The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Professional evaluation: social impact and political consequences
Abstract
Introduction Evaluation in Advanced Capitalist Society Trends Evaluation as an Institution and Profession Government and Evaluation Higher Education An Example Evaluation as a Discipline The Legacy of US Social Science Social Justice Methodology and Justice Evaluation in Multicultural Societies Professional Ethics
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
Cited by
Transformative Paradigm: Mixed Methods and Social Justice
Mertens, D. M. (2007) · Journal of Mixed Methods Research · doi:10.1177/1558689807302811 · Cited by 1,115
Have We Learned Anything New About the Use of Evaluation?
Weiss, C. H. (1998) · American Journal of Evaluation · doi:10.1177/109821409801900103 · Cited by 384
The relationship between self reports of college experiences and achievement test scores
Pike, G. R. (1995) · Research in Higher Education · doi:10.1007/bf02207764 · Cited by 253
Metadata
- Venue
- Choice Reviews Online
- Publisher
- American Library Association
- Published
- 1993-11-01
- Volume
- 31
- Issue
- 03
- Pages
- 31-1583-31-1583
- ISSN
- 0009-4978 (ISSN-L)
- 1523-8253
- OpenAlex
- W1598481359
- Cited by
- 289
- References
- 0
- Type
- book review
- 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: Professional evaluation: social impact and political consequences. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.5860/choice.31-1583
- The paper
- Professional evaluation: social impact and political consequences. (1993). Choice Reviews Online. https://doi.org/10.5860/choice.31-1583
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.
