Abstract
Metaevaluation is the process of delineating, obtaining, and applying descriptive information and judgmental information about the utility, feasibility, propriety, and accuracy of an evaluation in order to guide the evaluation and to publicly report its strengths and weaknesses. Formative metaevaluations are undertaken either in planning an evaluation or while it is in progress. They assist evaluators to plan, conduct, improve, interpret, and report their evaluation studies. Summative metaevaluations are conducted following the completion of an evaluation and help audiences to see an evaluation's strengths and weaknesses and to judge its merit and worth against the standards of good evaluation practice. Metaevaluations are in the public and professional interests to assure that evaluations provide sound conclusions and guidance.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, & National Council on Measurement in Education (1985). Standards for educational and psychological testing. Washington, DC: Author.
American Psychological Association (1973). Ethical principles in the conduct of research with human participants. Washington, DC: Author.
Bracht, G.H., & Glass, G.V. (1968). The external validity of experiments. American Educational Research Journal, 5, 437-474.
Campbell, D.T., & Stanley, J.C. (1963). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for research on teaching. In N. J. Gage (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (pp. 171-246). Chicago: Rand McNally.
Evaluation Center (1995). The USMC personnel evaluation standards. Kalamazoo, MI: Western Michigan University Evaluation Center.
Finn, C.E., Stevens, F.I., Stufflebeam, D.L., & Walberg, H.J. (1997). In H. Miller (Ed.), The New York City public schools integrated learning systems project: Evaluation and meta-evaluation. International Journal of Educational Research.
Glass, G.V. (1974). Excellence: A paradox. Speech presented at the second annual meeting of the Pacific Northwest Research and Evaluation Conference sponsored by the Washington Educational Research Association.
Guba, E.G. (1969). The failure of educational evaluation. Educational Technology, IX(5), 29-38.
House, E.R. (1977). Fair evaluation agreement. Urbana-Champaign, IL: University of Illinois Center for Instructional Research and Curriculum Evaluation.
House, E.R., Glass, G.V, McLean, L.D., & Walker, D.F. (1977). No simple answer: Critique of the “Follow Through Evaluation.” Urbana-Champaign, IL: Center for Instructional Research and Curriculum Evaluation.
Joint Committee on Standards for Educational Evaluation (1988). The personnel evaluation standards. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Joint Committee on Standards for Educational Evaluation. (1994). The program evaluation standards (2nd ed). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Krathwohl, D.R. (1972). Functions for experimental schools evaluation and their organization. In G. V Glass, M. L. Byers, & B. R. Worthen (Eds.), Recommendations for the evaluation of experimental schools projects of the U.S. Office of Education (pp. 174-194). Report of the Experimental Schools Evaluation Working Conference, Estes Park, CO, December 1971. Boulder, CO: University of Colorado Laboratory of Educational Research.
Lessinger, L. (1970). Every kid a winner: Accountability in education. Palo Alto, CA: SRA.
Millman, J. (Ed.). (1981). Handbook of teacher evaluation. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Millman, J., & Darling-Hammond, L. (Eds.). (1990). The new handbook of teacher evaluation: Assessing elementary and secondary school teachers. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
National Center for Education Statistics. (1991). SEDCAR (Standards for Education Data Collection and Reporting). Rockville, MD: Westat, Inc.
Orris, M.J. (1989). Industrial applicability of the Joint Committee's Personnel Evaluation Standards. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Western Michigan University, Kalamazoo.
Sanders, J.R., & Nafziger, D.H. (1977). A basis for determining the adequacy of evaluation designs. Occasional Paper Series, Paper No. 6. Kalamazoo, MI: Western Michigan University Evaluation Center.
Schnee, R. (1977). Ethical standards for evaluators: The problem. CEDR Quarterly, 10(1), 3.
Scriven, M.S. (1969). An introduction to meta-evaluation. Educational Products Report, 2(5), 36-38.
Scriven, M.S. (1973). Maximizing the power of causal investigations-The modus operandi method (Mimeo).
Scriven, M.S. (1975). Bias and bias control in evaluation. Kalamazoo, MI: Western Michigan University Evaluation Center.
Scriven, M. (1994). Product evaluation: The state of the art. Evaluation Practice, 15(1), 45-62.
Shadish, W.R., Newman, D.L., Scheirer, M.A., & Wye, C. (1995). Guiding principles for evaluators. New Directions for Program Evaluation, 66, 19-26.
Shepard, L.A. (1977). A checklist for evaluating large-scale assessment programs. Occasional Paper Series, Paper No. 9. Kalamazoo, MI: Western Michigan University Evaluation Center.
Shepard, L., Glaser, R., Linn, R., & Bohrnstedt, G. (1993). Setting performance standards for student achievement: A report of the National Academy of Education panel on the evaluation of the NAEP trial state assessment: An evaluation of the 1992 achievement levels. Stanford, CA: National Academy of Education.
Sroufe, G.E. (1977). Evaluation and politics. NSSE Yearbook, Part 2, 76, 287.
Stufflebeam, D.L. (1974). Meta-evaluation. Occasional Paper Series, Paper No. 3. Kalamazoo, MI: Western Michigan University Evaluation Center.
Stufflebeam, D.L., Foley, W.J., Gephart, W.J., Guba, E.G., Hammond, R.L., Merriman, H.O., & Provus, M. (1971a). Educational evaluation and decision making. Itasca, IL: F. E. Peacock.
Stufflebeam, D.L., Jaeger, R.M., & Scriven, M. (1992). A retrospective analysis of a summative evaluation of NAGB's pilot project to set achievement levels on the national assessment of educational progress. Annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco.
Vinovskis, M. (1999). Overseeing the nation's report card: The creation and evolution of the National Assessment Governing Board (NAGB). Washington, DC: National Assessment Governing Board.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Stufflebeam, D.L. The Methodology of Metaevaluation as Reflected in Metaevaluations by the Western Michigan University Evaluation Center. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education 14, 95–125 (2000). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008198315521
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008198315521