This article describes an example of metaevaluation in an educational setting. The metaevaluation examined an evaluation of a community-based, interdisciplinary curriculum. The Program Evaluation Standards (PES), divided into the categories of utility, feasibility, propriety, and accuracy, provided a frame work for the metaevaluation. Utility standards address the information needs of intended users. Feasibility refers to the extent to which an evaluation is realistic, prudent, diplomatic, and frugal. Propriety refers to the properness of an evaluation in terms of meeting legal and ethical obligations. Accuracy pertains to the trustworthiness of evaluation data. Use of the PES as a frameworkfor descriptive metaevaluation of a single case illustrated the breadth of issues involved in curriculum evaluation and their interrelatedness. Furthermore, the PES helped to reveal strengths and weaknesses that served as starting points for further improvement of the evaluation.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, National Council on Measuremen tin Education. (1999). Standards for educational and psychological testing. Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
2.
Baldwin, D. C. (1998). The case for interdisciplinary education. In E. R. Rubin (Ed.), Mission management: A new synthesis (Vol. 2). Washington, DC: Association of Academic Health Centers.
3.
Barlow, D. H., & Hersen, M. (1984). Single case experimental designs (2nd ed.). New York: Pergamon.
4.
Barr, H., Hammick, M., Koppel, I., & Reeves, S. (1999). Systematic review of the effectiveness of inter professional education: Towards transatlantic collaboration. Journal of Allied Health, 28, 104-108.
5.
Brewer, J., & Hunter, A. (1989). Multimethod research: A synthesis of styles. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
6.
Cronbach, L. J. (1982). Designing evaluations of educational and social programs. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
7.
Hollon, S. D., & Bemis, K. M. (1981). Self-report and the assessment of cognitive functions. In M. Hersen & A. S. Bellack (Eds.), Behavioral assessment: A practical handbook (pp. 125-174). New York: Pergamon.
8.
Institute of Medicine. (2001). Crossing the quality chasm: A new health system for the 21st century. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
9.
Irons, T. G., Gustke, S. S., Lynch, D. C., Shelton, S., & Speer, A. J. (1999). Partnerships between academic health centers and area health education centers in developing community-based ambulatory education networks in North Carolina and Texas. Education for Health, 12, 289-298.
10.
The Joint Committee on Standards for Educational Evaluation. (1994). The program evaluation standards (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
11.
Lilley, S. H., Clay, M. C., Greer, A. G., Harris, J., & Cummings, D. M. (1998). Interdisciplinary rural health training for health professions students: Strategies for curriculum design. Journal of Allied Health, 27, 208-212.
12.
Lynch, D. C., & Willis, S. E. (2000). Can a 3-day preceptorship change first-year medical student opinions about living and working in small towns? Family Medicine, 32, 495-500.
13.
Patton, M. Q. (1987). Creative evaluation. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
14.
Rossi, P. H., & Freeman, H. E. (1993). Evaluation: A systematic approach. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
15.
Scriven, M. (1973). Goal-free evaluation. In E. R. House (Ed.), School evaluation: The politics and process (pp. 319-328). Berkeley, CA: McCutchan.
16.
Scriven, M. (1980). The logic of evaluation. Inverness, CA: Edgepress.
