Journal of MultiDisciplinary Evaluation (Jul 2014)

Evaluability Assessment: Clarifying Organizational Support and Data Availability

  • Joseph Hare,
  • Timothy Guetterman

DOI
https://doi.org/10.56645/jmde.v10i23.395
Journal volume & issue
Vol. 10, no. 23

Abstract

Read online

Background: Evaluability assessment (EA) emerged in the 1970s as a way to ensure a program was ready for summative evaluation. The primary purpose was assessing the presence of measurable program objectives (Trevisan, 2007), yet evaluators conducting EA encountered difficulty with unclear, ambiguous methods (Smith, 2005). Purpose: The purpose of this qualitative study was to clarify two aspects of evaluability assessment, organizational support and data availability. In practice, organizational stakeholders must support the evaluation project to ensure it is pursued to completion. In addition, the availability of operational data facilitates analysis of the evaluand effect. Setting: Participants from both human services and corporate organizations participated in interviews. Participants worked on evaluation projects serving in three roles: organizational stakeholder, program evaluator, and information technology personnel. Intervention: NA Research Design: A qualitative research design was selected to best understand the experiences with regard to organizational support and data sufficiency of individuals who have engaged in evaluation studies and to understand how these domains affected their ability to conduct an evaluation. Data Collection and Analysis: This study consisted of purposive sampling of 13 participants serving various roles to add breadth to the data. The researchers conducted semi-structured interviews and analyzed the data using thematic analysis. Findings: The findings indicate the importance of specific organizational and data related considerations that affect evaluability. The researchers recommend considerations that elaborate upon the existing EA framework. The recommended evaluability considerations assist evaluators in identifying ill-advised evaluations and enhancing the likelihood of success in ongoing studies.

Keywords