The second article in this series on the history of evaluation use has three sections. The first and longest develops a functional definition of the term use, noting that a thorough definition of evaluation use includes the initial stimulus (i.e., evaluation findings or process), the user, the way people use the information, the aspect of the program considered, and the purpose. It then defines evaluation use’s unethical companion, misuse, detailing the distinction between the two. The second section briefly discusses a broadened concept of evaluation impact that expands to include evaluation influence. Finally, the third section summarizes the factors that research has shown to be related to evaluation use.
AlkinM. C. (1985). A guide for evaluation decision-makers. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
2.
AlkinM. C. (1990). Debates on evaluation. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
3.
AlkinM. C. (Ed.). (2013). Evaluation roots: A wider perspective of theorists’ views and influences (2nd ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
4.
AlkinM. C.CoyleK. (1988). Thoughts on evaluation utilization, misutilization and non-utilization. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 14, 331–340.
5.
AlkinM. C.DaillakR.WhiteP. (1979). Using evaluations: Does evaluation make a difference? (Vol. 76). Sage Library of Social Research. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
6.
AlkinM. C.KingJ. A. (2016). The historical development of evaluation use. American Journal of Evaluation, 37, 568–579.
7.
AlkinM. C.KosecoffJ.FitzgibbonC.SeligmanR. (1974). Evaluation and decision-making: The Title VII experience. Los Angeles, CA: Center for the Study of Evaluation.
American Evaluation Association. (2004). AEA’s guiding principles for evaluators. Retrieved fromhttp://www.eval.org
10.
American Evaluation Association. (2011). AEA’s statement on cultural competence in evaluation. Retrieved fromhttp://www.eval.org
11.
BorgattaE. F. (1966). Research problems in evaluation of health service demonstrations. The Milbank Memorial Fund Quarterly, 44, 182–201.
12.
BraskampL. A. (1982). A definition of use. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 8, 169–174.
13.
BraskampL. A.BrownR. D. (Eds.). (1980). Utilization of evaluation information. New Directions for Program Evaluation. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
14.
BraskampL. A.BrownR. D.NewmanD. L. (1978). The credibility of a local educational program evaluation report: Author, source, and client audience characteristics. American Educational Research Journal, 15, 441–450.
15.
BrownR. D.BraskampL. A.NewmanD. L. (1978). Evaluator credibility as a function of report style: Do jargon and data make a difference?Evaluation Quarterly, 2, 331–341.
16.
CampbellD. T. (1988). Methodology and epistemology for social science: Selected papers (OvermanE. S.). Chicago IL: University of Chicago Press.
17.
ChelimskyE. (1983). Improving the cost effectiveness of evaluation. In AlkinM. C.SolomanL. C. (Eds.), The costs of evaluation (pp. 149–170). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
18.
ChelimskyE. (2011). Evaluation and the single narrative. Presentation at the American Evaluation Association Conference, Anaheim, CA.
19.
ChristieC. A.AlkinM. C. (1999). Further reflections on evaluation misutilization. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 25, 1–10.
20.
CookT. D.PollardW. E. (1977). Guidelines: How to recognize and avoid some common problems of mis-utilization of evaluation research findings. Evaluation, 4, 161–164.
21.
CousinsJ. B. (2003). Utilization effects of participatory evaluation. In KelliganT.StufflebeamD. L. (Eds.), International Handbook of Educational Evaluation (pp. 245–266), Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Press.
22.
CousinsJ. B. (2004). Commentary: Minimizing evaluation misuse as principled practice. American Journal of Evaluation, 25, 393–399.
23.
CousinsJ. B.GohS. C.ElliottC. J.BourgeoisI. (2014). Framing the capacity to do and use evaluation. New Directions for Evaluation, 141, 7–23.
24.
CousinsJ. B.LeithwoodK. A. (1986). Current empirical research on evaluation utilization. Review of Educational Research, 56, 331–364.
25.
DavisH.SalasinS. (1975). The utilization of evaluation. Handbook of Evaluation Research, 1, 621–666.
26.
DuffyB. P. (1994). Use and abuse of internal evaluation. New Directions for Program Evaluation, 64, 25–32.
27.
GreeneJ. C. (1988). Stakeholder participation and utilization in program evaluation. Evaluation Review, 12, 91–116.
28.
HendricksM. (1990). Participant introductory comments. In AlkinM. C. (Ed.), Debates on evaluation (p. 23). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
29.
HenryG. T.MarkM. M. (2003). Beyond use: Understanding evaluation’s influence on attitudes and actions. American Journal of Evaluation, 24, 293–314.
30.
HerbertJ. L. (2014). Researching evaluation influence: A review of the literature. Evaluation Review, 38, 388–419.
31.
HouseE. R. (1980). Evaluating with validity. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
32.
JohnsonK.GreenseidL. O.ToalS. A.KingJ. A.LawrenzF.VolkovB. (2009). Research on evaluation use: A review of the empirical literature from 1986 to 2005. American Journal of Evaluation, 30, 377–410.
33.
KennedyM. M. (1983). Working knowledge. Science Communication, 5, 193–211.
34.
KingJ. A. (1988). Research on evaluation use and its implications for evaluation research and practice. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 14, 285–299.
35.
KingJ. A.PechmanE. M. (1982). The process of evaluation use in local school settings(Final report of National Institute of Education Grant NIE-G-81-0900). New Orleans, LA: New Orleans Public Schools.
36.
KingJ. A.StevahnL. (2013). Interactive evaluation practice: Mastering the interpersonal dynamics of program evaluation. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
37.
KingJ. A.ThompsonB. (1983). Research on school use of program evaluation: A literature review and research agenda. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 9, 5–21.
38.
KirkhartK. E. (2000). Reconceptualizing evaluation use: An integrated theory of influence. In CaracelliV.PreskillH. (Eds.), The expanding scope of evaluation use. New Directions for Evaluation, 88, 5–23.
39.
KingJ. A.PechmanE. M. (1984). Pinning a wave to the shore: Conceptualizing school evaluation use. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 6(3), 241–251.
40.
LevitonL. C.HughesE. F. (1981). Research on the utilization of evaluations: A review and synthesis. Evaluation Review, 5, 525–548.
41.
LincolnY. S.GubaE. (2004). The roots of fourth generation evaluation: Theoretical and methodological origins. In AlkinM. C. (Ed.), Evaluation roots: Tracing theorists’ views and influences (pp. 225–242). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
42.
LindblomC. E.CohenD. K. (1979). Usable knowledge: Social science and social problem solving (Vol. 21). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
43.
MarkM. M.HenryG. T. (2004). The mechanisms and outcomes of evaluation influence. Evaluation, 10, 35–57.
44.
MorrisM. (Ed.). (2008). Evaluation ethics for best practice: Cases and commentary. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
45.
MushkinS. J. (1973). Evaluations: Use with caution. Evaluation, 1, 30–35.
46.
NewmanD. L.BrownR. D. (1996). Applied ethics for program evaluation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
47.
NunneleyR. D.KingJ. A.JohnsonK.PejsaL. (2015). The value of clear thinking about evaluation theory. In VoA. (Ed.), Evaluation use and decision-making in society: A tribute to Marvin C. Alkin (pp. 53–71). Denver, CO: Information Age.
48.
OwenJ. M. (2002). Linking evaluation use to the research utilization literature. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Evaluation Association, Arlington, VA.
49.
PalumboD. J. (1994). The political roots of misuse of evaluation. New Directions for Program Evaluation, 64, 15–23.
50.
PattonM. Q. (1988). Six honest serving men for evaluation. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 14, 301–330.
PattonM. Q. (2012). Essentials of utilization-focused evaluation. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
53.
PattonM. Q. (2015). Misuse: The shadow side of use. In ChristieC. A.VoA. T. (Eds.), Evaluation use and decision making in society: A tribute to Marvin C. Alkin (pp. 131–147). Charlotte, NC: Information Age.
54.
PattonM. Q.GrimesP. S.GuthrieK. M.BrennanN. J.FrenchB. D.BlythD. A. (1977). In search of impact: An analysis of the utilization of federal health evaluation research. In WeissC. H. (Ed.), Using social research in public policy making (pp. 141–163). New York, NY: D. C. Health.
55.
PelzD. C. (1978). Some expanded perspectives on use of social science in public policy. In YingerJ. M.CutlerS. J. (Eds.), Major social issues: A multidisciplinary view (pp. 346–357). New York, NY: Free Press.
56.
PosavacE. J. (1994). Misusing program evaluation by asking the wrong question. New Directions for Program Evaluation, 64, 70–78.
57.
RossmanG. B.RallisS. E. (2000). Critical inquiry and use as action. New Directions for Evaluation, 88, 55–69.
58.
ShulhaL. M.CousinsJ. B. (1997). Evaluation use: Theory, research, and practice since 1986. Evaluation Practice, 18, 195–208.
59.
StakeR. E. (1986). Quieting reform: Social science and social action in an urban youth program. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
60.
StevensC. J.DialM. (Eds.). (1994a). Preventing the misuse of evaluation. New Directions for Program Evaluation, 64, 1–84.
61.
StevensC. J.DialM. (1994b). What constitutes misuse?New Directions for Program Evaluation, 64, 3–13.
62.
SuchmanE. A. (1967). Evaluative research: Principles and practice in public service and social action programs. New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.
63.
WeissC. H. (1972). Utilization of evaluation: Toward comparative study. Evaluating action programs: Readings in social action and education, 318–326. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
64.
WeissC. H. (1973). Where politics and evaluation research meet. Evaluation, 1, 37–45.
65.
WeissC. H. (1990). Participant introductory comments. In AlkinM. C. (Ed.), Debates on evaluation (p. 22). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
66.
WeissC. H.BucuvalasM. J. (1980). Truth tests and utility tests: Decision-makers’ frames of reference for social science research. American Sociological Review, 45, 302–313.
67.
WeissC. H.Murphy-GrahamE.BirkelandS. (2005). An alternate route to policy influence how evaluations affect DARE. American Journal of Evaluation, 26, 12–30.
68.
YarbroughD. B.ShulhaL. M.HopsonR. K.CaruthersF. A. (2010). The program evaluation standards: A guide for evaluators and evaluation users. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
