Program Design & Evaluation Ethics and Values Every profession has distinct ethical obligations to the public. These obligations include professional competency, integrity, honesty, confidentiality, objectivity, public safety, and fairness.
Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.
Every profession has distinct ethical obligations to the public. These obligations include professional competency, integrity, honesty, confidentiality, objectivity, public safety, and fairness.
All of these obligations are intended to preserve and safeguard public confidence
The star scientist at the heart of that deception –
Hwang Woo Suk -- resigned Friday from his
university post, his meteoric rise to fame coming
to a wrenching end.
Unfortunately, all too often we hear reports in the media of moral dilemmas and unethical behavior by professionals. These reports naturally receive considerable attention by the public, whose confidence in the profession is undermined with each report.
in Texas Schools
March 21, 2005
by Claudia Sanchez
Principles & Standards
The American National Standards Institute (ANSI) is a private, non-profit organization (501(c)3) that administers and coordinates the U.S. voluntary standardization and conformity assessment system. The Institute's mission is to enhance both the global competitiveness of U.S. business and the U.S. quality of life by promoting and facilitating voluntary consensus standards and conformity assessment systems, and safeguarding their integrity.
Founded in 1918
JOINT COMMITTEE ON STANDARDS FOR EDUCATIONAL EVALUATION
Created in 1975, the Joint Committee is a coalition of major professional associations concerned with the quality of evaluation. The Joint Committee is housed at The Evaluation Center, Western Michigan University. The Joint Committee has published three sets of standards for evaluations:
1. The Personnel Evaluation Standards published in 1988
2. The Program Evaluation Standards published in 1994
3. The Student Evaluations Standards was published in 2003
The Joint Committee is accredited by the American National Standards Institute (ANSI). Standards approved by ANSI become American National Standards.
To ensure that the evaluation will serve the information needs of intended users
To ensure that an evaluation will be realistic, prudent, diplomatic, and frugal
F1 Practical Procedures The evaluation procedures should be practical, to keep disruption to a minimum while needed information is obtained.
Intended to ensure that an evaluation will be conducted legally, ethically, and with due regard for the welfare of those involved in the evaluation, as well as those affected by its results.
P1 Service Orientation Evaluations should be designed to assist organizations to address and effectively serve the needs of the full range of targeted participants.
P2 Formal Agreements Obligations of the formal parties to an evaluation (what is to be done, how, by whom, when) should be agreed to in writing, so that these parties are obligated to adhere to all conditions of the agreement or formally to renegotiate it.
Intended to ensure that an evaluation will reveal and convey technically adequate information about the features that determine worth or merit of the program being evaluated.
A1 Program Documentation The program being evaluated should be described and documented clearly and accurately, so that the program is clearly identified.
A2 Context Analysis The context in which the program exists should be examined in enough detail, so that its likely influences on the program can be identified.
A3 Described Purposes and Procedures The purposes and procedures of the evaluation should be monitored and described in enough detail, so that they can be identified and assessed
A4 Defensible Information Sources The sources of information used in a program evaluation should be described in enough detail, so that the adequacy of the information can be assessed.
A5 Valid Information The information-gathering procedures should be chosen or developed and then implemented so that they will assure that the interpretation arrived at is valid for the intended use.
A6 Reliable Information The information-gathering procedures should be chosen or developed and then implemented so that they will assure that the information obtained is sufficiently reliable for the intended use.
A7 Systematic Information The information collected, processed, and reported in an evaluation should be systematically reviewed, and any errors found should be corrected.
A8 Analysis of Quantitative Information Quantitative information in an evaluation should be appropriately and systematically analyzed so that evaluation questions are effectively answered.
A9 Analysis of Qualitative Information Qualitative information in an evaluation should be appropriately and systematically analyzed so that evaluation questions are effectively answered.
A10 Justified Conclusions The conclusions reached in an evaluation should be explicitly justified, so that stakeholders can assess them.
A11 Impartial Reporting procedures should guard against distortion caused by personal feelings and biases of any party to the evaluation, so that evaluation reports fairly reflect the evaluation findings.
A12 Meta-evaluation The evaluation itself should be formatively and summatively evaluated against these and other pertinent standards, so that its conduct is appropriately guided and, on completion, stakeholders can closely examine its strengths and weaknesses.
Simply stated, meta-evaluation is the evaluation of an evaluation, evaluation system or evaluation device to enhance the validity of the evaluation results.
Operationally, metaevaluation is also defined as the process of delineating, obtaining, and applying descriptive information and judgmental information - about the utility, feasibility, propriety, and accuracy of an evaluation and its systematic nature, competent conduct, integrity/honesty, respectfulness, and social responsibility - to guide the evaluation and/or report its strengths and weaknesses.
1. To ensure the accuracy and credibility of the evaluative information they produce, evaluators should adhere to the highest technical standards appropriate to the methods they use.
2. Evaluators should explore with the client the shortcomings and strengths both of the various evaluation questions and the various approaches that might be used for answering those questions.
3. Evaluators should communicate their methods and approaches accurately and in sufficient detail to allow others to understand, interpret and critique their work..
Principle 4 Respect for People: Evaluators respect the security, dignity and self-worth of respondents, program participants, clients, and other evaluation stakeholders.
Evaluators articulate and take into account the diversity of
general and public interests and values that may be related to the
Utility, Feasibility, Propriety, & Accuracy
Systematic Inquiry, Competence, Integrity/Honesty, Respect for People, Responsibilities for General & Public Welfare
Five Guiding Principles for Evaluators
Respect for People,
General & Public
Four Program Evaluation Standards
Describe Program Evaluation
5 Guiding Principles
Ensure Use & Share Lessons
Data Collection Plan
5 Guiding Principles
Data & Gather Evidence
When conducting program evaluations, we must always remember the words of wisdom coined by a famous scientific researcher and evaluator:
“Not everything that can be counted counts…and
not everything that counts can be counted.”