Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 218

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Discovering Process Use

Patton, Michael Quinn·1998·Evaluation

Abstract

Trying to figure out what’s really going on is, of course, a core function of evaluation. Part of such reality testing at a conference includes sorting out what our profession has become and is becoming, what our core disciplines are, and what issues deserve our attention. I have spent a good part of my evaluation career reflecting on these concerns, particularly from the point of view of use; for example, how to work with intended users to achieve intended uses, and how to distinguish the general community of stakeholders from primary users so as to work with them. In all of that work, and indeed through the first two editions of Utilization-Focused Evaluation (a period spanning 20 years), I have been engaging in evaluations with a focus on enhancing utility, both the amount and quality of use. However, when I went to prepare the third edition of the book (Patton, 1997), and was trying to sort out what had happened in the field in the 10 years since the last edition, it occurred to me that I had missed something. I was struck by something which my own myopia had not allowed me to see before. When I have followed up my own evaluations over the years, I have asked intended

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 · 10.1177/13563899822208437

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 218

Metadata

Authors
Patton, M. Q.
Venue
Evaluation
Published
1998-04
Volume
4
Issue
2
Pages
225-233
ISSN
  • 1356-3890 (ISSN-L)
  • 1461-7153
OpenAlex
W1971315722
Cited by
218
References
0
FWCI
3.58
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: Discovering Process Use. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1177/13563899822208437
The paper
Patton, M. Q. (1998). Discovering Process Use. Evaluation. https://doi.org/10.1177/13563899822208437

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.