The study reports effect-size computations for previous quantitative studies of the use of information on program evaluation, with a view toward identifying patterns in previous results and possible directions for further research. It is suggested that more non-simulation studies and more studies using non-university samples are needed. Studies investigating the possible influences of context on use of evaluation are also needed. Although this literature is still emerging, such research may eventually provide guidance for more effective evaluative practices.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AlkinM. C.KosecoffJ. B.Fitz-GibbonC.SeligmanR.Evaluation and decision-making: The Title VII experience. CSE monograph series in evaluation No. 4. Los Angeles: Center for the Study of Evaluation, 1974.
2.
2The citations followed by asterisks were the studies from which effect sizes were computed.
3.
BagbyJ. M.The relation between evaluator—decision maker interactions and the use of evaluation results in educational settings. (Doctoral dissertation, The Ohio State Univer., 1979) Dissertation Abstracts International, 1980, 40, 5653A. (University Microfilms No. 80-8, 761).
4.
BraskampL. A.BrownR. D. (Eds.) Utilization of evaluative information. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1980.
5.
BraskampL. A.BrownR. D.NewmanD. L.The credibility of a local evaluational program evaluation report: Author source and client audience characteristics. American Educational Research Journal, 1978, 15, 441–450.
6.
BrownR. D.BraskampL. A.NewmanD. L.Evaluator credibility as a function of report style: Do jargon and data make a difference?Evaluation Quarterly, 1978, 2, 331–341.
7.
BrownR. D.NewmanD. L.An investigation of the effect of different data presentation formats and order of arguments in a simulated adversary evaluation. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 1982, 4, 197–203.
8.
CarlsonP. G.The relationship of three organizational variables to the utilization of evaluation. (Doctoral dissertation, The Ohio State Univer., 1973) Dissertation Abstracts International, 1974, 34, 7097A. (University Microfilms No. 74-10,924).
9.
CarverR. P.The case against statistical significance testing. Harvard Educational Review, 1978, 48, 378–399.
10.
DickeyB.Utilization of evaluations of small scale innovative educational projects. (Doctoral dissertation, Univer. of Minnesota, 1979) Dissertation Abstracts International, 1979, 40, 3245A. (University Microfilms No. 79-26,115).
11.
FamigliettiJ. F.Family-strengthening programs, delinquency prevention, and program evaluation: An assessment of efficacy and utilization. (Doctoral dissertation, Univer. of Washington, 1981) Dissertation Abstracts International, 1981, 42, 1794A. (University Microfilms No. 81-21,195).
12.
GlassG. V.McGawB.SmithM. L.Meta-analysis in social research. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage, 1981.
13.
GranvilleA. C.An experimental study of factors that influence school decisions: Implications for evaluation. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New York, 1977. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 139 824).
14.
HaysW.Statistics. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1963.
15.
JacksonG. B.Methods for integrative reviews. Review of Educational Research, 1980, 50, 438–460.
16.
KilbourneR.DeGracieJ.The use of L.E.A. research at the local level: The picture of a dropout. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, 1979.
KingJ. A.ThompsonB.Research on school use of program evaluation: A literature review and research agenda. Studies in Educational Evaluation, in press.
19.
KingJ. A.ThompsonB.PechmanE. M.Improving evaluation use in local school settings. Final report of National Institute of Education Grant No. NIE-G-80-0082. New Orleans: Orleans Parish Public Schools, 1981. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 214 998).
20.
LevitonL. C.HughesE. F. X.Research on the utilization of evaluations. Evaluation Review, 1981, 5, 525–548.
21.
LorenzenG. L.BraskampL. A.Comparative influence of political, cost/benefit, and statistical information on administrative decision making. Evaluation and Program Planning, 1978, 1, 235–238.
22.
LuthansF.KoesterR.The impact of computer generated information on the choice activity of decision-makers. Academy of Management Journal, 1976, 19, 328–332.
23.
NewmanD. L.BrownR. D.An exploratory investigation of decision-making style and locus of control as factors related to choice of school evaluation strategies. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Boston, 1980.
24.
NewmanD. L.BrownR. D.LittmanM. I.Evaluator, report, and audience characteristics which influence the impact of evaluation reports: Does who says what to whom make a difference?CEDR Quarterly, 1979, 12, 14–18.
25.
PattonM. Q.Utilization-focused evaluation. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage, 1978.
26.
PelzD. C.Some expanded perspectives on use of social science in public policy. In YingerJ. M.CutlerS. J. (Eds.), Major social issues, a multidisciplinary view. New York: Free Press, 1978. Pp. 346–369.
27.
RichR. F.Uses of social science information by federal bureaucrats: Knowledge for action versus knowledge for understanding. In WeissC. H. (Ed.), Using social research in public policymaking. Lexington, MA: Heath, 1977. Pp. 199–211.
28.
SmithN. L.Evaluation utility and client involvement in accreditation studies. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 1980, 2, 57–65.
29.
SpeissM. F.The effect of four communication variables on the utilization of evaluation conclusions in decision-making. (Doctoral dissertation, The Ohio State Univer., 1973) Dissertation Abstracts International, 1974, 34, 7114A. (University Microfilms No. 11,053).
ThompsonB.Administrators' perceptions of various evaluation report styles. Texas Tech Journal of Education, 1982, 9, 17–21. (a).
32.
ThompsonB. (Ed.) Evaluation from an LEA perspective: Proceedings from an AERA symposium. Symposium presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New York, 1982. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 216 046) (b).
33.
ThompsonB.KingJ. A.A critique of evaluation-use research methods. CEDR Quarterly, 1981, 14, 19–21. (Reprinted in Louisiana Education Research Journal, 1982, 7, 1–6).
34.
ThompsonB.MillerL. A.Differences and similarities in administrators' and evaluators' perceptions of evaluation and the evaluator's role. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Montreal, 1983.
35.
ThompsonP. A.BrownR. D.FurgasonJ.The impact of report styles on lay and professional evaluation audiences: Jargon and data do make a difference. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, 1979.
36.
WeeksE. C.Factors affecting the utilization of evaluation findings in administrative decision making. (Doctoral dissertation, Univer. of California, Irvine, 1978) Dissertation Abstracts International, 1979, 40, 457A. (University Microfilms No. 79-15,920).
37.
WiseR. I.The evaluator as educator. In BraskampL. A.BrownR. D. (Ed.), Utilization of evaluative information. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1980. Pp. 11–18.
