Caracelli, V.J., and Greene, J.C. (1993). Data analysis strategies for mixed-method evaluation designs. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 15(2), 195-207.
2.
Chelimsky, E. (1983). The definition and measurement of evaluation quality as a management tool. In R. G. St. Pierre (Ed.), Management and organization of program evaluation (pp. 113-126). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
3.
Cook, T.D. (1985). Postpositivist critical multiplism. In R. L. Shotland and M. M. Mark (Eds.), Social Science and social policy (pp. 21-62). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
4.
Cook, T.D., & Campbell, D.T. (1979). Quasi-experimentation: Design and analysis issues for field settings. Chicago, IL: Rand McNally.
Cordray, D.S. (1986). Quasi-experimental analysis: A mixture of methods and judgment. In W. M. K. Trochim (Ed.), New directions for program evaluation: Vol. 31. Advances in quasi-experimental design and analysis (pp. 9-27). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
7.
Everitt, B. (1980). Cluster analysis (2nd ed). New York: Halsted Press .
8.
Greene, J.C., Caracelli, V.J., & Graham, W.F. (1989). Toward a conceptual framework for mixed-method evaluation designs. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis , 11(3), 255-274.
9.
Guba, E.G., & Lincoln, Y.S. (1981). Effective evaluation: Improving the usefulness of evaluation results through responsive and naturalistic approaches. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
10.
Joint Committee on Standards for Educational Evaluation. (1994). Program evaluation standards: How to assess evaluation of educational programs. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
11.
Kruskal, J.B., & Wish, M. (1978). Multidimensional scaling. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
12.
Mark, M.M., & Shotland, R.L. (1987). Alternative models for the use of multiple methods. In M. M. Mark & R. L. Shotland (Eds.), New directions for program evaluation: Vol. 35. Multiple methods in program evaluation (pp. 95-100). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
13.
Marshall, C. (1990). Goodness criteria: Are they objective or judgment calls? In E. Guba (Ed.), The paradigm dialog (pp. 188-197). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
14.
Patton, M.Q. (1978). Utilization-focused evaluation. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
15.
Patton, M.Q. (1988). The evaluator's responsibility for utilization . Evaluation Practice, 9, 5-24.
16.
Reichardt, C.S. & Rallis, S.F. (Eds.). (1994). New directions for program evaluation: Vol. 61. The qualitative-quantitative debate: New perspectives . San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
17.
Rossi, P. H. (Ed.) (1982). New directions for program evaluation: Vol. 15. Standards for evaluation practice . San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
18.
Schwandt, T.A. (1989). Recapturing moral discourse in evaluation. Educational Researcher, 18(8), 11-16.
19.
Sechrest, L. (1992). Roots: Back to our first generations. AEA 1991 presidential address. Evaluation Practice, 13(1), 1-7.
20.
Shadish, W.R., Jr., Cook, T.D., & Houts, A.C. (1986). Quasi-experimentation in a critical multiplist mode. In W.M.K. Trochim (Eds.), New directionsfor program evaluation: Vol. 31. Advances in quasi-experimental design and analysis (pp. 29-46). San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
21.
Shotland, R.L., & Mark, M.M. (1987). Improving inferences from multiple methods. In M. M. Mark & R. L. Shotland (Eds.), New directions for program evaluation: Vol. 35. Multiple methods in program evaluation (pp. 77-94). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
22.
Sirotnik, K. A. (Ed.). (1990). New directions for program evaluation: Vol. 45. Evaluation and social justice . San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
23.
Trochim, W.M.K. (1989a). An introduction to concept mapping for planning and evaluation. Evaluation and program planning, 12, 1-16.
24.
Trochim, W.M.K. (1989b). The concept system. Concept Systems, Ithaca, NY.
25.
Trochim, W.M.K. (Ed.). (1989c). Evaluation and program planning: Vol 12. Special issue: Concept mapping for evaluation and planning. Tarrytown, N.Y.: Pergamon.
26.
Trochim, W.M.K., & Linton, R. (1986). Conceptualization for evaluation and planning . Evaluation and Program Planning, 9, 289-308.
27.
Ward, J.H. (1963). Hierarchical grouping to optimize an objective function. Journal of the American Statistical Association,58, 236-244.