The garden of evaluation approaches: Supporting explicit,theory-informed evaluation practice

Abstract

This article presents an expanded Garden of Evaluation Approaches, a multidimensional framework that bridges theory and practice to strengthen evaluation in complex global contexts. The Garden now maps 13 approaches across intersecting dimensions and introduces two new elements: evaluand focus and lifecycle timing. Developed through systematic review and rubric-based analysis, it operationalises theoretical distinctions into visual profiles and evidence-based resource guides, enabling comparative learning, hybridisation, and context-sensitive design. By integrating underrepresented paradigms alongside established models, the Garden advances pluralism, equity, and methodological innovation. At the same time, it contributes to scholarly debates on classification logic and paradigm integration, offering a dynamic platform for research, pedagogy, and capacity-building. Designed as a living framework, the Garden invites co-creation and adaptation, positioning itself as both a practical decision-support tool and a catalyst for advancing evaluation theory and global practice.

‘One of the most challenging tasks facing an evaluator is not how to do [an] evaluation but why to do the evaluation in a particular way’ (Mark, 2025: 55). This observation highlights a persistent dilemma in evaluation practice: the rationale for selecting a particular approach often matters more than technical design choices. Although the evaluation literature is extensive, practitioners lack systematic guidance for aligning their approaches with the dimensions of practice. Existing resources describe individual approaches but rarely provide comparative, theory-informed frameworks to support reflective decision-making in complex, pluralistic settings.

This article addresses that gap by introducing an expanded Garden of Evaluation Approaches (Montrosse-Moorhead et al., 2024a), a practitioner-centred framework that operationalises theory for practical decision-making. We argue that adopting an evaluation approach is not a neutral act of classification; rather, it is a reflective and political process that shapes how evaluation is practised, taught, and valued. The Garden offers a structured, multidimensional framework that supports evaluators in reasoning through these choices, particularly in contexts characterised by paradigmatic diversity and competing value commitments.

Initially introduced with seven ‘approach flowers’ that visually mapped philosophical, methodological, and practice-based distinctions, the Garden now encompasses 13 approaches, refines existing dimensions, and adds two new ones: what is evaluated and when in the programme lifecycle. This iteration also includes a revised rubric, an expanded review of classification systems, and updated resource guides documenting the mixed-methods analysis underpinning each flower. These enhancements strengthen the Garden’s practical utility, facilitate hybrid evaluation design, and position approach selection as a socially situated act.

Two caveats warrant emphasis. First, while the Garden aims for inclusivity, only a subset of global approaches is represented, reflecting resource constraints rather than judgements of relevance. Second, the Garden metaphor does not imply hierarchy; what works well in one context may be ineffective in another. As Davidson (2005) reminds us, the value of an approach lies in its fit-for-purpose within a given context. Overall, this article advances evaluation theory and practice by offering a flexible, theory-informed framework that transforms abstract distinctions into actionable guidance for real-world evaluation.

Evaluation approaches defined

An agreed-upon definition of evaluation theory, models, and approaches remains elusive. Many texts use these terms interchangeably to describe prescriptions for how evaluation ought to be conducted. While distinctions have been proposed (Mark, 2025), boundaries are often blurred. Theories present the conceptual architecture that builds a foundational knowledge base for evaluation (Shadish et al., 1991). Models are typically structured guides for implementation, whereas approaches are more flexible strategies that articulate some, but not all, dimensions of evaluation practice under a given theoretical orientation (Stufflebeam and Coryn, 2014).

In this article, we define an evaluation approach as a theory-informed framework (or meta-model) that guides evaluative reasoning and practice across multiple philosophical, methodological, and practical dimensions. Approaches are not rigid templates; they reflect commitments about what counts as credible evidence, how judgements of merit and worth are formed, and whose values matter. They are shaped by ontological, epistemological, and axiological assumptions embedded in paradigms (Chilisa, 2019; Guba and Lincoln, 1989; Mertens and Wilson, 2019). Making these assumptions explicit enhances rigour and contextual fit.

Unlike research, which primarily seeks generalisable knowledge, evaluation is audience- and purpose-driven, oriented towards rendering value judgements and informing decisions in specific contexts (Wanzer, 2021). For this reason, we embed research designs and methods (experimental, quasi-experimental, and non-experimental) within evaluation approaches as one dimension rather than treating methods as the defining feature. Conflating approaches with methods risks method-first designs that ignore values, use, and context.

Approaches also differ in their engagement with practice dimensions, including values and valuing, ethics, use, engagement, context, and power, as well as the evaluation’s focus and timing. These dimensions make commitments visible and enable evaluators to design for dual rigour: methodological rigour (design quality, inference) alongside relational and contextual rigour (participation, cultural fit, interpretive validity). They also support intentional hybridisation, deliberately weaving elements from multiple approaches to achieve fit-for-purpose designs (Bledsoe and Graham, 2005).

While we prefer the term ‘approach’ for its practical utility, we acknowledge that ‘theory’, ‘models’, and ‘approaches’ are often used interchangeably in the literature. Our emphasis is on transparency: making assumptions explicit and operationalising commitments so evaluators can select, compare, and adapt approaches to strengthen rigour, relevance, and responsiveness in diverse contexts.

A global evolution of evaluation approaches

Evaluation theory has developed as a dynamic, pluralistic discourse shaped by diverse intellectual traditions and global contexts. Serving as the conceptual foundation for determining the merit, worth, and significance of programmes and policies, it has evolved in response to shifting paradigms in science, philosophy, and social justice. Rather than a fixed set of principles, evaluation theory reflects an ongoing dialogue among scholars, practitioners, and communities worldwide (Chilisa, 2024; Dinh, 2024; Ghiano, 2024).

Early foundations were rooted in postpositivist paradigms emphasising objectivity, measurement, and causal inference (Campbell and Stanley, 1963; Tyler, 1942). The 1970s introduced constructivist and interpretive paradigms, challenging the dominance of experimental methods and promoting context-sensitive approaches (Scriven, 1973; Stake, 1967). During the 1980s and 1990s, theories foregrounded practical use and democratic engagement (Fetterman, 1994[2001]; House and Howe, 2003; Patton, 1978). As evaluation expanded globally, new contributions emphasised cultural relevance, epistemic diversity, and ethical responsiveness (Basheka and Byamugisha, 2015; Chianca and Youker, 2004; Hood, 2001; Hood et al., 2005; Hood et al., 2015).

The 2000s and 2010s marked theoretical diversification through systems thinking and complexity theory, addressing multifaceted global challenges (Bremner and Bowman, 2020; Dinh, 2024; Gates et al., 2021; Mazigo, 2024; Rogers, 2008; White, 2009). Recent scholarship further emphasises the need to ground evaluation in local contexts and decolonial perspectives (Chilisa, 2024; Ghiano, 2024; Mbava and Chapman, 2020; Mbava and Dahler-Larsen, 2019). In the wake of global crises such as COVID-19 and climate change, evaluation theory increasingly prioritises equity, sustainability, and justice (Arévalo Gross et al., 2023; Attipoe-Dorcoo and Martínez-Rubin, 2024; Bouyousfi, 2024; Brousselle and McDavid, 2021; Goldman et al., 2024; Rowe, 2019; Sefa-Nyarko et al., 2024; Stame, 2022; Uitto, 2019; UNDP, 2021).

Today, evaluation theory is embedded in global competency frameworks developed by AEA, AES, AfrEA, CES, EES, EvalIndigenous, IDEAS, ReLAC, and UNEG, positioning theoretical literacy as essential for navigating complexity and ensuring rigour, relevance, and ethical responsiveness (Chouinard, 2016; Dighe, 2023; Jordan and Hall, 2023; Journey, 2023; Sibanda et al., 2023).

Why evaluation approaches matter

As Mark (2025) reminds us, the central question for evaluators is not merely how to design an evaluation, but why and how to do it in a particular way. While some argue that discussing the full range of approaches is unnecessary because of their limited practical application (Chen, 2005), this view is not widely shared.

Authoritative resources such as the UNEG Compendium of Evaluation Methods (UNEG Working Group on Evaluation Methods, 2020) and the Better Evaluation (2025) platform underscore that selecting an appropriate approach enhances credibility, independence, and utility. Far from being a constraint, the flexibility within evaluation theory is an asset, enabling practitioners to align approaches with evaluation questions, constraints, and audience needs, thereby strengthening the potential for meaningful results.

Practitioners versed in multiple approaches are better positioned to address pressing policy and programmatic issues. At the policy level, evaluations inform equity and effectiveness of public initiatives (Weiss, 1999). Programmatically, they help tailor interventions to organisational or community contexts (Patton, 2012). No single approach suffices for all socially or organisationally relevant issues. Thus, familiarity with diverse approaches should be viewed as an ongoing professional journey. While mastery of every approach is unrealistic, expanding one’s repertoire enhances the ability to engage diverse audiences, navigate complexity, and foster sustainable, just solutions.

Funders also define evaluation preferences, requiring practitioners to adapt to their evolving priorities (House, 2014; Shadish et al., 1991). This commissioner–practitioner dynamic introduces power asymmetries that may constrain creativity yet simultaneously drive adaptability across projects and contexts (Leeuw and Donaldson, 2015).

Finally, awareness of evaluation approaches benefits commissioners, funders, and policymakers by enabling more precise articulation of evaluation needs and supporting alignment with the goals and values of interested parties.

The theory–practice connection

Since the 1980s, evaluation scholars have examined what guides evaluators’ practice (Shadish and Epstein, 1987). Two streams of inquiry emerged. The first explores how practice aligns with evaluation theories, models, and approaches (Barela, 2005; Becho, 2019; Bledsoe and Graham, 2005; Boyce et al., 2024; Christie, 2003a; Coryn et al., 2011; Deane et al., 2020). The second investigates the interplay among practice, professional wisdom, experience, assumptions, and values (Hurteau et al., 2009; Linnell and Montrosse-Moorhead, 2024; Schwandt, 2003, 2015). The Garden framework draws on both streams and on Kundin’s (2010) conceptual model of evaluator decision-making.

Kundin (2010) synthesises multiple bodies of scholarship to explain everyday evaluation decisions through three elements:

1. Situation awareness and context: the setting and its layered influences on practice;

2. Practical reasoning: balancing what should be done with what realistically can be achieved, weighing theory against constraints;

3. Reflection in action: connecting prior knowledge and adapting in real time.

Element 2 is most directly tied to evaluation approaches, requiring evaluators to reconcile theoretical commitments with practical realities. When evaluators lack familiarity with diverse approaches, this reasoning is constrained, limiting their ability to integrate theory into practice.

Empirical studies confirm a persistent weak link between theory and practice across sectors and communities (Barela, 2005; Christie, 2003b; Contandriopoulos and Brousselle, 2012; Deane et al., 2020; Shadish and Epstein, 1987). Kundin concludes that if approaches are intended to guide or inspire practice, more work is needed to clarify what they look like and how they can be applied across varied contexts.

Bridging the theory–practice gap

Despite decades of advancement in evaluation theory, a persistent gap remains between theoretical guidance and practical application. Practitioners, particularly those without formal training, often struggle to apply abstract distinctions within real‑world contexts marked by political, organisational, and temporal constraints (Vo et al., 2016). One contributor is the scarcity of practitioner‑oriented tools that translate theoretical differences into actionable guidance. Existing resources frequently fall short in supporting decisions about selecting, adapting, or combining approaches and in navigating trade‑offs (Mark, 2025).

One response to this challenge has been the development of systems that organise evaluation approaches. These systems aim to reduce conceptual ambiguity, support pedagogy, facilitate communication, and orient newcomers by grouping approaches according to shared assumptions, purposes, or methodological emphases (Bailey, 1994; Bundi and Pattyn, 2023; Marradi, 1990). While the terms classification, typology, and taxonomy are often used interchangeably, they carry distinct logics: taxonomies suggest hierarchical ordering (Durkheim, 1912; Quine, 1969); typologies emphasise ideal types (Ryle, 1949); and classifications may be hierarchical or flat, conceptual or functional, a versatility well‑suited to Evaluation’s pluralism (Bailey, 1994; Marradi, 1990; Sokal, 1974; Vedung, 2004). In this article, we intentionally use classification to reflect overlapping, context‑dependent logics rather than to impose rigid taxonomic boundaries, while also recognising that, collectively, these organising systems function as meta-models for evaluation approaches.

Although we refer to the Garden as a ‘classification’, its multidimensional structure more closely aligns with the logic of a typology and, more broadly, with a meta-model. Following Marradi (1990), a classification typically organises items according to a single fundamentum division (basis of division), whereas a typology combines multiple criteria to define ideal types. The Garden intentionally blends these logics: it applies a consistent rubric to compare evaluation approaches across various dimensions (e.g. values, valuing, context, use, engagement, power, timing, and what is evaluated), supporting practitioner decision‑making while embracing the pluralism and overlap characteristic of typologies. To avoid conflating distinct conceptual traditions, we refer to prior systems in Figure 1 and Supplementary Table S1 as frameworks for organising evaluation approaches, encompassing typologies, taxonomies, and classifications. This framing reflects the diversity of organising principles and reinforces our commitment to conceptual clarity and inclusivity.

Figure 1.

Timeline of 19 frameworks for organising evaluation approaches from 1987 to 2025.

Figure 1 presents a publishing timeline of 19 frameworks for organising evaluation approaches. Supplementary Table S1 provides a comparative overview of these systems, including traditional, paradigmatic, and metaphorical meta-models, each of which names and groups evaluation approaches. We analyse their motivating questions, categories, focal points, and the aspects they render invisible.

Three insights emerge from this review:

1. The meta-model landscape is conceptually rich and pluralistic. Frameworks reflect divergent assumptions about what matters in evaluation, variously emphasising elements of ‘good theory’ (Shadish et al., 1991), decision factors (Fitzpatrick et al., 2023; Owen, 2006), judgement criteria (Stufflebeam and Coryn, 2014), value stance (Beywl, 2006), policy uses (Vedung, 1997, 2004; Widmer and De Rocchi, 2012), focal concerns (Alkin and Christie, 2012, 2023; Carden and Alkin, 2012; Chilisa, 2019; Chilisa et al., 2016; Christie, 2024; Mertens and Wilson, 2019), design orientations (Vaca, 2024), and mappings of purposes, options, and use (Azzam and Donaldson, 2024; Delahais et al., 2024; Lemire, 2024).

2. No framework is without limitations. Several conflate evaluation approaches with research designs or treat methods as the primary axis of differentiation. Contemporary, inclusive, and non‑Western approaches are underrepresented, and contributions from African American, Indigenous, Global South, and women scholars are frequently excluded (Bremner and Bowman, 2020; Chilisa and Mertens, 2021; Shanker, 2020). Boundaries around what counts as an evaluation approach are not always clear.

3. Few systems offer the flexibility required for hybrid or adaptive use in complex contexts; many are built around a single dimension or guiding idea and are rarely multidimensional.

Importantly, most were not designed with a practitioner audience in mind. Although effective for teaching and theory‑building, these frameworks lack the clarity and responsiveness needed for real‑time evaluation design, particularly when tensions among values, interest holder needs, feasibility, and evidence must be negotiated. This critique echoes Nagel’s (1990) argument that evaluation frameworks must integrate conceptual, epistemological, causal, and normative dimensions to support practical reasoning without sacrificing rigour. In today’s landscape, where demands for equity, participation, and pluralism are increasingly salient, Nagel’s call remains timely.

Arbour (2020) further argues that evaluation theories, models, and approaches are not neutral tools but socially situated constructs shaped by disciplinary, institutional, and ideological contexts. Far from merely organising knowledge, approaches, and their meta models performatively, they structure what becomes visible and actionable. Applying them uncritically risks reinforcing dominant paradigms and marginalising alternative ways of knowing and doing evaluation.

Against this backdrop, a more inclusive and practitioner‑oriented meta-model is needed to (a) democratise access to theory, (b) recognise situated knowledge production, and (c) empower evaluators to design evaluations reflexively and fit‑for‑purpose. In line with these aims, the Garden seeks both to classify and to provoke reflexivity about classification itself. It places dimensions such as power, values, use, timing, and the evaluand alongside research methods and paradigms, advancing a conceptual shift from passive taxonomy to active, situated reasoning. In this sense, it supports evaluators in navigating tensions among paradigms, values, and practical constraints.

Recent scholarship further suggests that bridging the gap requires not only better maps but a relational stance towards evaluative judgement. Tovey et al. (2025) introduce Reflective Dialogue (RD) as a living, connective practice that redistributes epistemic power, reframes neutrality as reflexivity, and positions evaluation as phronesis (i.e. practical wisdom oriented towards flourishing rather than procedural compliance). RD articulates enabling conditions (spaciousness, safety, and shared risk; diffusion of expertise; attunement; accountability to relationship; permission to break the frame) that operationalise the very dimensions the Garden makes visible (values/valuing, engagement, power, context, ethics, and use). Put differently, the Garden provides the visual map, while RD supplies the soil in which approaches take root, enabling dual rigour (methodological and relational/contextual) and supporting hybridisation in contested settings (Mertens and Wilson, 2019; Tovey et al., 2025).

Integrating Kundin’s (2010) model of evaluator reasoning with Arbour’s (2020) critique of approach selection as an ideological act and Tovey et al.’s (2025) RD’s enabling conditions, frames classification as a reflective, social practice that makes power, values, and use visible and actionable. This perspective contributes to the evolving theorisation of evaluative judgement in diverse, contested, and politically charged contexts. It positions the Garden as a practitioner‑centred meta-model that not only compares approaches but also cultivates the reasoning and relationships necessary to apply them with rigour, relevance, and care.

In line with these ideas, the Garden seeks both to classify and to provoke reflexivity about classification itself. It places dimensions such as power, values, use, and timing alongside research methods and paradigms, advancing a conceptual shift from passive taxonomy to active, situated reasoning. In this sense, it supports evaluators in navigating tensions among paradigms, values, and practical constraints. This perspective contributes to the evolving theorisation of evaluative judgement in diverse, contested, and politically charged contexts.

The garden of evaluation approaches framework

The Garden framework was first published in 2024, following earlier development. Our initial paper outlined its structure and demonstrated its utility for comparing seven evaluation approaches (Montrosse-Moorhead et al., 2024a). A subsequent article expanded on the rationale, the mixed-methods development process, the intended users, and the framework’s strengths and limitations (Montrosse-Moorhead et al., 2024b). Both introduced resource guides documenting the evidence base for each ‘flower’. These expansive guides address three core dimensions – philosophical, methodological, and practice – alongside supplementary elements (see Figure 2). All materials are freely accessible via our Open Science Framework page (Montrosse-Moorhead et al., 2024c).

Figure 2.

Elements covered in the resource guides.

The Garden visualises evaluation approaches through a multidimensional lens, helping practitioners navigate complexity. Each flower encodes meaning:

• Colour represents philosophical orientation (postpositivist, pragmatist, constructivist, transformative, or Indigenous), chosen for visual clarity in professional development settings rather than symbolic alignment.

• Central disc patterns indicate methodological preferences (quantitative, qualitative, or mixed), embedding research designs and methods within approaches.

• Petals represent eight practice dimensions elaborated in the next section.

Approaches were grouped into nominal, non-hierarchical categories using a rubric developed for this purpose (Montrosse-Moorhead et al., 2025d; https://osf.io/24we3). Categories indicate whether and how an approach engages with each dimension. To convey emphasis, we used a three-point scale visualised by petal length: 0 denotes no explicit engagement in the literature, while 3 reflects explicit guidance.

In short, the Garden is grounded in an empirical, mixed-methods analysis of the approach literature, guided by two questions: What dimensions are essential for conceptualising and planning an evaluation? How does the pertinent approach literature compare across these dimensions? To our knowledge, this is the first attempt to visualise evaluation approaches multidimensionally, enabling users to quickly identify overlaps and distinctions. The framework continues to evolve, and the remainder of this article outlines recent updates to its structure and elements.

Updates to the garden approach resource guides

The development of each resource guide is iterative and collaborative. The lead author drafts the initial version, followed by individual co-authors’ reviews that include tracked changes, references, and insights from diverse academic and international perspectives. Consensus-based discussions resolve terminology and rubric challenges, ensuring clarity, consistency, and fidelity to the literature. While some dimensions require interpretive judgement, all decisions are anchored in primary sources that describe how each approach is intended to be practised and documented through a transparent protocol.

Each guide functions as both an introduction to an evaluation approach and an account of how the flower visual was created. Guides include an overview, the flower visual, a legend, an APA-style citation, and a comprehensive table outlining guiding questions, dimension definitions, ratings, and supporting evidence. Additional elements include application steps, critical reflection on philosophical orientation, references, and suggested readings.

Recent enhancements include specifying what has been evaluated using the approach (e.g. programmes, policies, systems), when in the evaluation lifecycle it is typically applied (Scheirer, 2012), and hyperlinked definitions to support cross-referencing across disciplinary backgrounds. We adopt the term ‘interest holders’ to acknowledge all affected by evaluation decisions, thereby avoiding the colonial connotations associated with ‘stakeholder’ (Akl et al., 2024; Petkovic et al., 2024; Rog and Bickman, 2025), and to reflect our commitment to equity and inclusivity. Since the inaugural papers, the Garden framework has been refined through feedback from major conferences (e.g. EES, 2024; AERA, 2024; AEA, 2025; AES, 2025), invited seminars (e.g. Sciences Po Paris), and webinars, alongside ongoing dialogue with evaluation colleagues.

13 approaches in bloom

The original Garden featured seven approaches selected for their historical significance, philosophical diversity, methodological breadth, and practical relevance. We intended to curate exemplars that illustrate major traditions shaping contemporary evaluation practice. Five criteria guided selection:

1. Representation of key evaluation traditions beyond older, dominant (post)positivist paradigms, which are already widely institutionalised and extensively documented elsewhere.

2. Coverage of foundational anchors (e.g. methods, values, valuing, engagement, use, power, and social justice), reflecting dimensions central to evaluation discourse.

3. Philosophical diversity, emphasising approaches that differ in how they conceptualise knowledge, values, and stakeholder engagement, while acknowledging overlaps (e.g. between constructivist and transformative orientations).

4. Practical relevance and uptake, informed by dissemination feedback and current debates, including Indigenous and culturally grounded paradigms (see Chilisa and Bowman, 2023).

5. Responsiveness to critiques of existing typologies, moving beyond rigid epistemological classifications towards a more nuanced and multidimensional understanding of how philosophical orientations guide evaluative reasoning and practice.

We curated approaches that collectively illustrate diversity in reasoning, values, and practice while remaining relevant for practitioners, many of whom are already familiar with these traditions. We emphasise philosophical orientation not as a rigid classification but as a lens for understanding how approaches guide evaluative reasoning and practice, supporting informed choices in context. We deliberately excluded approaches rooted in experimental or counterfactual designs (e.g. quasi-experimental) at this time because they remain predominant in many institutional contexts and are well-represented in existing taxonomies. Our focus was to complement – not replicate – those traditions by highlighting approaches that expand evaluators’ repertoire for diverse contexts and values.

The initial seven approaches were as follows:

1. Fourth Generation Evaluation (Becho et al., 2025a; Guba and Lincoln, 1989, 2001; https://osf.io/c5nfh)

2. Made in Africa Evaluation (Chilisa, 2015, 2019; Chilisa and Mertens, 2021; Chilisa et al., 2016; Omosa et al., 2021; Schröter et al., 2025b https://osf.io/38b74)

3. Nation-to-Nation Evaluation (Becho et al., 2025b; Bowman (Waapalaneexkweew), 2019; Waapalaneexkweew (Bowman N and Mohican/ Lunaape) and Dodge-Francis, 2018; https://osf.io/d35r2)

4. Practical Participatory Evaluation (Cousins and Chouinard, 2012; Cousins and Whitmore, 1998; Cousins et al., 2020; Montrosse-Moorhead et al., 2025b; Whitmore, 1998; https://osf.io/kfpuj)

5. Sistematización de Experiencias (Hargreaves and Morgan, 2010; Jara Holliday, 2012; Montrosse-Moorhead et al., 2025c; Selener et al., 1996; Streck and Holliday, 2015; Tapella, 2009; Tapella and Rodríguez-Bilella, 2014; https://osf.io/stkp8)

6. Theory-Driven Evaluation (Chen, 1990, 2013, 2015; Coryn et al., 2011; Donaldson, 2007; Rogers, 2008; Schröter et al., 2025c; https://osf.io/sdfcw)

7. Transformative Participatory Evaluation (Cousins and Chouinard, 2012; Cousins and Whitmore, 1998; Cousins et al., 2020; Montrosse-Moorhead et al., 2025e; Whitmore, 1998; https://osf.io/rta62)

Following rubric updates and dissemination feedback (Montrosse-Moorhead et al., 2025a; https://osf.io/24we3), we expanded the Garden to include six additional approaches, prioritising international and contextual representation, and outcome- and systems-oriented perspectives:

• 8. Adaptive Evaluation (Eoyang, 2001, 2007; Eoyang and Oakden, 2016; Montrosse-Moorhead et al., 2025a; https://osf.io/hmvtf)

• 9. ISE4GEMs – Inclusive Systemic Evaluation for Gender Equality, Environments, and Marginalised Voices (Stephens et al., 2018a, 2018b; Schröter et al., 2025a; https://osf.io/hsfua)

• 10. Most Significant Change (Dart and Davies, 2003; Davies and Dart, 2005; Schröter et al., 2025d https://osf.io/3vkn7)

• 11. Outcome Harvesting (Becho et al., 2025c; Wilson-Grau, 2019; https://osf.io/8bh67)

• 12. Realist Evaluation (Pawson and Tilley, 1997a, 1997b; Pawson, 2000, 2013, 2017, 2024; Pawson et al., 2004; Schröter et al., 2025d; https://osf.io/cmkrv)

• 13. Success Case Method (Brinkerhoff, 2003, 2005, 2006; Prieur et al., 2025; https://osf.io/zeu6w)

Rather than aiming for proportional representation of philosophical ‘colours’, our logic was pragmatic. Notably, practical participatory and transformative participatory evaluation are often treated as a single approach (participatory evaluation) but have emerged as distinct approaches within two worldviews presented in the Garden (see Montrosse-Moorhead et al., 2024a). In addition, the Success Case Method, typically classified as a postpositivist approach, emerged as pragmatist within the Garden.

All 13 approaches are illustrated in Figure 3, followed by a discussion of key dimensions and observations.

Figure 3.

The expanded garden of evaluation approaches.

Paradigmatic orientations

Together, the 13 evaluation approaches reflect a spectrum of paradigms: postpositivist, pragmatist, constructivist, transformative (Mertens and Wilson, 2019), and Indigenous (Chilisa, 2019, 2024). While these paradigms offer valuable lenses for evaluation, they differ in their epistemological foundations, methodological preferences, and value orientations: Postpositivist approaches emphasise causal inference and structured data. Pragmatist approaches prioritise utility and adaptability. Constructivist approaches centre interest holder meaning-making. Transformative approaches foreground equity and systemic change. Indigenous approaches uphold cultural sovereignty and relational accountability.

While these distinctions are helpful, they are not absolute. Approaches often draw on multiple orientations. For example, transformative and constructivist traditions share commitments to stakeholder engagement and negotiated meaning-making, even as transformative approaches emphasise equity and systemic change. Similarly, pragmatist approaches may incorporate postpositivist rigour while emphasising practical utility. Moreover, recent scholarship highlights the complexity of Indigenous paradigms and their relationship to dominant frameworks (see Chilisa and Bowman, 2023), underscoring the need for ongoing dialogue about cultural sovereignty, relational accountability, and paradigm pluralism in evaluation. The justification for the colours assigned to each approach flower in the Garden is delineated through literature-based evidence in the resource guides.

Practice dimensions and visualising fit

The Garden organises differences in approach across eight practice dimensions. These dimensions are not mutually exclusive and may influence one another in practice, reflecting the interconnected nature of evaluation design decisions.

Values

Values are central to Evaluation, shaping the criteria, standards, and methods used to assess merit and worth. Values concern whose and what perspectives matter. Rosenberg and Kotschy (2020) argue that evaluators must develop not only technical skills but also relational and transformational competencies to engage with diverse values in ethically complex contexts. However, evaluation approaches vary in their engagement with values. Beywl (2006) notes that not all approaches take an explicit stance, while Schwandt (2024) highlights the ethical and contextual complexity of value systems in Evaluation. Hall et al. (2012) distinguish between descriptive values, which reflect the beliefs of interest holders, and prescriptive values, which guide normative judgements. These engagements ensure that Evaluation is not merely technical but reflective and responsive to community needs.

Using our rubric, we assess how each approach guides the surfacing and use of values. A rating of:

1. indicates minimal engagement or an emphasis on value-neutrality;

2. suggests values are acknowledged but without clear guidance;

3. reflects explicit guidance for identifying and using values.

Constructivist, transformative, and Indigenous approaches (e.g. Made in Africa, ISE4GEMs, Transformative Participatory Evaluation) place values at the centre. Most Significant Change and Success Case Method explicitly integrate interest holder values, while Outcome Harvesting and Adaptive Evaluation engage with them more indirectly. Theory-Driven and Realist Evaluation show limited value engagement. Notably, Made in Africa and Nation-to-Nation Evaluation emphasise spiritual and cultural values as core.

Valuing

Valuing refers to how judgements of merit and worth are formed. It is the process of translating factual information into evaluative conclusions. Scholars have described valuing as logical reasoning (Scriven, 2011), methodological action (Chelimsky, 2012), and adaptive sensemaking (Julnes, 2012). Schwandt (2024) and Gates and Schwandt (2025) emphasise that valuing involves ethical reasoning, contextual relevance, and methodological rigour.

Approaches differ in how they support valuing. Some provide explicit guidance; others leave it implicit (Ozeki et al., 2019; Schwandt, 2015). Our rubric rates valuing as follows:

1. valuing is excluded or absent;

2. valuing is acknowledged but lacks guidance;

3. valuing is central, and explicit guidance is offered.

Only the constructivist approaches and ISE4GEMs provide clear guidance for valuing. Success Case Method, Most Significant Change, and Fourth Generation Evaluation offer more formal structures. In contrast, Theory-Driven, Realist, Adaptive, and Nation-to-Nation Evaluation provide limited support. Transformative Participatory Evaluation, Sistematización de Experiencias, and Made in Africa emphasise collective meaning-making over rigid merit judgements.

Activism for social justice

The role of social justice in Evaluation is contested, with stances ranging from neutral inquiry to explicit activism (Greene, 1997, 2005). Advocacy-based approaches aim to influence decision-making through dialogue, while activist approaches prioritise direct engagement and systemic change (Mertens, 2023). Advocacy involves amplifying issues to gain access to decision-making spaces, persuade others, or shape civic agendas (Glass, 2017). Activism, by contrast, entails active participation and pressure to drive social or civic change. Increasingly, evaluators are exploring their responsibilities in advancing equity through action-oriented methodologies (Thomas and Madison, 2010).

In our review, we assess the extent to which each approach guides explicit action in support of a cause and positions advocacy or activism as a core purpose. Our rubric distinguishes:

1. not prioritised;

2. advocacy is central (dialogue-based influence);

3. activism is central (direct engagement for change).

Most approaches do not prioritise advocacy or activism. However, these elements are prominent in transformative and Indigenous paradigms. Activism is central to Made in Africa, ISE4GEMs, Transformative Participatory Evaluation, Sistematización de Experiencias, and Nation-to-Nation Evaluation, which frame evaluation as a tool for justice. Fourth Generation Evaluation leans towards epistemic justice, while Realist and Theory-Driven Evaluation remain largely apolitical unless adapted within specific contexts.

Context

Evaluation does not occur in a vacuum. Cultural, political, and historical contexts shape how evaluations are planned, conducted, and utilised (Kirkhart, 2000). While some approaches remain decontextualised, others emphasise the integration of context throughout the evaluation process (Boyce and Chouinard, 2017; Boyce et al., 2024; Hood et al., 2015).

We assess how each approach addresses context by distinguishing if:

1. context is largely absent;

2. context is acknowledged but not central;

3. context is fully integrated into evaluation design and implementation.

All 13 approaches acknowledge context to some degree. Full integration is most evident in ISE4GEMs, Made in Africa, Sistematización de Experiencias, and Nation-to-Nation Evaluation, where context is embedded both philosophically and methodologically. Adaptive and Realist Evaluation focus on complexity and systems, while Theory-Driven Evaluation and Success Case Method incorporate context functionally. Transformative Participatory Evaluation and Most Significant Change contextualise through participatory processes and storytelling.

Promoting use

Use has long been a central concern in Evaluation. Patton’s (1978, 2008, 2012) utilisation-focused evaluation approach emphasises the importance of intended uses for intended users, ensuring that findings inform decision-making. Scholars distinguish between instrumental use (direct application of findings) and conceptual use (shaping understanding) (Weiss, 1998). Approaches that actively facilitate use have been shown to enhance evaluation impact (Johnson, 2015).

This practice dimension focuses on how an evaluation approach guides evaluators to actively promote use, whether through findings or knowledge gained during the process. Use may be immediate and large-scale or gradual and cumulative over time.

We assess the extent to which each approach promotes use by examining if:

1. use is not considered; the focus is solely on producing findings;

2. use is acknowledged as important, but no strategies are provided;

3. use is actively promoted, with explicit strategies for enhancing utilisation.

All 13 approaches acknowledge the importance of use. Practical Participatory Evaluation, Success Case Method, and Outcome Harvesting foster instrumental use. ISE4GEMs and Most Significant Change encourage adaptive and reflective use. Made in Africa and Nation-to-Nation Evaluation promote learning for sovereignty and self-determination. Realist Evaluation and Fourth Generation Evaluation rely on interest holder engagement to develop use organically.

Breadth and depth of engagement

Engagement in Evaluation varies from minimal involvement to deep participation (Cousins and Whitmore, 1998). It encompasses both who is involved in the evaluation process and how they are involved. Participatory and collaborative approaches argue that involving those affected by programmes is not only a strategy for enhancing use but also an ethical imperative (Fetterman et al., 2017; O’Sullivan, 2012). These approaches advocate for the inclusion of funders, implementers, and communities, recognising engagement as essential for relevance and ethical practice (Brisolara et al., 2014). The depth of engagement further distinguishes between passive informants and active co-creators (Tarsilla, 2014). Collaborative and empowerment models (Fetterman, 1994[2001]; Rodríguez-Campos, 2012) position participants as partners, whereas traditional models often limit engagement to consultation (Chouinard and Milley, 2018). Matlala (2024) also highlights the need to involve emerging evaluators more meaningfully, beyond data collection roles.

The Garden framework visualises engagement as a core dimension. Breadth of engagement refers to who is involved in the design and implementation of the Evaluation (e.g. planning, interpretation, reporting). The rubric differentiates if:

1. only those with formal power (e.g. funders, sponsors, evaluators) are involved;

2. those with formal power and implementers are included (e.g. programme staff);

3. a wide range of interest holders, such as community members, recipients, and partner organisations, are included in addition to those with formal power and implementers.

In our sample, pragmatist approaches generally engage only those in power (except for Outcome Harvesting). Transformative and Indigenous approaches describe broader engagement. Most Significant Change, Transformative Participatory Evaluation, and Fourth Generation Evaluation actively involve communities. In contrast, the Success Case Method, Outcome Harvesting, and Theory-Driven Evaluation primarily engage decision-makers, limiting broader community voice.

Depth of engagement assesses the extent to which interest holders are involved in decision-making. Ratings are:

1. limited or no involvement;

2. consultative involvement;

3. co-creation, where participants are partners or co-directors.

Transformative and Indigenous approaches, such as Made in Africa, Transformative Participatory Evaluation, Fourth Generation Evaluation, ISE4GEMs, and Nation-to-Nation Evaluation, emphasise deep co-construction. Practical Participatory Evaluation and Sistematización de Experiencias support high technical engagement. Most Significant Change, Outcome Harvesting, and Realist Evaluation allow moderate involvement. Theory-Driven Evaluation and Success Case Method treat interest holders more as informants or reviewers than as co-evaluators.

Power dynamics in making evaluation decisions

Evaluation decision-making structures range from top-down models, where funders or commissioners control the process, to collaborative approaches that involve a broader range of participants (Hanberger, 2022; King, 2007). Power-sensitive approaches advocate for inclusive decision-making to enhance credibility, relevance, and ownership among interest holders (Mertens, 2009). Emerson’s (2020) case study of the Girls’ Education Challenge programme illustrates how power asymmetries in international development evaluations can marginalise local voices and constrain culturally responsive practices.

The Garden framework addresses this by explicitly visualising power as a core dimension of evaluation design. This dimension assesses how decisions are made and the extent to which an approach guides who is involved and how they participate in decision-making.

Our rubric rates power dynamics as follows:

1. top-down decision-making, typically led by funders or evaluators;

2. cooperative decision-making between those in formal power and implementers;

3. collaborative, inclusive decision-making involving a broad range of participants, including programme beneficiaries and community members.

Transformative and Indigenous approaches prioritise shared or community-led decision-making. ISE4GEMs, Made in Africa, Sistematización de Experiencias, Nation-to-Nation Evaluation, and Transformative Participatory Evaluation exemplify this inclusive model. Approaches such as Most Significant Change, Outcome Harvesting, Practical Participatory Evaluation, and Fourth Generation Evaluation represent a middle ground, promoting cooperation among key actors. In contrast, Theory-Driven Evaluation, Realist Evaluation, Success Case Method, and Adaptive Evaluation tend to adopt more hierarchical structures, in which decision-making authority often resides with funders, leaders, or evaluators.

Emerging garden areas: Evaluation timing and focus

A new feature of the expanded Garden framework is its explicit attention to what is being evaluated and when an evaluation approach is typically applied. Table 1 summarises the 13 approaches by timing across the evaluation lifecycle and their common areas of application. These additions offer practical and conceptual insights into the diversity of evaluation practice.

Table 1.

Evaluation approaches, timing, and focus areas.

Evaluation Approach	Timing	Evaluation Focus
Adaptive Evaluation	All stages	Organisational systems
Fourth Generation Evaluation	All stages	Social programmes, public policies
ISE4GEMs	All stages	Transformational development
Made in Africa Evaluation	All stages	Education, health, community
Most Significant Change	Implementation	Social change, empowerment
Nation-to-Nation Evaluation	All stages	Social programmes
Outcome Harvesting	Mid/end	Social interventions
Practical Participatory Evaluation	Decision points	Programmes, policies, organisations
Realist Evaluation	Implementation/testing	Mechanisms in context, policy
Success Case Method	Post-implementation	Learning, change adoption
Sistematización de Experiencias	Any point	Projects, programmes, advocacy
Transformative Participatory Evaluation	Design phase	Development projects
Theory-Driven Evaluation	All stages	Programme logic, causal assumptions

Notably, over half of the approaches are designed for use across all stages of the evaluation lifecycle. This makes them particularly well-suited for long-term interventions. Other approaches are more targeted in scope. For example, Transformative Participatory Evaluation focuses on the design phase, embedding equity and inclusion from the outset. Most Significant Change and Realist Evaluation emphasise implementation, uncovering narratives and causal mechanisms. Success Case Method is applied post-implementation, identifying and learning from high-performing cases.

The table also highlights the breadth of evaluation foci, ranging from organisational systems and programme logic to social empowerment, community development, and transformational change. This diversity reflects a broader shift in the field, from traditional impact measurement towards more participatory, contextual, and justice-oriented approaches. It also likely reflects the varied evaluation contexts in which the authors of each approach often practice.

Collectively, the revised Garden and associated resource guides reinforce the idea that there is no universally ‘strongest’ evaluation approach, only approaches that offer a better or worse fit depending on purpose, context, and the priorities of the interested parties. We are often asked whether some approaches might be considered ‘weeds’ in contrast to others seen as ‘flowers’. However, as the dandelion reminds us, what is regarded as a weed in one context may be a prized bloom in another. The same holds for Evaluation. As evaluation practice becomes increasingly global, diverse, and politically attuned, the Garden supports practitioners in navigating varied contexts, aligning their practice with purpose, and applying evaluation theory with reflexivity and care.

Discussion: What the garden makes visible

The Garden of Evaluation Approaches invites a rethinking of how evaluation approaches are classified and applied. It illuminates conceptual, practical, and metaphorical dimensions of the field, offering insights into its current state and future trajectory.

The garden as ecosystem

The Garden metaphor positions evaluation theory as an evolving ecosystem sustained by diversity. Each approach is visualised as a flower, rooted in distinct worldviews, values, and purposes. This biodiversity reflects the pluralism and dynamism of evaluation practice. Barriers such as paradigm misalignment, institutional norms, and limited practitioner knowledge resemble pests in this ecosystem, challenges to anticipate and manage rather than ignore. Mechanisms that enable ideas to flourish (e.g. conferences, scholarly exchanges, and communities of practice) function as pollinators, fostering dissemination and adaptation. The Garden’s visual design stimulates reflective comparison, encouraging evaluators to explore relationships among approaches and to engage critically with their assumptions.

The Garden is also a habitat, a space for intellectual nourishment and co-creation. As contexts shift, approaches evolve, recombine, or recede, underscoring that relevance is inseparable from context. Rather than prescribing universal applicability, the Garden invites evaluators to consider how governance structures, cultural values, and resource constraints shape appropriateness and effectiveness. In this way, it serves as a flexible, reflective tool rather than a fixed typology.

Sustainable practice and reflexivity

Like sustainable gardens that avoid synthetic inputs, sustainable evaluation resists rigid standardisation. It embraces contextual responsiveness and theoretical pluralism. The Garden advances this by making practice dimensions visible, enabling informed, theory-grounded decisions. As Arbour (2020) argues, evaluation approaches are not neutral; they reflect disciplinary and ideological contexts. The Garden responds by exposing these assumptions and encouraging evaluators to interrogate their own positioning. Templates for creating personalised or even organisational ‘flowers’ further support reflexivity and adaptation.

Aligned with these aims, scholar-practitioners are already extending the Garden. For example, King (2024) proposed incorporating Cost–Benefit Analysis and Social Return on Investment, broadening the ecosystem to include approaches centred on economic value. Similarly, Tovey et al. (2025) emphasise relational reflexivity through Reflective Dialogue, reinforcing the Garden’s role as a catalyst for critical engagement and inclusive practice. These developments illustrate its capacity to accommodate evolving priorities and woven models, transforming classification from a static exercise into a dynamic, participatory practice, one that cultivates diversity, reflexivity, and responsiveness in evaluation.

What the garden contributes to theory and praxis

The Garden was designed with a dual aim: bridging conceptual clarity and practical utility. By combining visual accessibility, dimensional comparison, and theoretical grounding, it transforms abstract distinctions into actionable guidance for commissioners, interest holders, and evaluators. Visual profiles and evidence-based resource guides operationalise key practice dimensions, making theoretical principles explicit and comparable. In doing so, the Garden shifts theory from a background reference to a practical decision-making tool and offers a practitioner-centred classification system.

Five contributions underscore its significance. Specifically, the Garden:

1. Foregrounds practice dimensions – values, valuing, activism, use, context, engagement, power, timing, and evaluand – highlighting their influence on evaluative reasoning (Archibald et al., 2025).

2. Validates multiple ways of knowing and doing evaluation, embracing pluralism by elevating approaches such as Sistematización de Experiencias and Made in Africa alongside mainstream models like Theory-Driven and Realist Evaluation.

3. Supports purposeful selection, enabling evaluators to assess alignment with context, goals, and intended use.

4. Facilitates hybridisation by making dimensions visible, allowing evaluators to weave approaches for fit-for-purpose designs.

5. Challenges inherited classifications, inviting critical reflection and co-creation.

Like a living garden, it evolves through feedback and adaptation. This synthesis reflects a mature, diversified evaluation landscape spanning structured, theory-testing models to participatory, justice-oriented paradigms. Moving beyond dichotomies such as ‘rigorous vs soft’ or ‘scientific vs narrative’, evaluators are encouraged to recognise each approach as a worldview with distinct commitments. Choosing an approach requires alignment with programme goals, ethical obligations, and contextual realities. For instance, accountability-focused initiatives may favour Theory-Driven Evaluation or Success Case Method, while sovereignty and transformation call for Made in Africa, ISE4GEMs, Transformative Participatory Evaluation, or Nation-to-Nation Evaluation. Adaptive programmes may employ Adaptive Evaluation or Outcome Harvesting, whereas empowerment and learning can be advanced through Most Significant Change or Sistematización de Experiencias. In moving towards evaluation ecologies, the Garden invites blending approaches, honouring diverse knowledge systems, and upholding both technical rigour and ethical relevance.

Advantages and opportunities

The expanded Garden offers benefits for both novice and experienced evaluators. As a metaphorical classification framework, it provides a flexible, inclusive structure for engaging with evaluation’s complexity across diverse contexts.

A key strength lies in its capacity for comparative learning. By visually presenting approaches side by side along shared practice dimensions, the Garden enables evaluators to examine assumptions, trade-offs, and strengths across epistemological and methodological traditions. This supports reflective alignment between approach and context, whether grounded in postpositivist, pragmatist, constructivist, transformative, or Indigenous paradigms.

The Garden also amplifies underrepresented voices, addressing critiques of Western dominance in evaluation theory. Approaches such as Sistematización de Experiencias, Made in Africa Evaluation, and Nation-to-Nation Evaluation gain visibility alongside mainstream models, highlighting alternative knowledge systems, decolonial commitments, and community-driven methodologies.

Beyond inclusivity, the Garden strengthens theory-informed, practice-relevant decision-making. Its visual profiles and shared dimensions help commissioners, practitioners, and educators identify approaches that align with the evaluand’s characteristics, the needs of interested parties, and intended purposes. In this way, the Garden bridges abstract theory and real-world application, supporting context-sensitive, ethically grounded practice.

Importantly, the Garden is designed for adaptation and user-driven growth. It is not a static typology but a living framework that evolves through feedback and co-creation. Practitioners are encouraged to create their own ‘flowers’ that reflect their priorities and working conditions. This dynamic structure fosters methodological creativity, enabling hybridisation and responsiveness to emerging issues. By making practice dimensions visible and comparable, the Garden facilitates weaving complementary features into context-responsive evaluations. Future work will provide templates and guidance for creating hybrid flowers as part of practitioner-led adaptation.

Together, these features position the Garden as both an educational resource and a practical guide. Rather than prescribing fixed categories, it invites interpretation, contextualisation, and recombination. It promotes critical reflection, methodological diversity, and purposeful design. More than a decision-support tool, the Garden constitutes a reflective framework for understanding how evaluators think, adapt, and act, encouraging users to theorise practice, navigate paradigm tensions, and engage with evaluation as a social and ethical endeavour. By linking philosophical orientation, methodological preferences, and practice dimensions into coherent profiles, the Garden moves beyond static classification towards an interactive tool for planning, teaching, and dialogue.

Challenges and limitations

While the expanded Garden offers a rich and flexible framework, it cannot fully capture the complexity and contextual nuance of real-world evaluation. Visual profiles and simplified dimensions support comparison and learning but inevitably risk oversimplifying aspects of emergent, hybrid, or fluid approaches in practice.

A practical constraint is scope: the Garden currently includes 13 approaches, drawn from dozens, if not hundreds, identified across existing frameworks. Developing resource guides required extensive review and coding, limiting the breadth of this iteration. Despite efforts towards diversity and global relevance, gaps remain particularly among underrepresented or less formally documented approaches from the Global South and Indigenous knowledge systems. Inclusion is shaped by the availability of published literature, reflecting broader patterns of privilege in knowledge production. Many widely used approaches are also absent by design; this version prioritises balancing well-known and underrepresented models. The Garden should therefore be viewed as iterative rather than definitive. It is a foundation for refinement rather than a fixed canon.

Importantly, the flower visualisation carries an important caveat: size and balance do not imply superiority. Bigger is not better, and balance is not the goal. Petal length reflects engagement with dimensions but functions as a nominal classification, not a ranking. A flower with large or evenly distributed petals is not inherently more effective. Just as beauty is in the eye of the beholder, the utility of an approach depends on its relevance to the situation at hand.

Next steps

The Garden is both a framework and a seedbed for future inquiry. As a living typology, it is designed to evolve through use, reflection, and co-creation. Our immediate priorities include testing and refining the Garden in pedagogical and professional contexts. Current pilots in undergraduate and postgraduate courses, as well as professional development programmes, provide fertile ground for examining how the framework supports learning, approach selection, and theory-informed design. Feedback from these settings will guide improvements in clarity, usability, and adaptability.

Beyond teaching, expansion is essential. While this iteration includes 13 approaches, many more warrant inclusion. We envision a collaborative platform, a global hub inviting scholars and practitioners to contribute additional ‘flowers’ representing diverse paradigms, sectors, languages, and regions. This collective stewardship will advance transparency, inclusivity, and shared ownership of evaluation knowledge.

Future work will also explore how evaluators and commissioners can design or adapt approaches using the Garden as a conceptual scaffold, encouraging theory weaving and methodological innovation. Templates and resources for creating hybrid flowers will support this evolution.

Ultimately, the Garden’s vitality depends not only on what we add but on how it is used, adapted, and reimagined. We invite the evaluation community to help shape what blooms next, advancing a framework that is not static but generative, responsive, and globally relevant. Resources for engagement are available here: https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/MKXGC.

Supplemental Material

sj-pdf-1-evi-10.1177_13563890261421931 – Supplemental material for The garden of evaluation approaches: Supporting explicit, theory-informed evaluation practice

Supplemental material, sj-pdf-1-evi-10.1177_13563890261421931 for The garden of evaluation approaches: Supporting explicit, theory-informed evaluation practice by Daniela Schröter, Lyssa Wilson Becho and Bianca Montrosse-Moorhead in Evaluation