IDEAS home Printed from
   My bibliography  Save this article

Validating an evaluation checklist using a mixed method design


  • Martz, Wes


When used in evaluation, checklists provide guidance for the collection of relevant evidence used to determine the merit, worth, or significance of an evaluand. The inherently systematic process found in the use of a checklist makes it highly relevant and useful for evaluative purposes. As such, the value of checklists for evaluation purposes is generally accepted. However, the methods for validating evaluation checklists are less commonly presented and lack specificity with respect to study designs and outcomes. This article addresses this deficit by presenting a case example of a mixed methods validation study applied to an evaluation checklist. The validation approach presented herein is relatively quick and was demonstrated to be feasible on a limited budget all the while providing a reasonable level of validation for the checklist. Following a brief overview of the checklist, the two-part validation study is presented followed by a discussion of the limitations of the methodology.

Suggested Citation

  • Martz, Wes, 2010. "Validating an evaluation checklist using a mixed method design," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 33(3), pages 215-222, August.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:epplan:v:33:y:2010:i:3:p:215-222

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    1. Robert E. Quinn & John Rohrbaugh, 1983. "A Spatial Model of Effectiveness Criteria: Towards a Competing Values Approach to Organizational Analysis," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 29(3), pages 363-377, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)


    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:epplan:v:33:y:2010:i:3:p:215-222. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Dana Niculescu). General contact details of provider: .

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.