Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 5,913

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Fourth-Generation Evaluation

Neufeld, Anne, Ryan, Alan G.·1988·Canadian Journal of Program Evaluation

Abstract

Abstract: Naturalistic program evaluation strategies are gaining acceptance within the evaluation profession. They are especially useful in the examination of the transaction, or process, components of programs. One of their disadvantages is that they demand extensive quantities of evaluator time and effort which are difficult to arrange. Guba refers to evaluation conducted within the naturalistic paradigm (as distinct from the use of naturalistic techniques) as fourth-generation evaluation. This article describes an evaluation study in the health field that attempted to stay within the naturalistic paradigm while mitigating some of the drawbacks of the methodological process of naturalistic evaluation.

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 · 10.3138/cjpe.3.006

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 5,913

Metadata

Authors
Neufeld, A., & Ryan, A. G.
Venue
Canadian Journal of Program Evaluation
Published
1988-09
Volume
3
Issue
2
Pages
77-91
ISSN
  • 0834-1516 (ISSN-L)
  • 1496-7308
OpenAlex
W4362505439
Cited by
5,913
References
0
FWCI
22.54
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: Fourth-Generation Evaluation. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.3138/cjpe.3.006
The paper
Neufeld, A., & Ryan, A. G. (1988). Fourth-Generation Evaluation. Canadian Journal of Program Evaluation. https://doi.org/10.3138/cjpe.3.006

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.