DOCSLIB.ORG

Program Evaluation

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Program Evaluation Program Evaluation Synthesis of lessons learned by child neglect demonstration projects September 2005 Child Welfare Information Gateway Children’s Bureau/ACYF U.S. Department of Health and Human Services 1250 Maryland Avenue, SW Administration for Children and Families Eighth Floor Washington, DC 20024 Administration on Children, Youth and Families 703.385.7565 or 800.394.3366 Children’s Bureau Email: [email protected] www.childwelfare.gov This synthesis was made possible by the Children’s Bureau, Administration on Children, Youth and Families, Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The conclusions discussed here are solely the responsibility of the authors and do not represent the official views or policies of the funding agency. Publication does not in any way constitute an endorsement by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Suggested citation: Child Welfare Information Gateway. (2005). Program evaluation: Synthesis of lessons learned by child neglect demonstration projects. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Program Evaluation www.childwelfare.gov In 1996 and 1997, the Children’s Bureau plans. While some of the lessons learned will funded 10 demonstration projects to address be most useful to other programs address- the prevention, intervention, and treatment ing child neglect, many are applicable to a needs of neglected children and their families. broader range of social service programs. These projects implemented and evaluated Contact information for each program discussed, a wide variety of service strategies with large and information about evaluation designs, numbers of high-risk children and families. instruments, and outcomes, are included in the The programs varied considerably in terms of appendices for readers interested in learning theoretical model (psychosocial or ecologi- more about individual projects. cal), target population, location (in-home or out-of-home), duration, and intensity. The projects provided a great variety of services, including parent education and support, ChallengesandSuccessful home visits, and referrals to other resources StrategiesforEvaluation or services in the community. (For informa- tion about the programmatic aspects of these DesignandMethodology projects, see the companion synthesis, Child Neglect Demonstration Projects: Synthesis of All 10 grantees encountered challenges Lessons Learned, published by Child Welfare related to design and methodology. These Information Gateway.) Throughout the course challenges, and the strategies grantees of their 5-year projects, grantees faced a reported to be successful in addressing them, number of common challenges in combining are summarized below. They relate specifically service delivery with a rigorous program evalu- to the processes of: ation methodology. Despite these challenges, several of the programs conducted very thor- • Selecting instruments ough evaluations, and they all reported posi- • Establishing comparison groups tive outcomes. • Collecting data In recent years, there has been a growing interest in the evaluation of social service • Analyzing the impact of individualized programs. Funders and other stakeholders services want evidence that programs are achieving their intended outcomes. Practitioners want to SelectingInstruments develop more effective services by document- All 10 programs used standardized instruments, ing interventions and measuring results, and and many used the same ones. The table in they want to establish stronger connections Appendix B shows which instruments each between services and outcomes. Therefore, program used. The most commonly used were: this program evaluation synthesis summa- rizes the grantees’ challenges, strategies, and • Child Well-Being Scales (6 programs) lessons learned regarding program evaluation, • Adult Adolescent Parenting Inventory (4) so that these lessons may help future projects develop and implement effective evaluation • Child Behavior Checklist (4) This material may be freely reproduced and distributed. However, when doing so, please credit Child Welfar e 1 Information Gateway. Available online at www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/focus/evaldemo/index.cfm. Program Evaluation www.childwelfare.gov • Home Observation for Measurement of the did allow home visits were self-selected and Environment (4) may have had fewer of these concerns. Many young mothers lived with family members • Family Support Scale (2) and were not free to invite clinicians into the • Maternal Social Support Index (2) home without the owner’s permission. When access was possible, some grantees’ staff also • Parenting Stress Index (2) encountered scheduling and safety issues. Grantees did not recommend using standard- Some of the strategies suggested by grantees ized instruments alone for the evaluation of to address these challenges include: these programs. One grantee felt that these commonly used standardized instruments • Modify existing instruments to meet your were designed for individual therapy ses- needs. For example, recommendations for sions or for populations with less pervasive use of the Child Well-Being Scales included problems and therefore did not work well for clustering items to match program objec- measuring outcomes with the grantee’s target tives and adding a seriousness scale to population. The majority of projects found make the findings more interpretable.2 the Child Well-Being Scales to be the most • Develop your own instrument. The Parent appropriate and useful instruments, but one Empowerment Program believed its own program found that these scales were not sen- instrument, the Personal Goal Achievement sitive to detecting risk and were more appro- Measure (PGAM), assessed outcomes priate for higher functioning clients.1 Another more accurately and meaningfully than the grantee reported that its interventions simply available standardized instruments. When did not address some of the domains that the program participants and program staff standardized instruments assessed and, thus, worked together to develop this instru- these instruments would not detect change. ment, participants were empowered by Administering the instruments also proved selecting their own goals and working challenging. One program reported that partic- toward meeting established criteria for suc- ipants’ low literacy levels, test anxiety, absen- cessful achievement.3 teeism, and hostility made it difficult to obtain • Use multiple strategies to collect data. All valid and reliable pre- and posttest scores. programs collected qualitative data to help Another grantee reported that in-home assess- them interpret and clarify the results of the ments were difficult to administer (these were standardized instruments. These data col- not CPS-mandated cases, so home access lection tools and techniques included: was voluntary). Some participants were afraid to allow clinicians into their homes due to » Referral and discharge forms substandard living conditions, overcrowding, domestic violence, or drug dealing. Those who 2 There is a risk, in adapting standardized tests, of nullifying the reliability and validity of the instruments. However, creating 1 Magura, S., and Moses, B. S. (1987). Outcome measures or modifying a risk assessment instrument to use in the for child welfare services: The Child Well-Being Scales and interpretation of the results can have merit. rating form. Washington, DC: Child Welfare League of 3 Data from site-specific instruments should be interpreted with America. Available online at www.cwla.org/pubs/pubdetails. caution. If reliability and validity have not been established, the asp?PUBID=3062. ability to generalize their results is limited. This material may be freely reproduced and distributed. However, when doing so, please credit Child Welfare 2 Information Gateway. Available online at www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/focus/evaldemo/index.cfm. Program Evaluation www.childwelfare.gov » Mentors’ pre- and post-intervention have reached and benefited more families, surveys, weekly reports, and in-service resulting in better outcomes overall. meeting notes Strategies used or suggested by grantees » Surveys of presenting problems (types include: and severity), focus groups, life history • Use service enhancements. Several pro- research, and satisfaction surveys grams avoided having to deny services » Staff notes, service documentation to families in their comparison groups by sheets, family case logs, activities providing core services to these families notes, meeting minutes and adding service enhancements (such as a mentoring component) or longer-term » School interviews services (such as 9 months rather than 3 » CPS verification months) for treatment group families. » Exit interviews with families and staff • Establish and communicate clear partici- pation criteria. Several grantees recom- EstablishingComparisonGroups mended establishing clear eligibility criteria for entry into the program to screen out Six of the 10 projects reported program families whose needs were greater than evaluation challenges related to the establish- the program was designed to address. It ment of treatment and comparison groups. A was also recommended that care be taken number of factors affecting the use of com- during the process of assigning families to parison groups may have compromised evalu- treatment and comparison groups to ensure ation results, including voluntary participation, that eventual outcomes will not
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Program Evaluation Capacity for Nonprofit Human
    PROGRAM EVALUATION CAPACITY FOR NONPROFIT HUMAN SERVICES ORGANIZATIONS: AN ANALYSIS OF DETERMINING FACTORS Salvatore Alaimo Submitted to the faculty of the University Graduate School in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Department of Philanthropic Studies, Indiana University October 2008 Accepted by the Faculty of Indiana University, in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. __________________ David A. Reingold Ph.D., Chair ______________________________ Debra Mesch Ph.D. Doctoral Committee ______________________________ David Van Slyke Ph.D. Date of Defense July 11, 2008 _____________________________ Patrick Rooney Ph.D. ii © 2008 Salvatore Alaimo ALL RIGHTS RESERVED iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This research would not have been possible without the support of numerous people and organizations. The Center on Philanthropy deserves special recognition for having the vision and earnestness to take a risk and invest in a new interdisciplinary Ph.D. program in Philanthropic Studies at Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis (IUPUI), which I am a proud member of the first cohort of seven students. Robert Payton; Dr. Eugene Tempel, Executive Director; Dr. Dwight Burlingame, Associate Executive Director and Director of Academic Programs; Dr. Leslie Lenkowsky, Director of Graduate Studies; the center’s administrative staff and Board of Directors; and the entire philanthropic studies faculty are recognized for getting this new program off the ground and ensuring it will be continually supported. My six cohorts have been a source of support throughout this Ph.D. program, and we continue to exchange information and moral support today. These friendships have impacted my work and my life, and I hope we will continue to be connected for years to come.
    [Show full text]
  • Standards and Criteria for Approval of Sponsors of Continuing Education for Psychologists
    Standards and Criteria for Approval of Sponsors of Continuing Education for Psychologists August 2015 AMERICAN PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION Standards and Criteria _______ PREFACE This document is the most recent revision of the document originally entitled APA Approval of Sponsors of Continuing Education for Psychologists, first approved by the American Psychological Association Council of Representatives in January 1987. This revision is effective as of August 2015, and supersedes all previous versions. TABLE OF CONTENTS STANDARDS AND CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL OF SPONSORS OF CONTINUING EDUCATION FOR PSYCHOLOGISTS SECTION ONE Page A. Introduction ................................................................................................................................1 B. Background of the APA Office of CE Sponsor Approval (CESA) ...........................................1 SECTION TWO Standard A (Goals) ..........................................................................................................................3 Standard B (Program Management) ................................................................................................4 Standard C (Educational Planning and Instructional Methods) .......................................................5 Standard D (Curriculum Content) ....................................................................................................6 Standard E (Program Evaluation) ....................................................................................................7 Standard
    [Show full text]
  • Program Evaluation Models and Related Theories: AMEE Guide No. 67
    2012; 34: e288–e299 WEB PAPER AMEE GUIDE Program evaluation models and related theories: AMEE Guide No. 67 ANN W. FRYE1 & PAUL A. HEMMER2 1Office of Educational Development, University of Texas Medical Branch, 301 University Boulevard, Galveston, Texas 77555-0408, USA, 2Department of Medicine, Uniformed Services, University of the Health Sciences, F. Edward Hebert School of Medicine, Bethesda, MD, USA Abstract This Guide reviews theories of science that have influenced the development of common educational evaluation models. Educators can be more confident when choosing an appropriate evaluation model if they first consider the model’s theoretical basis against their program’s complexity and their own evaluation needs. Reductionism, system theory, and (most recently) complexity theory have inspired the development of models commonly applied in evaluation studies today. This Guide describes experimental and quasi-experimental models, Kirkpatrick’s four-level model, the Logic Model, and the CIPP (Context/Input/ Process/Product) model in the context of the theories that influenced their development and that limit or support their ability to do what educators need. The goal of this Guide is for educators to become more competent and confident in being able to design educational program evaluations that support intentional program improvement while adequately documenting or describing the changes and outcomes—intended and unintended—associated with their programs. Introduction Practice points Program evaluation is an essential responsibility for anyone overseeing a medical education program. A ‘‘program’’ may be . Educational programs are fundamentally about change; as small as an individual class session, a course, or a clerkship program evaluation should be designed to determine rotation in medical school or it may be as large as the whole of whether change has occurred.
    [Show full text]
  • Program Evaluation 101
    Program Evaluation 101 What is program evaluation? Program evaluation is the systematic assessment of the processes and/or outcomes of a program with the intent of furthering its development and improvement. As such, it is a collaborative process in which evaluators work closely with program staff to craft and implement an evaluation design that is responsive to the needs of the program. For example, during program implementation, evaluators can provide formative evaluation findings so that program staff can make immediate, data-based decisions about program implementation and delivery. In addition, evaluators can, towards the end of a program or upon its completion, provide cumulative and summative evaluation findings, often required by funding agencies and used to make decisions about program continuation or expansion. Informal vs. Formal Evaluation Evaluation is not a new concept. As a matter of fact, as human beings we are engaged in evaluation activities all the time. Practitioners, managers, and policy makers make judgments about students, clients, personnel, programs, and policies daily and these judgments lead to choices and decisions. These judgments are based on informal, or unsystematic, evaluations. Informal evaluations can result in either faculty or wise judgments. However, informal evaluations are characterized by an absence of breadth and depth because they lack systematic procedures and formally collected evidence. The judgments may be clouded by one’s experience, instinct, generalization, and reasoning. In other words, when we conduct informal evaluations, we are less cognizant of the limitations posed by our background. In contrast, formal evaluation is developed to assist and extend natural human abilities to observe, understand, and make judgments about policies, programs, and other objects in evaluation.
    [Show full text]
  • Public Policy and Program Evaluation 1St Edition Pdf, Epub, Ebook
    PUBLIC POLICY AND PROGRAM EVALUATION 1ST EDITION PDF, EPUB, EBOOK Evert Vedung | 9780765806871 | | | | | Public Policy and Program Evaluation 1st edition PDF Book Agencies should consistently use program evaluation and systematic analysis to improve program design, implementation, and effectiveness and to assess what works, what does not work, and why. University of Chicago Press, Chicago. Eval Rev 18 5 — Doing Evaluation in the Political World References. Ministerie van Veiligheid en Justitie, Den Haag. Ragin CC Redesigning social inquiry: fuzzy sets and beyond. Search within At what cost were my activities implemented and my outcomes achieved? Discussion Of the longlist of potential barriers and facilitators for evaluation use that we started from, we identified four conditions with potentially strong explanatory power for the mature evaluation setting of IOB: the timing of the evaluation, its political salience, whether policy makers show clear interest in the evaluation, and whether the evaluation presents novel knowledge. Nat Ecol Evol 4 4 — Based on the general principles discussed in the previous section, we propose that agencies in the Executive Branch establish one of the following organizational frameworks to support evaluation. In the last step, we assigned the values of the conditions for each evaluation. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice. Parallel with the diffusion of the evidence-based policy mantra, the attention for policy evaluations has risen dramatically in recent decades. Support from the intended users will increase the likelihood that the evaluation results will be used for program improvement.
    [Show full text]
  • Department of Social Science Program Assessment Plan
    DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SCIENCE University of Alaska Southeast PROGRAM ASSESSMENT PLAN Bachelor of Arts in Social Science Program Faculty Priscilla Schulte, Ph.D., Professor of Anthropology Robin Walz, Ph.D., Professor of History Daniel Monteith, Ph.D., Associate Professor of Anthropology David Noon, Ph.D., Associate Professor of History Erica Hill, Ph.D., Associate Professor of Anthropology John Radzilowski, Ph.D., Assistant Professor of History Glenn Wright, Ph.D., Assistant Professor of Political Science Amanda Sesko, Ph.D., Assistant Professor of Psychology Brian Vander Naald, Ph.D., Assistant Professor of Economics Lora Vess, Ph.D., Assistant Professor of Sociology 7/2012 1 Table of Contents I. Degree Title 3 II. Student Assessment 3 Student Learning Goals 3 Student Outcomes 4 UAS Competencies 6 III. Curriculum Map 6 Map 6 Syllabi 11 IV. Program Assessment Methods and Measures 11 Social Science Student Assessment Portfolio (SAP) 11 Rubric – Student Levels of Proficiency 17 V. Assessment Cycle 20 Student Assessment 20 Program Assessment 21 Appendix A. Course Syllabi 24 Appendix B. Department of Social Science Student Mid-Point 25 Survey Appendix C. Department of Social Science Student Exit Survey 30 7/2012 2 I. Degree Title Bachelor of Arts in Social Science, University of Alaska Southeast II. Student Assessment A. Student Learning Goals The Social Science Faculty have worked together to develop The Bachelor of Arts in Social Science curriculum which provides a solid foundation for students in the social sciences with one primary concentration area and two secondary areas in the social sciences. The social sciences are related academic disciplines that study humans and their behavior, and the faculty in the social science department offers a comprehensive and extensive array of courses.
    [Show full text]
  • PROGRAM EVALUATION METHODS: Measurement and Attribution of Program Results
    PROGRAM EVALUATION METHODS: Measurement and Attribution of Program Results Third Edition Review Practices and Studies Government Review and Quality Services Deputy Comptroller General Branch Treasury Board of Canada, Secretariat Également disponible sous le titre : Méthodes d’évaluation des programmes – Mesure et attribution des résultats des programmes © Minister of Public Works and Government Services Published by Public Affairs Branch Treasury Board of Canada, Secretariat Table of Contents Page Chapter 1 INTRODUCTION 1 1.1 Objectives and Organization of this Text 1 1.2 The Evaluation Process 3 1.3 Evaluation Issues 3 Chapter 2 EVALUATION STRATEGIES 12 2.1 Causal Inference in Evaluation 12 2.2 Causal Inferences 13 2.3 Evaluation Strategies 19 2.4 Developing Credible Evaluations 22 2.4.1 Research Criteria ................................................................................... 22 2.4.2 Decision Environment Criteria.............................................................. 27 2.4.3 The Need for Multiple Strategies .......................................................... 33 2.5 Summary 35 Chapter 3 EVALUATION DESIGNS 36 3.1 Introduction 36 3.2 Randomized Experimental Designs 40 3.3 Quasi-experimental Designs 46 3.3.1 Pre-program/Post-program Designs ...................................................... 46 3.3.2 Historical/Time Series Designs ............................................................. 47 3.3.3 Post-program-only Designs ................................................................... 49 3.4 Implicit
    [Show full text]
  • Training in Evaluation Research: the Perspective from a Department of Psychology
    DOCUMENT RESUME ED 199 578 CG 014 999 AUTHOR Nevid, Jeffrey S. TITLE Training in Evaluation Research: The Perspective From a Department of Psychology.. PUB DATE 80 NOTE 13p. EDRS PRICE. MF01/PC01 Plus Postage. DESCRIPTORS Core Curriculum: *Evaluation Methods; *Evaluators: *Graduate Study,; Higher Education; Interdisciplinary Approach; *Professional Education; program Descriptions:- Psychologists: *Psychology; Researchers: Research Skills: State of the Art Reviews *Training Methods IDENTIFIERS *Hofstra University NY ABSTRACT The Hofstra University program in applied research and evaluation in psychology is described as an example of one model for training evaluators. The training of psychologists with a specialization in evaluation research is reviewed, and the pros and cons of evaluation research training within psychology ate discussed. Several potential benefits of `training psychologists in ,evaluation research are presented, such as: (1•) the psychologist's professional identity .remains within a discipline with recognized licensing and accreditation procedures; (2) an evaluator trained •as a psychologist may have a •brcader range of marketable skills; and (3) training in evaluation. research may increase the range of career opportunities for psychologists. One disadvantage of this .training concerns the' notion that evaluation research represents a body of knowledge,which transcends any single discipline; the development of multidisciplinary inputs to reflect the contributions of other disciplires is suggestedd to overcome this problem.
    [Show full text]
  • Evaluation Models—Abstract
    Evaluation Models—Abstract In entering a new millennium, it is a good time for eval- uators to critically appraise their program evaluation approaches and decide which ones are most worthy of continued application and further development. It is equally important to decide which approaches are best abandoned. In this spirit, this monograph identifies and assesses twenty-two approaches often employed to eval- uate programs. These approaches, in varying degrees, are unique and cover most program evaluation efforts. Two of the approaches, reflecting the political realities of evaluation, are often used illegitimately to falsely characterize a program’s value and are labeled pseudo- evaluations. The remaining twenty approaches are typically used legitimately to judge programs and are divided into questions/methods-oriented approaches, improvement/accountability approaches, and social agenda/advocacy approaches. The best and most applicable of the program evaluation approaches appear to be Client-Centered/Responsive, Utilization-Focused, Decision/Accountability, Consumer-Oriented, Construc- tivist, Case Study, Outcome/Value-Added Assessment, and Accreditation, with the new Deliberative Democra- tic approach showing promise. The approaches judged indefensible or least useful were Politically Controlled, Public Relations, Accountability (especially payment by results), Clarification Hearing, and Program Theory- Based. The rest—including Objectives-Based, Experimental Studies, Management Information Sys- tems, Criticism and Connoisseurship, Mixed Methods, Benefit-Cost analysis, Performance Testing, and Objec- tive Testing Programs—were judged to have restricted though beneficial use in program evaluation. All legiti- mate approaches are enhanced when keyed to and assessed against professional standards for evaluations.1 1 Appreciation is extended to colleagues who critiqued prior drafts of this monograph, especially Sharon Barbour, Gary Henry, Jerry Horn, Thomas Kellaghan, Gary Miron, Craig Russon, James Sanders, Sally Veeder, William Wiersma, and Lori Wingate.
    [Show full text]
  • Introduction to Program Evaluation for Public Health Programs
    Introduction to Program Evaluation for Public Health Programs: A Self-Study Guide Suggested Citation: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Office of the Director, Office of Strategy and Innovation. Introduction to program evaluation for public health programs: A self-study guide. Atlanta, GA: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2011. OCTOBER 2011 Acknowledgments This manual integrates, in part, the excellent work of the many CDC programs that have used CDC’s Framework for Program Evaluation in Public Health to develop guidance documents and other materials for their grantees and partners. We thank in particular the Office on Smoking and Health, and the Division of Nutrition and Physical Activity, whose prior work influenced the content of this manual. We thank the following people from the Evaluation Manual Planning Group for their assistance in coordinating, reviewing, and producing this document. In particular: NCHSTP, Division of TB Elimination: Maureen Wilce NCID, Division of Bacterial and Mycotic Diseases: Jennifer Weissman NCCDPHP, Division of Diabetes Translation: Clay Cooksey NCEH, Division of Airborne and Respiratory Diseases: Kathy Sunnarborg We extend special thanks to Daphna Gregg and Antoinette Buchanan for their careful editing and composition work on drafts of the manual, and to the staff of the Office of the Associate Director of Science for their careful review of the manual and assistance with the clearance process. Contents Page Executive Summary Introduction....................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Where Politics and Evaluation Research Meet
    Traces TRACES are what evaluators left behind—discoveries, records, tracks—which made marks on the profession of program evaluation. Published here are excerpts from our past (e.g., articles, passages from books, speeches) that show where we have been or affected where we are g(r)o(w)ing. Suggestions for inclusion should be sent to the Editor, along with rationale for their import. Photocopies of the original printed versions are preferred with full bibliographic information. Copying rights will be secured by the Editor. Editor’s Note: I am delighted to be able to reprint Carol H. Weiss’ 1973 paper entitled "Where politics and evaluation research meet." Many years ago when I first became interested in evaluation, her work made sense to me because of her obvious appre- ciation for the realities of assessing (and implementing) people-type programs. But that, in itself, would not suffice for honoring her here in Traces. Others who have studied the theories and the theorists of evaluation credit her with influencing their thinking, such as Lee Cronbach in his 1982 book, Designing Evaluations of Educa- tional and Social Programs, and with having brought a new perspective to bear on evaluation, that is, with being a Stage Two theorist—Will Shadish et al. in their 1991 book Foundations of Program Evaluation. EP is indebted to Dr. Weiss for writing an "update" to the 1973 article, entitled "Politics and Evaluation: A Reprise with Mellower Overtones." Her 1992 reflections immediately follow the ’73 work. We are also indebted to the Minneapolis Medical Research Foundation, Inc., for permission to publish the article which appeared in Evaluation, Vol.
    [Show full text]
  • Epistemology and Measurement: Paradigms and Practice
    Epistemology and Measurement: Paradigms and Practice II. Social Epistemology and the Pragmatics of Assessment ____________ Kenneth J. Gergen Swarthmore College Ezekiel J. Dixon-Román University of Pennsylvania ____________ Epistemology and Measurement: Paradigms and Practices II Kenneth J. Gergen and Ezekiel J. Dixon-Román Our major concern is with the function of assessment in education, and most particularly, the adequacy of current educational practices and policies. In Part I our chief focus was on traditions of measurement, as related to the process of large-scale assessment programs in education. As proposed, there are significant conceptual flaws inherent in the traditional empiricist orientation to measurement, and these raise important questions regarding the adequacy and relevance of "one-size fits all” assessment programs. The aim of Part II is first to sketch the contours of a promising alternative to the empiricist paradigm, namely a socially based epistemology. With this orientation in hand we are positioned to consider the more general practice of assessment - of which measurement is but constituent. Here we are especially concerned with socio-cultural outcomes, and especially the problematic results of large-scale programmatic testing. After scanning contributions to more formative practices of assessment, we offer recommendations for the future. From Empirical Foundations to Social Epistemology During the past several decades of scholarly inquiry, an enormous and far-reaching transformation has taken place in the concept of knowledge, and the attendant concepts of truth, objectivity, and validity. Briefly put, the transformation can be traced in its earliest phases to a number of insoluble conceptual problems inherent in attempts to establish rational foundations for scientific knowledge, and most notably, empiricists’ accounts of such knowledge.
    [Show full text]