This document presents an "evaluation theory tree" that traces the development of evaluation theories and influences among prominent evaluation theorists. The tree has roots in accountability/control and social inquiry. It outlines key theorist perspectives on evaluation methods including Tyler, Campbell, Scriven, Cronbach, and others. It also outlines theorist perspectives in the areas of valuing evaluations including Eisner, Owens/Wolf, Stake, MacDonald, and House. Finally, it outlines theorist perspectives related to the use of evaluations including Stufflebeam/Guba, Wholey, Patton, Cousin, Preskill, Owen, and Fetterman. The tree is intended to map the evolution of evaluation theory across different branches

1. An evaluation theory
tree
Mr. Luis Medina Gual
Based on: Alkin, M. (2004). Evaluation roots: tracing theorists’
views and influences. USA: Sage Publications.

2. Before… some questions
 ¿Cuál es la finalidad del árbol de la teoría de
evaluación?
 ¿Describe la función de cada rama del “Evaluation
Theory Tree “?
 What is the difference between evaluation and
research?

3. Evaluationtree

4. Roots
 Accountability and control
“Being answerable or capable
of being accounted for”
Accountable
of
Goals
ProcessProducts

5. Roots
 Social inquiry
“Why do people in social
groups act as they do?”
Psychology
Quantitative
sociological
Qualitative
and
antropological

6. Evaluationtree

7. Methods
 Tyler
Evaluation 4 hypotesis
testing
Vs norm reference
evaluation

8. Methods
 Campbell
Pure experiments,
cuasiexperiments and
pre-experiments for
internal and external
validity

9. Methods
 Others
Shuman= utility for
administrators
Cook= context
importance

10. Methods
 Theory driven evaluation (comprehensive evaluation)
Rossi y Chen
Vs black box (why and
how it works?)

11. Methods
 Cronbach
“Enlightment”= external
validity
Domains of evaluation: units
(population), treatments,
observation (outcomes) and
settings (UTOS)

12. Evaluationtree

13. Valuing
 Scriven
“There is a science of
valuing and that is
evaluation”
“Modus Operandi”
(MO)= characteristic
causal chain

14. Valuing
 Eisner
“Things that matter
cannot be measured”
Connoisseur= critical
description +
expectation + draw upon
experience

15. Valuing
 Owens / Wolf
Adversary evaluation
Juditial evaluation
model

16. Valuing
 Stake vs MacDonald
Stake= evaluator
decides
MacDonald= voices and
values of Stakeholders

17. Valuing
 House
Evaluation is not “good”
or “bad” (Scriven) but
“right”, “fair” and “just”
Ethical fallacies= clientism,
contractualism, managerialism,
methodologicalism, pluralism/elitism
and relativism

18. Evaluationtree

19. Use
 Stufflebeam + Guba
Professional
Standards:
Utility (serve the
information needs of
intended users),
feasibility (be
realistic, prudent,
diplomatic, and
frugal), propriety
(behave legally,
ethically), accuracy
(technically accurate
)
Evaluation as a process
to improve services

20. Use
 Wholey
Emphasis on managers
and policy makers

21. Use
 Patton
Broader spectrum of
identified stakeholders
(Utilization Focused
Evaluation – UFE)
Identify
users
User’s
commitment
Involvement
of users
Interpreting
findings

22. Use
 Cousin
“Buy-in”, program
personnel participating
in the evaluation
Evaluation personnel
and decision makers in
a partnership

23. Use
 Preskill
Transformational
learning, to identify
information needed to
meet their goal
Clinical approach

24. Use
 Owen
Consultants=
prescriptive and
recommendations
Evaluators= descriptive
and judgements
Blurred distinctions

25. Use
 Fetterman
Empowerment
evaluation: evaluator as
a coach for designing
and conducting
evaluation
Vs. Participatory
evaluation (it is not the
same)