019758)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Evaluation and Performance Assessment
- Social Sciences › Public Administration › Social Work Education and Practice
- Social Sciences › Public Administration › Public Policy and Administration Research
- Keywords
- practitioner evaluation, pretest-posttest evaluation, family strengthening programs, social service delivery, parental attitudes
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
