The DOI matches its Crossref record; 11 of the 11 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Utilization-Focused Evaluation
Abstract
Utilization-focused evaluation begins with the premise that evaluations should be judged by their utility and actual use; therefore, evaluators should facilitate the evaluation process and design any evaluation with careful consideration of how everything that is done, from beginning to end, will affect use. This is consistent with standards developed by the Joint Committee on Standards for Evaluation and adopted by the American Evaluation Association that evaluations should be judged by their utility, feasibility, propriety, and accuracy. (See chapter on standards and principles for evaluations.)
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
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.
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
Cites
Crozier, M., & Friedberg, E. (2017) · Routledge eBooks · doi:10.4324/9781315131092 · Cited by 1,860
Situated Learning and Education
Anderson, J. R., Reder, L. M., & Simon, H. A. (1996) · Educational Researcher · doi:10.2307/1176775 · Cited by 1,455
Situation Ethics: The New Morality
Fletcher, J. F. (1966) · DigitalGeorgetown (Georgetown University Library) · Cited by 455
Quinn Patton, M. (1994) · Evaluation Practice · doi:10.1016/0886-1633(94)90026-4 · Cited by 336
Cousins, J. B., Donohue, J. J., & Bloom, G. A. (1996) · Evaluation Practice · doi:10.1016/s0886-1633(96)90002-1 · Cited by 113
Current and Developing Conceptions of Use: Evaluation Use TIG Survey Results
Preskill, H. S., & Caracelli, V. J. (1997) · Evaluation Practice · doi:10.1016/s0886-1633(97)90028-3 · Cited by 109
Technical quality versus user responsiveness in evaluation practice
Greene, J. C. (1990) · Evaluation and Program Planning · doi:10.1016/0149-7189(90)90057-4 · Cited by 40
Thoughts on evaluation utilization, misutilization and non-utilization
Alkin, M. C., & Coyle, K. K. (1988) · Studies In Educational Evaluation · doi:10.1016/0191-491x(88)90027-2 · Cited by 36
Type III Evaluations: Consultation and Consensus
Barkdoll, G. L. (1980) · Public Administration Review · doi:10.2307/975628 · Cited by 20
Developing the Guiding Principles
Shadish, W. R., Newman, D. L., Scheirer, M. A., & Wye, C. G. (1995) · New Directions for Program Evaluation · doi:10.1002/ev.1705 · Cited by 16
Cited by
Purposeful Sampling in Qualitative Research Synthesis
Suri, H. (2011) · Qualitative Research Journal · doi:10.3316/qrj1102063 · Cited by 2,284
GREENHALGH, T., JACKSON, C., SHAW, S., & JANAMIAN, T. (2016) · The Milbank Quarterly · doi:10.1111/1468-0009.12197 · Cited by 1,288
Organizational Market Information Processes: Cultural Antecedents and New Product Outcomes
Moorman, C. (1995) · Journal of Marketing Research · doi:10.1177/002224379503200307 · Cited by 1,020
Using Programme Theory to Evaluate Complicated and Complex Aspects of Interventions
Rogers, P. J. (2008) · Evaluation · doi:10.1177/1356389007084674 · Cited by 999
“Paradigms Lost”: On Theory and Method in Research in Marketing
Deshpande, R. (1983) · Journal of Marketing · doi:10.1177/002224298304700411 · Cited by 772
Metadata
- Venue
- The SAGE Encyclopedia of Educational Research, Measurement, and Evaluation
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications, Inc.
- Published
- 2018
- OpenAlex
- W1912456745
- Cited by
- 2,308
- References
- 11
- Type
- reference entry
- 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: Utilization-Focused Evaluation. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.4135/9781506326139.n729
- The paper
- Utilization-Focused Evaluation. (2018). The SAGE Encyclopedia of Educational Research, Measurement, and Evaluation. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781506326139.n729
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.
