Evaluability assessment.

I get my ideas to blog from a lot of places. One place I get ideas are from other blogs.

The content of this blog was Evaluability Assessment.

The blog author says that evaluability assessments tend to cover the following topics:

• Clarity of the intervention and its objectives: Is there a logical and clear theory of change that articulates how and under what conditions intervention activities influence particular processes of change?
• Availability of data: which data are available that can be used in assessing the merit and worth of the intervention (e.g. generated by the intervention, external data sets, policy and academic literature)
• Stakeholder interest and intended use: to what extent is there a clear interest (and capacity) among stakeholders to use the evaluation’s findings and recommendations in strategic decision-making, program improvement, learning about what works, etc.?

What, you ask, is evaluability assessment?

You certainly can go to the blog and read what it says there. OR…You can go to Scriven’s book and read the history on page 138 .

Suffice it to say that evaluability is the extent to which they (projects and programs) can be evaluated. Scriven goes on to say: “It should be thought of as the first commandment of accountability or as the last refinement of Popper’s (Sir Karl Raimond Popper) requirement of falsifiability.

Sources.

I learned about evaluability assessment (EA) from Midge Smith (shown here with her husband Carl Wisler) in her book by the same name (published by Springer, search for it by title).  She says that EA is “…a diagnostic and prescriptive tool for improving programs and making evaluations more useful.” Like all tools used in evaluation, it is systematic and describes the structure of a program.

There is a newer volume  of that name. It is by Michael S. Trevisan and Tamara M. Walser (they do an AEA365 blog on that topic). It is not, unfortunately, on my shelf.  The blurb that accompanies the book (by the publisher, Sage) says: “Evaluability assessment (EA) can lead to development of sound program theory, increased stakeholder involvement and empowerment, better understanding of program culture and context, enhanced collaboration and communication, process and findings use, and organizational learning and evaluation capacity building.”

More detail than Midge offers, then her book is copyrighted in 1989.

EA is getting a lot of press lately (you may need to search for evaluability assessment when you go to AEA365).

I find it amazing how previously important things (EA) are now once again in vogue.

my .

Having written about evaluation history previously, I identified  those who contributed, not those who could be called evaluation pioneers; rather those who had influenced my thinking.  I think it is noteworthy to mention those evaluation pioneers who set the field on the path we see today, those whom I didn’t mention and need to be. As a memorial (it is Memorial Day weekend , after all), Michael Patton (whom I’ve mentioned previously) is coordinating an AEA365 to identify and honor those evaluation pioneers who are no longer with us. (Thank you, Michael). The AEA365 link above will give you more details.  I’ve also linked the mentioned evaluation pioneers that have been remembered. Some of these pioneers I’ve mentioned before; all are giants in the field; some are dearly loved as well. All those listed below have died. Patton talks about the recent-dead, the sasha, and the long-dead, the zamani. He cites the Historian James W. Loewen when he makes this distinction. Some of the listed are definitely the sasha (for me); some are zamani (for me). Perhaps photos will help (for whom photos could be found) and dates. There are Continue reading →