DOI: https://doi.org/10.7203/relieve.22.1.8164

La investigación evaluativa en el siglo XXI: un instrumento para el desarrollo educativo y social cada vez más relevante


Resumen


Tras una amplia revisión de las recientes publicaciones alrededor del tema, se analiza y valora la actual situación de la investigación evaluativa, como instrumento estratégico para la toma de decisiones de desarrollo y mejora  de la sociedad y de la calidad de vida de los ciudadanos, en ámbitos diversos como la educación, la sanidad, la economía, la cultura, la protección social, las políticas públicas, etc. Se describe y fundamenta la identidad científica de la investigación evaluativa actual, incidiendo en su carácter transdisciplinar, en el auge de la evaluación de organizaciones e instituciones, en su apoyo en metodologías diversas y en la importancia de las estrategias participativas. Se destaca también la utilidad y el uso apropiado de las evaluaciones como objetivo prioritario de este tipo de investigación, apoyándose siempre en principios y normas éticas y de calidad científica y los correspondientes estudios metaevaluativos

Palabras clave


 Investigación evaluativa, Desarrollo social, Disciplina transversal, Metodologías diversas, Estrategias participativas, Utilidad y uso de la evaluación, Normas ético-científicas, Metaevaluación

Texto completo:

PDF PDF (English)

Referencias


  • Abelson, J., Forest, P-G., Eyles, J., Smith, P., Martin, E., & Gauvin, F.P. (2003). Deliberations about deliberative methods: issues in the design and evaluation of public participation processes. Social Science & Medicine 57, 239–251. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0277-9536(02)00343-X

  • Abma, T. A. (2000). Stakeholder conflict: a case study. Evaluation and Program Planning 23, 199-210. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0149-7189(00)00006-9

  • Aguilar, M. (2001). La evaluación institucional de las universidades. Tendencias y desafíos. Revista de Ciencias Sociales (Cr), II-III, 93-92, 23-34.

  • American Evaluation Association (2008). Guiding Principles for Evaluators American Journal of Evaluation, 29 (4), 397-398.

  • Askew, K., Green Beverly, M. & Jay. M. L. (2012). Aligning collaborative and culturally responsive evaluation approaches. Evaluation and Program Planning, 35, 552–557. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2011.12.011

  • Azzam, T. & Levine, B. (2015). Politics in evaluation: Politically responsive evaluation in high stakes environments Evaluation and Program Planning, 53, 44-56. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2015.07.002

  • Betzner, A., Lawrenz, F. P. & Thao. M. (2016). Examining mixing methods in an evaluation of a smoking cessation program. Evaluation and Program Planning, 54, 94-101. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2015.06.004

  • Brandon, P. R. & Fukunaga, L. L. (2014). The state of the empirical research literature on stakeholder involvement in program evaluation. American Journal of Evaluation, 35 (1), 26–44. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1098214013503699

  • Bredo, E. (2006). Philosophies of Educational Research. En J. L. Green, G. Camilli & P. B. Elmore, Handbook of Complementary Methods in Education Research. London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers AERA 3-31.

  • Calderon, A. J. (2004). Institutional Research at RMIT. A case study. Ponencia presentada en el 26th EAIR Forum, Barcelona, 5-8 de septiembre.

  • Chelimsky, E. (2008). A Clash of Cultures: Improving the “Fit” Between Evaluative Independence and the Political Requeriments of a Democretic Society. American Journal of Evaluation, 29, 4, 400-415. doi http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1098214008324465

  • Chouinard, J. A., & Milley. P. (2016). Mapping the spatial dimensions of participatory practice: A discussion of context in evaluation. Evaluation and Program Planning, 54, 1-10. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2015.09.003

  • Christie, C. A. (2003). The practice-theory relayionship in evaluation. New Directions for Program Evaluation, 97, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, Ca.

  • Christie, C. A. (2007). Reported influence of evaluation data on decision makers’actions: An empirical examination. American Journal of Evaluation, 28, 1, 8–25 doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1098214006298065

  • Christie, C. A. & Fleischer, D. N. (2010). Insight Into Evaluation Practice: A Content Analysis of Designs and Methods Used in Evaluation Studies Published in North American Evaluation-Focused Journals. American Journal of Evaluation, 31(3), 326-346. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1098214010369170

  • Christie, C. A., Ross, R. M. & Klein, B. M. (2004). Moving toward collaboration by creating a participatory internal-external evaluation team: a case study. Studies in Educational Evaluation,36(2), 107-117. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2004.06.002

  • Claverie, J., Gonzalez, G. & Perez, L. (2008), El Sistema de Evaluación de la Calidad de la Educación Superior en la Argentina: El Modelo de la CONEAU. Alcances y Límites para Pensar la Mejora. Revista Iberoamericana de Evaluación Educativa, 1(2), 149-164.

  • Cook, J. R. (2015). Using Evaluation to Effect Social Change: Looking Through a Community Psychology Lens. American Journal of Evaluation, 28(1), 107-117. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1098214014558504

  • Cousins, J. B. (2004). Commentary: Minimizing evaluation misuse as principled practice. American Journal of Evaluation, 25(3), 391-397. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/109821400402500311

  • Cousins, J. B.; Goh, S.C.; Elliot, C.J. & Bourgeois, I. (2014). Framing the Capacity to Do and Use Evaluation. New Directions for Evaluation, 141 (1), 7-23. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ev.20076

  • Daigneault, P. (2014). Taking stock of four decades of quantitative research on stakeholder participation and evaluation use: A systematic map. Evaluation and Program Planning, 45, 171–181. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2014.04.003

  • Donaldson, S. I. (2007). Program theory-driven evaluation science. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum

  • Donaldson, S. I. & Gooler, L. E. (2003). Theory-driven evaluation in action: lessons from a $20 million statewide Work and Health Initiative. Evaluation and Program Planning, 26, 355–366 doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0149-7189(03)00052-1

  • Donaldson, S. I. & Lipsey, M. W. (2006). Roles for theory in contemporary evaluation practice: Developing practical knowledge. En I. Shaw, J. C. Greene & M. M. Mark (Eds.), The Handbook of Evaluation: Policies, programs, and Practices (56-75). London: Sage

  • Donaldson, S. I. & Scriven, M. (2003). Diverse visions for evaluation in the new millennium. En S. I. Donaldson & M. Scriven (Eds.) Evaluating social programs and problems: Vision for the new millenium (pp. 3-16), Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

  • Escudero, T. (2000). Evaluación de centros e instituciones educativas: las perspectivas del evaluador. En D. González, E. Hidalgo & J. Gutiérrez (Coords.), Innovación en la escuela y mejora de la calidad educativa (pp. 57-76). Granada: Grupo Editorial Universitario

  • Escudero, T. (2002). Evaluación institucional: algunos fundamentos y razones. En V. Álvarez & A. Lázaro, Calidad de las Universidades y Orientación Universitaria (pp. 103-138). Málaga: Ediciones Aljibe.

  • Escudero, T. (2003). Desde los tests hasta la investigación evaluativa actual. Un siglo, el XX, de intenso desarrollo de la evaluación en educación. [English version: From tests to current evaluative research. One century, the XXth, of intense development of evaluation in education]. RELIEVE, 9(1), Recuperado de http://www.uv.es/RELIEVE/v9n1/RELIEVEv9n1_1.htm

  • Escudero, T. (2005-2006). Claves identificativas de la investigación evaluativa: análisis desde la práctica. Contextos Educativos. Revista de Educación, 8-9, 179-199.

  • Escudero, T. (2006). Evaluación y mejora de la calidad en educación. En T. Escudero & A. D. Correa, Investigación en innovación educativa: algunos ámbitos relevantes (pp. 269-325). Madrid: La Muralla, S. A.

  • Escudero, T. (2007). Evaluación institucional de la calidad universitaria en España: Breve pero interesante historia. Anuario de Pedagogía, 9, 103-115.

  • Escudero, T. (2009). Some relevant topics in educational evaluation research. En M. Asorey, J. V García Esteve, M. Rañada, & J. Sesma, Mathematical Physics and Field Theory. Julio Abad, in Memoriam, (pp. 223-230). Prensas Universitarias de Zaragoza.

  • Escudero, T., Pino, J. L. & Rodríguez, C. (2010). Evaluación del profesorado universitario para incentivos individuales: revisión metaevaluativa. Revista de Educación, 351, 513-537.

  • Escudero, T. (2011). La construcción de la investigación evaluativa. El aporte desde la educación. Prensas Universitarias-Universidad de Zaragoza.

  • Escudero, T. (2013). Utilidad y uso de las evaluaciones. Un asunto relevante. Revista de evaluación educativa, 2 (1). Recuperado de http://revalue.mx/revista/index.php/revalue/issue/current

  • European Commission/EACEA/EURYDICE (2015). Assuring Quality in Education: Policy and Approaches to School Evaluation in Europe, Eurydice Report. Luxembourg: Publication Office of the European Union. Recuperado de http://eacea.ec.europa.eu/education/eurydice/

  • Exposito, J., Olmedo, E. & Fernandez-Cano, A. (2004). Patrones metodológicos en la investigación española sobre evaluación de programas educativos. RELIEVE, 10 (2). Recuperado de http://www.uv.es/RELIEVE/v10n2/RELIEVEv10n2_2.htm

  • Ferrandez, R. (2008). Programas de Auditoría Institucional Universitaria. Comparación de la Propuesta Española con el Sistema Británico. Revista Iberoamericana de Evaluación Educativa, (1)1, 156-170.

  • Fetterman, D. M. (2001a). The Transformation of Evaluation into a Collaboration: A Vision of Evaluation in the 21st Century. American Journal of Evaluation, (22) 3, 381-385. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/109821400102200315

  • Fetterman, D. M. (2001b). Foundations of empowerment evaluation. Thousand Oaks, CA.: Sage.

  • Fetterman, D.M., Kaftarian, S.J. & Wandersman A. (Eds.) (2015). Empowerment Evaluation: Knowledge and Tools for Self- Assessment, Evaluation Capacity Building, and Accountability(2nd edition). Thousand Oaks, CA.: Sage Publications. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-08-097086-8.10572-0

  • Fitzpatrick, J. L. (2012). Commentary-Collaborative evaluation within the larger evaluation context, Evaluation and Program Planning, 35, 558-563. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2011.12.012

  • Geist, M. R. (2010). Using the Delphi method to engage stakeholders: A comparison of two studies. Evaluation and Program Planning, 33, 147-154. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2009.06.006

  • Henry, G. T. (2003). Influential evaluations. American Journal of evaluation, 24 (4), 515-524. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/109821400302400409

  • Henry, G. T. & Mark, M. M. (2003). Beyond use: Understanding evaluation´s influence on attitudes and actions, American Journal of Evaluation, 24 (3), 293-314. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/109821400302400302

  • House, E. R. (2008). Blowback. Consequences of Evaluation for Evaluation. American Journal of Evaluation, 29(4), 416-426. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1098214008322640

  • Jacob, S. (2008). Cross-Disciplinarization: A New Talisman for Evaluation? American Journal of Evaluation, 29 (2), 175-194.doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1098214008316655

  • Johson, K. (2009). Research on Evaluation Use: A Review of the Empirical Literature From 1986 to 2005. American Journal of Evaluation, 30(3), 377-410. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1098214009341660

  • Joint Committee On Standards Of Educational Evaluation (2003). The student evaluation standards. Thousand Oaks, Ca.: Corwin

  • Kirkhart, K. (2000). Reconceptualizing evaluation use: An integrated theory of influence. En V. Caracelli, & H. Preskill (Eds.), The expanding scope of evaluation use. New Directions for Evaluation, Nº 88, San Francisco, Ca.: Jossey-Bass.

  • La Velle, J. M. & Donaldson, S. I. (2010). University-Based Evaluation Training Programs in the United States 1980-2008: An Empirical Examination. American Journal of Evaluation, 31(1), 9-23. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1098214009356022

  • Leviton, L. C. (2003). Evaluation use: Advances, challenges and applications. American Journal of Evaluation, 33 (2), 159-178.

  • Ledermann, S. (2012). Exploring the Necessary Conditions for Evaluation Use in Program Change. American Journal of Evaluation, 24 (4), 525-535. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1098214011411573

  • Makrakis, V. & Kostoulas-Makrakis, N. (2016). Bridging the qualitative–quantitative divide: Experiences from conducting a mixed methods evaluation in the RUCAS programme. Evaluation and Program Planning 54, 144-151. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2015.07.008

  • Mark, M. M. (2003). Toward a integrative view of the theory and practice of program and policy evaluation. En S. I. Donaldson & M. Scriven (Eds.) Evaluating social programs and problems: Vision for the new millenium, (pp. 183-204). Mahwah, NJ.: Erlbaum.

  • Maxcy, S. J. (2003). Pragmatic threads in mixed methods research in social sciences: An emerging theory in support of practice. En A. Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social anb behavioral research, (pp. 51-89). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage

  • May, H. (2004). Making statistics more meaningful for policy research and program evaluation. American Journal of Evaluation, 25(4), 525-540. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/109821400402500408

  • Mcclintock, C. (2003). Commentary: The evaluator as scholar/practicioner/change agent. American Journal of Evaluation, 24(1), 91-96. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/109821400302400110

  • Mira, G. E., Meneses, R. M. & Rincón, D. A. (2012). La Investigación Evaluativa y su perspectiva en la Acreditación y Evaluación de Programas e Instituciones en Educación Superior, XIII Asamblea General de la Asociación Latinoamericana de Facultades y Escuelas de Contaduría y Administración (ALAFEC) (pp. 1-26). Buenos Aires, Argentina.

  • Muñoz, A., Perez Zabaleta, A., Muñoz, A. & Sanchez, C. (2013). La evaluación de políticas públicas: una creciente necesidad en la unión europea. Revista de Evaluación de Programas y Políticas Públicas, 1, 1-30.

  • Neuman, A., Shahor, N., Shina, I., Sarid, A. & Saar, Z. (2013). Evaluation utilization research -Developing a theory and putting it to use. Evaluation and Program Planning, 36, 64–70. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2012.06.001

  • Nicoletti, J. A. (2013). La evaluación de la calidad educativa. Investigación de base evaluativa en centros de educación superior. Revista Argentina de Educación Superior, 6, 189-202.

  • Nitsch, M., Waldherr, K., Denk, E., Griebler, U., Marent, B. & Forster, R. (2013). Participation by different stakeholders in participatory evaluation of health promotion: A literature review. Evaluation and Program Planning, 40 (1), 42–54. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2013.04.006

  • Paricio, J. (2015). Análisis de los modelos de calidad de la educación superior. Diseño de una metodología de análisis multidimensional. Tesis Doctoral, Universidad de Zaragoza.

  • Patel, M. (2002a). A meta-evaluation, or quality assessment, of the evaluations in this issue, based on the African Evaluation Guidelines: 2002. Evaluation and Program Planning, 25, 329-332. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0149-7189(02)00043-5

  • Patel, M. (2002b). The African Evaluation Guidelines: 2002. A checklist to assist in planning evaluations, negotiating clear contracts, reviewing progress and ensuring adequate completion of an evaluation. Evaluation and Program Planning, 25, 481–492.

  • Patton, M. Q. (2012). A utilization-focused approach to contribution analysis. Evaluation, 18, 364–377. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1356389012449523

  • Perassi, Z. (2009). Commentary: Evaluar un Programa Educativo: Una Experiencia Formativa Compleja, Revista Iberoamericana de Evaluación Educativa, 2(2), 172-195.

  • Perez Juste, R. (2002). La evaluación de programas en el marco de la educación de calidad. XXI Revista de Educación, 4, 43-76.

  • Perrin, B. (2001). Commentary: Making yoursel -and evaluation- useful. American Journal of Evaluation, 22 (2), 252-259. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/109821400102200209

  • Pinkerton, S. D., Johnson-Massoti, A. P., Derse, A. & Layde, P. M. (2002). Ethical issues in cost-effectiveness analysis. Evaluation and Program Planning, 25, 71-83. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0149-7189(01)00050-7

  • Preskill, H., & Boyle, S. (2008). A multidisciplinary model of evaluation capacity building. American Journal of Evaluation, 29, 443–459. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1098214008324182

  • Renger, R & Hurley, C. (2006). From theory to practice: Lessons learned in the application of the ATM approach to developing logic models. Evaluation and Program Planning, 29, 106–119. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2006.01.004

  • Rodriguez-Campos, L. (2012). Stakeholder involvement in evaluation: Three decades of the American Journal of Evaluation. Journal of Multidisciplinary Evaluation, 17, 57– 79.

  • Rodríguez-Campos, L. (2012). Advances in collaborative evaluation, Evaluation and Program Planning, 35, 523–528. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2011.12.006

  • Roseland, D., Lawrenz, F. & Thao, M. (2015). The relationship between involment in and use of evaluation in multi-site evaluations. Evaluation and Program Planning, 48, 75-82. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2014.10.003

  • Ryan, K. E. (2004). Serving public interests in educational accountability: Alternative approaches to democratic evaluation. American Journal of Evaluation, 25 (4), 443-460. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/109821400402500403

  • Scheerens, J. (2004). The evaluation culture. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 30(2), 105-124. doi: Perez Juste, R. (2002). La evaluación de programas en el marco de la educación de calidad. XXI Revista de Educación, 4, 43-76.

  • Perrin, B. (2001). Commentary: Making yoursel -and evaluation- useful. American Journal of Evaluation, 22 (2), 252-259.

  • http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/109821400102200209

  • Pinkerton, S. D., Johnson-Massoti, A. P., Derse, A. & Layde, P. M. (2002). Ethical issues in cost-effectiveness analysis. Evaluation and Program Planning, 25, 71-83.

  • http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0149-7189(01)00050-7

  • Preskill, H., & Boyle, S. (2008). A multidisciplinary model of evaluation capacity building. American Journal of Evaluation, 29, 443–459.

  • http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1098214008324182

  • Renger, R & Hurley, C. (2006). From theory to practice: Lessons learned in the application of the ATM approach to developing logic models. Evaluation and Program Planning, 29, 106–119.

  • http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2006.01.004

  • Rodriguez-Campos, L. (2012). Stakeholder involvement in evaluation: Three decades of the American Journal of Evaluation. Journal of Multidisciplinary Evaluation, 17, 57– 79.

  • Rodríguez-Campos, L. (2012). Advances in collaborative evaluation, Evaluation and Program Planning, 35, 523–528. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2011.12.006

  • http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2011.12.006

  • Roseland, D., Lawrenz, F. & Thao, M. (2015). The relationship between involment in and use of evaluation in multi-site evaluations. Evaluation and Program Planning, 48, 75-82. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2014.10.003

  • http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2014.10.003

  • Ryan, K. E. (2004). Serving public interests in educational accountability: Alternative approaches to democratic evaluation. American Journal of Evaluation, 25 (4), 443-460.

  • http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/109821400402500403

  • Scheerens, J. (2004). The evaluation culture. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 30(2), 105-124.

  • http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2004.06.001

  • Schwandt, T.A. (2002). Evaluation Practice Reconsidered. New York NY. Peter Lang Publishing

  • Schwartz, R. & Mayne, J. (2005). Assuring the quality of evaluative information: theory and practice. Evaluation and Program Planning, 28(1), 1-14. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2004.10.001

  • Schweigert, F., J. (2007). The priority of justice: A framework approach to ethics in program evaluation. Evaluation and Program Planning, 30, 394–399. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2007.06.007

  • Scriven, M. (2000). The logic and methodology of checklists. Recuperado de www.wmich.edu/evalctr/checklists/

  • Scriven, M. (2003). Evaluation in the new millenium: The transdisciplinary vision. En S. I. Donaldson & M. Scriven (Eds.), Evaluating Social Programs and Problems. Visions for the New Millennium, (pp. 19-42). Mahwah, N. J.: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates

  • Smith, M. J. (2010). Handbook of Program Evaluation for Social Work and Health Professionals. New York: Oxford University Press

  • Sondergeld, T. & Koskey, K. (2011). Evaluating the impact of an urban comprehensive school reform: An illustration of the need for mixed methods. Studies in educational Evaluation, 37, 94-107. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2011.08.001

  • Stake, R. (2006). Evaluación comprensiva y evaluación basada en estándares, Editorial Graó, Barcelona.

  • Stufflebeam, D. L. (2000). Guidelines for developing evaluation checklists. Recuperado de www.wmich.edu/evalctr/checklists/

  • Stufflebeam, D. L. (2001a). Interdisciplinary PHd Programming in Evaluation. American Journal of Evaluation, 22(3), 445-455. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/109821400102200323

  • Stufflebeam, D. L. (2001b). The metaevaluation imperative. American Journal of Evaluation, 22(2), 183-209. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/109821400102200204

  • Stufflebeam, D. L. (2004). A note on the purposes, development, and applicability of the Joint Committee Evaluation Standards. American Journal of Evaluation, 25, 1, 99-102. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/109821400402500107

  • Taut, S. (2008). What have we learned about stakeholders involvement in program evaluation. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 34, 224-230. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2008.10.007

  • Thomas, V. G. & Madison, A. (2010). Integration of Social Justice Into the Teaching of Evaluation. American Journal of Evaluation, 31 (4), 570-583. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1098214010368426

  • Urban, J. B., Hargraves, M. & Trochim, W. M. (2014). Evolutionary Evaluation: Implications for evaluators, researchers, practitioners, funders and the evidence-based program mandate. Evaluation and Program Planning, 45, 127-139. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2014.03.011

  • Urban, J. B. & Trochim, W. M. (2009). The role of evaluation in research-practice integration: Working toward the “Golden spike”. American Journal of Evaluation, 30 (4), 538-553. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1098214009348327

  • Vanhoof, J. & Van Petegem, P. (2010). Evaluating the quality of self-evaluations: The (mis)match between internal and external meta-evaluation. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 36, 20–26. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2010.10.001

  • Walton, M. (2014). Applying complexity theory: A review to inform evaluation design. Evaluation and Program Panning, 45, 119-126. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2014.04.002

  • Wasserman, D. L. (2010). Using a systems orientation and foundational theory to enhance theory-driven human service program evaluations. Evaluation and Program Planning, 33, 67-80. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2009.06.005

  • Weiss, C. H. (2004). On theory-based evaluation: Winning friends and influencing people. The Evaluation Exchange, 9(4), 1-5.

  • White, H. (2013). The Use of Mixed Methods in Randomized Control Trials. New Directions for Evaluation, 138(2), 61-73. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ev.20058 doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ev.20058

  • Youker, B. W., Ingraham, A. & Bayer, N. (2014). An assessment of goal-free evaluation: Case studies of four goal-free evaluations. Evaluation and Program Planning, 46, 10-16. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2014.05.002

  • Yusa, A., Hynie, M. & Mitchell, S. (2016). Utilization of internal evaluation results by community mental health organizations: Credibility in different forms. Evaluation and Program Planning, 54, 11-18. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2015.09.006


Enlaces refback

  • No hay ningún enlace refback.




Copyright (c)



https://ojs.uv.es/public/site/images/aliaga/scopus_170 https://ojs.uv.es/public/site/images/aliaga/esci_225 https://ojs.uv.es/public/site/images/aliaga/sello-calidad-revistas-2016_697_01