Upload
constance-nash
View
218
Download
3
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
S519: Evaluation of Information Systems
Analyzing data:
value and importance
Ch6+7
„Values“ in evaluation (DCh6)
Adding value to descriptive data to make our evaluation explicit
Our goal Using quantitative value to evaluate the quality or
value of the evaluand in a particular context. Build up our conclusions based on a level of
certainty What are values:
„good“, „valuable“, „worthwhile“
„Values“ in evaluation
Adding „values“ to descriptive data collected about Process, outcomes, costs, comparisons, exportabilities;
or Situated dimensions or components
Weighting all the strengthens or weaknesses of these values to draw overall conclusion about the evaluand. How Importance weighting Merit determination synthesis
methodology
Subjective
Before we go for methodology, we have to answer the question: Whether our data are subjective
Three types of subjectives (Scriven, 1991)
Subjective 1: Inappropriate application of personal or cultural preferences/biases: arbitrary, idiosyncratic, unreliable, highly personal (i.e., based
purely on personal preference, cultural biases, gender biases)
Subjective 2: assessment or interpretation by a person, rather than guidelines Using well-founded expert judgments Robust evidence
Subjective 3: about a person‘s inner life or experiences (e.g., headaches, fears, beliefs, emotions, stress) Usually not independently verifiable
Avoid Subjective
We provide our conclusion based on certainty in the relevant decision-making context
Keep the whole evaluation well documented and justified
All evaluations, especially high-stakes ones, should be meta-evaluated (i.e., evaluation itself should be evaluated)
Determining importance (D-ch7)
Importance determination is the process of assigning labels to dimensions or components to indicate their importance. Importance weighting
Prioritize improvements Identify whether identified strengths or weakness are serious
or minor Work out whether an evaluand with mixed results is doing
fairly well, quite poorly, or somewhere in between.
Determining importance (D-ch7)
Different evaluations Dimensional evaluation
Looking at multiple dimensions of merit that pertain to the evaluand as a whole rather than separately to its parts.
Component evaluation Looking at each of the evaluand‘s components (or parts) separately
and then synthesizing these findings to draw conclusion about the evaluand as a whole.
Each component can be evaluated on several dimensions that pertain to this component only rather than to the evaluand as a whole.
Holistic evaluation Looking evaluation as a whole without division into dimensions or
components
When to use what
Component analysis Evaluating policies, programs, or interventions
that have several quite distinct parts An international program consisting of projects
implemented in different locations (e.g. „WIC“ in IU) A government policy includes multiple policy
measurements (e.g. Juvenile delinquency) An organizational transformation includes several
distinct interventions (e.g. Career support)
When to use what
Dimensional evaluation Entities whose quality or value is experienced by
consumers on multiple dimensions that pertain to the evaluand as a whole Product evaluation (i.e. Car evaluation)
When to use what
Holistic evaluation Unusual in the evaluation of programs, policies
and other large complex evaluands. More common in personnel, product and service
evaluation (expertise-oriented evaluation) Judging the overall quality of a sample of writing Grading essays Classroom teaching Athletic performance cosmetics
Determining the importance of dimensions
Determining the importance of componentss
Determining importance
Weak performance on minor criteria (e.g. dimensions, components) may be no big deal,
But weak performance on important criteria can be very serious issues.
Determining importance: 6 strategies
1. having stakeholders or consumers „vote“ on importance Commonly used in both participatory and
nonparticipatory evaluations Collecting opinions from everybody Assumptions
Each person is well informed Stakeholder‘s belief what (s)he chooses is important Stakeholder‘s important should be treated equally
Pros and cons?
Determining importance: 6 strategies
2. Drawing on the knowledge of selected stakeholders Using selected stakeholder input to guide the
assignment of importance weightings Collecting opinions from selected experts Setting up the Bars
A bar is a defined minimum level of criterion performance below which the evaluand is considered completely unacceptable, regardless of performance on other criteria.
Determining importance: 6 strategies
2. Drawing on the knowledge of selected stakeholders Assumptions:
The stakeholders should be sufficiently well informed to provide valuable relevant information
The combination of stakeholder input will provide sufficient certainty about importance for the given decision-making context
Pros and cons?
Determining importance: 6 strategies
3. Using evidence from the literature Literature review Evaluations of similar evaluations in similar contexts Research documenting the key drivers (or strongest predicators)
of success or failure with this type of evaluand. Assumptions
The volume and quality of the available research is sufficient to judge the importance
The context of other research is sufficiently similar to yours and therefore that the findings can be reasonably applied to your setting
Pros and cons?
Determining importance: 6 strategies
4. Using specialist judgment When you have tight timeline, no time for
gathering stakeholders and looking for literature Identify one or two (or two or more) well-known
specialists in the domain Better be supplemented with other evidence
Pros and cons?
Determining importance: 6 strategies
5. Using evidence from the needs and values assessments Determining the importance of criteria
(dimensions) Any frequently mentioned characteristics? Looking for poor-performing evaluators that cause
serious problem Looking for top-notch evaluators that have dramatic
impacts on success
Determining importance: 6 strategies
5. Using evidence from the needs and values assessments Determining the importance of components
Severity of dysfunction addressed (primary consideration) Scarcity of alternatives: no other options for addressing the
need. Intent to use alternatives: if the evaluand component in question
did not exist. Rubrics to measure (Table7.4, 7.5 and 7.6, 7.7, 7.8 (combined))
Prons and cons?
Determining importance: 6 strategies
6. Using program theory and evidence of causal linkages When criteria or components are linked to needs through a
complex logic chain. Such as „soft“ skills or attributes (e.g., inspirational leadership, self-
esteem, stress management, a kind of instrumental needs) More upstream variables (see Exhibit 7.5)
How to estimate the strengths of the links Interview Analyze your previous data ...
Strengths and weaknesses of the six strategies
Always think whether they are applicable Choose mulitple of them
Exercise
Table 7.10 (class dissusion) Form a group
Discuss which strategies you will choose to determine the importance for the “student services in the school health program” (see Table 7.8)
Discuss which strategies you will choose to determine the importance for your group project