Validating an evaluation checklist using a mixed method design
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.
If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- 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.
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: (Shamier, Wendy)
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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.
If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 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.