Alkin, M.C., Kosecoff, J., Fitz-Gibbon, C.T., & Seligman, R. (1974). Evaluation and decision making: The Title VII experience CSE Monograph Series in Evaluation, No.4. Los Angeles: Center for the Study of Evaluation, University of California.
2.
Carroll, J.B.( 1963). A model of school learningTeachers College Record, 64(8), 723-733.
3.
Cronbach, L.J. (1963). Course improvement through evaluationTeachers College Record, 64(8), 672-683.
4.
Joyce, B.R., & Weil, M. (1972). Models of teachingEnglewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
Rosenberg, M.J. (1960). Cognitive reorganization in response to the hypnotic reversal of attitudinal affectJournal of Personality . 28(1), 39-63.
7.
Quoted in Jones, E.E., & Gerard, H.B. (1967). Foundations of social psychologyNew York: Wiley.
8.
Skager. R., Morehouse, K., Russock, R., & Schumacher, E. (1973). Evaluation of the Los Angeles Alternative School: A report to the Board of Education of the Los Angeles Unified School DistrictLos Angeles: Center for the Study of Evaluation, University of California.
9.
Stake, R.E. (1967). The countenance of educational evaluationTeachers College Record, 68(7), 523-540.
10.
Bickman, L. (1979). Program evaluation and social psychology: The achievement of relevancePersonality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 5, 483-490.
11.
Bickman, L. (Ed.) (1987). Using program theory in evaluation.San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass .
12.
Bickman, L. (Ed.) (1990). Advances in program theory.San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
13.
Chen, H. T. (Ed.) (1989). The theory-driven perspective. [Special issue] Evaluation and Program Planning, 12(4).
14.
Chen, H.T. (1990). Theory-driven evaluation: A comprehensive perspectiveNewbury, CA: Sage.
Chen, H.T. (1994b). Current trends and future directions in program evaluationEvaluation Practice, 15(3), 229-237.
17.
Chen, H.T., (1996). A comprehensive typology for program evaluationEvaluation Practice, 17(2), .
18.
Chen, H.T., & Rossi, P.H. (1980). The multi-goal, theory-driven approach to evaluation: A model linking basic and applied social scienceSocial Forces, 59, 106-122.
19.
(The same article was reprinted in H. E. Freeman & M. A. Solomon (Eds.) ( 1981). Evaluation studies review annual (Vol. 6, pp. 38-54). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.)
20.
Chen, H.T., & Rossi, P.H. (1983). Evaluating with sense: The theory-driven approach , Evaluation Review, 7, 283-302.
21.
Chen, H.T., & Rossi, P.H. (1987). The theory-driven approach to validityEvaluation and Program Planning, 10, 95-103.
22.
Chen, H. T., & Rossi, P. H. (Eds.) (1992). Using theory to improve program and policy evaluations.Westport, CT: Greenwood.
23.
Cordray, D. S., & Lipsey, M. W. (Eds.) (1986). Evaluation studies review annual.Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
24.
Dagenais, F. (1978). Theory-based evaluation of an experimental programEducational Research Quarterly, 3(2), 74-83.
Lipsey, M.W., Crosse, S., Dunkle, J., Pollard, J.A., & Stobart, G. (1985). Evaluation: The state of the art and the sorry state of the science In D. S. Cordray (Ed.) Utilizing prior research in evaluation planning.San Francisco, CA : Jossey-Bass, 7-28.
27.
Quay, H.C. (1979). The three faces of evaluation: What can be expected to work In L. Sechrest, S. G. West, M. A. Phillips, R. Radner, & W. Keaton (Eds.) Evaluation studies review annual , Vol. 4. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Suchman, E.A. (1967). Evaluative research: Principles and practice in public services and social action programsNew York: Russell Sage Foundation.
30.
Weiss, C.H. (1972a). Evaluating educational and social action programs: A treeful of owls In C. H. Weiss (Ed.) Evaluating action programs: Readings in social action and education (pp. 3-27). Boston : Allyn & Bacon.
31.
Weiss C.H. (1972b). Evaluation research: Methods of assessing program effectivenessEnglewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
32.
Weiss, C.H. (1972c). Utilization of evaluation: Toward comparative study In C. H. Weiss (Ed.) Evaluating action programs: Readings in social action and education (pp. 318-326). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
33.
Wholey, J.S. (1979). Evaluation: Promise and performanceWashington, DC: Urban Institute.