Assuring the quality of evaluative information: theory and practice

Algemene, 1990 Auditor General of Canada, 1983 Auditor general of Canada, 1986 Auditor General of Canada, 1993 Auditor General of Canada, 1996 Auditor General of Canada, 1997, Reporting performance in the expenditure management system Auditor General of Canada, 2000, Reporting performance to parliament: Progress too slow Australian National Audit Office, 1991 Australian National Audit Office, 1992 Australian National Audit Office, 1992 Australian National Audit Office, 1993 Australian National Audit Office, 1997 Bouckaert, 1993, Measurement and meaningful management, Public Productivity and Management Review, 17, 1, 10.2307/3381047 Boyle, R. (2004). Assessment of performance reports: A comparative perspective. In R. Schwartz, & J. Mayne (Eds.), Quality matters: Seeking confidence in evaluation, auditing and performance reporting. New Brunswick NJ: Transaction. Canadian Comprehensive Auditing Foundation. (2002). Reporting principles—Taking public performance reporting to a new level. CCAF-FCVI. Ottawa. Retrieved 14 July 2003 from http://www.ccaf-fcvi.com/english/reporting_principles_entry.html Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants. (2002). Management discussion and analysis: Guidance on preparation and disclosure. Review Draft. Retrieved 14 July 2003 from http://www.cica.ca/index.cfm/ci_id/10383/la_id/1.htm Chelimsky, 1983, The definition and measurement of evaluation quality as a management tool, 113 Chelimsky, 1987, The politics of program evaluation, Social Science and Modern Society, 25, 24 Coe, 1999, Local government benchmarking: lessons from two major multigovernment efforts, Public Administration Review, 59, 110, 10.2307/977631 CSE (Conseil scientifique de l'évaluation), 1996 Derlien, 2002, Policy evaluation in international comparison, 439 European Commission, 1999, Vol. 1 European Commission, 1999, SEC(1999)69/4—Communication from Mrs Gradin and Mr Liikanen in agreement with the President European Commission, 2000, SEC (2000)1051—Communication to the commission from Mrs Schreyer in agreement with Mr Kinnock and the President 2002 General Accounting Office, 1999 Government Accounting Standards Board. (2003). Reporting performance information: Suggested criteria for effective communication. Retrieved 30 January 2004 from http://www.gasb.org Grasso, P. (2004). Quality of evaluative information at the World Bank. In R. Schwartz, & J. Mayne (Eds.), Quality matters: Seeking confidence in evaluation, auditing and performance reporting. New Brunswick NJ: Transaction. Greene, 1990, Technical quality versus user responsiveness in evaluation practice, Evaluation and Program Planning, 13, 267, 10.1016/0149-7189(90)90057-4 House, 1987, The evaluation audit, Evaluation Practice, 8, 52, 10.1016/S0886-1633(87)80085-5 Institute of Public Administration Australia. (2001). The Judging Criteria. www.wa.ipaa.org.au/lonnie/criteria.html Joint Committee of Public Accounts of the Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia. (1989). Report 296, The auditor general: Ally of the people and parliament; Reform of the Australian Audit Office, Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service. Joint Committee on Standards for Educational Evaluation, 1994 Law, 2001, Accountability and annual reports: the case of policing, Public Policy and Administration, 16, 75, 10.1177/095207670101600105 Lonsdale, J. (2000). Advancing beyond regularity: Development in value for money methods at the National Audit Office 1984–1999 (unpublished PhD thesis, Brunel University). Lonsdale, J., & Mayne, J. (2004). Neat and tidy…and 100% correct: Assuring the quality of SAI performance audit work. In R. Schwartz, & J. Mayne, J. (Eds.), Quality matters: Seeking confidence in evaluation, auditing and performance reporting, New Brunswick NJ: Transaction. Muir, 1999, They blinded me with political science: On the use of nonpeer reviewed research in education policy. PS, Political Science and Politics, 32, 762, 10.2307/420172 National Academy of Public Administration. (1994). The roles, mission and operation of the US General Accounting Office. Report prepared for the Committee on Governmental Affairs, United States Senate. National Audit Office, 2001 New Zealand Controller and Auditor General. (2000). First Report for 2000. Wellington. New Zealand Controller and Auditor General. (2001). Reporting public sector performance. Wellington. 1987 Patel, 2002, A meta-evaluation, or quality assessment, of the evaluations in this issue, based on the African evaluation guidelines: 2002, Evaluation and Program Planning, 25, 329, 10.1016/S0149-7189(02)00043-5 Patton, 2001, Use as a criterion of quality in evaluation, Vol. 7, 155 Power, 1997 Schwandt, 1992, Constructing appropriate and useful metaevaluative frameworks: Further reflections on the ECAETC audit experience, Evaluation and Program Planning, 15, 95, 10.1016/0149-7189(92)90067-5 Schwandt, 1988 Schwartz, 1998, The politics of evaluation reconsidered: A comparative study of Israeli programs, Evaluation, 4, 294, 10.1177/13563899822208617 Schwartz, 1999, Coping with the effectiveness dilemma: Strategies adopted by state auditors, International Review of Administrative Sciences, 65, 511, 10.1177/0020852399654006 Segsworth, 2004, Auditing the evaluation function in Canada Smith, 1995, On the unintended consequences of publishing performance data in the public sector, International Journal of Public Administration, 18, 277, 10.1080/01900699508525011 Smith, 1999, Should AEA begin a process for restricting membership in the profession of evaluation, American Journal of Evaluation, 20, 521, 10.1177/109821409902000311 Stierhoff, K. 1999. The certification of program evaluators: A pilot survey of clients and employers. Retrieved 8 July 2003 from http://www.evaluationcanada.ca/txt/certification_survey_sep99.pdf Streib, 1999, Assessing the validity, legitimacy, and functionality of performance measurement systems in municipal governments, American Review of Public Administration, 29, 107, 10.1177/02750749922064300 Stufflebeam, D. L. (1974). Meta-evaluation. Kalamazoo, MI: Western Michigan University Evaluation Center. Occasional Paper Series #3. Stufflebeam, D. L. (2000). Guidelines for developing evaluation checklists [On-line]. Available: www.wmich.edu/evalctr/checklists/ Stufflebeam, 2001, Evaluation checklists: Practical tools for guiding and judging evaluations, American Journal of Evaluation, 22, 71, 10.1177/109821400102200107 Stufflebeam, 2001, The metaevaluation imperative, American Journal of Evaluation, 22, 183, 10.1177/109821400102200204 Toulemonde, J., Usher, N. & Summa-Pollitt, H. (2004). Triple check for top quality or triple burden?: Assessing EU evaluations. In R. Schwartz & J. Mayne (Eds.), Quality matters: Seeking confidence in evaluation, auditing and performance reporting. New Brunswick NJ: Transaction. Weiss, 1973, Where politics and evaluation research meet, Evaluation, 1, 37 Widmer, T., Landert, C., & Bachmann, N. (2000). Evaluations—Standards der Schweizerischen Evaluations gesellschaft (SEVAL-Standards). Bern/Genève: SEVAL. Widmer, T. (2004). Instruments and procedures for assuring evaluation quality: A Swiss perspective. In R. Schwartz & J. Mayne (Eds.), Quality matters: Seeking confidence in evaluation, auditing and performance reporting. New Brunswick NJ: Transaction. Wildavsky, 1972, The self-evaluating organization, Public Administration Review, 32, 509, 10.2307/975158 World Bank, 2002