The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Prose and Cons about Goal-Free Evaluation
Abstract
TRACES are what evaluators left behind—discoveries, records, tracks—which made marks on the profession of program evaluation. Published here are excerpts from our past (e.g., articles, passages from books, speeches) that show where we have been or affected where we are g(r)o(w)ing. Suggestions for inclusion should be sent to the Editor, along with rationale for their import. Photocopies of the original printed versions are preferred with full bibliographic information. Copying rights will be secured by the Editor.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Citations
Cited by
A Step-by-Step Process of Thematic Analysis to Develop a Conceptual Model in Qualitative Research
Naeem, M., Ozuem, W., Howell, K., & Ranfagni, S. (2023) · International Journal of Qualitative Methods · doi:10.1177/16094069231205789 · Cited by 2,243
“According to Scriven (1991), a “ goal-free ” evaluation aligns well with inductive research where theories are developed from the data.”
Background
Metadata
- Authors
- Scriven, M.
- Affiliations
- Palo Alto University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Scriven, Michael
- Venue
- Evaluation Practice
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 1991-02
- Volume
- 12
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 55-62
- ISSN
- 0886-1633 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2089626039
- Cited by
- 259
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 3 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 10 · 2016: 15 · 2015: 7 · 2014: 17 · 2013: 12 · 2012: 14
- FWCI
- 6.64
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Evaluation Practice (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Public Administration › Evaluation and Performance Assessment
- Social Sciences › Public Administration › Public Policy and Administration Research
- Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Advanced Causal Inference Techniques
- Keywords
- goal-free evaluation, program evaluation, traces
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
