Methoden vergleichen
Prüfen Sie die ausgewählten Methoden nebeneinander; abweichende Zeilen sind hervorgehoben.
| Results-Based Accountability× | Summative Evaluation× | |
|---|---|---|
| Fachgebiet | Public Policy | Public Policy |
| Familie | Process / pipeline | Process / pipeline |
| Entstehungsjahr≠ | 2005 | 1967 |
| Urheber≠ | Mark Friedman | Michael Scriven |
| Typ≠ | Performance accountability and measurement framework | Judgement-oriented evaluation function |
| Wegweisende Quelle≠ | Friedman, M. (2005). Trying Hard Is Not Good Enough: How to Produce Measurable Improvements for Customers and Communities. Victoria, BC: Trafford Publishing. ISBN: 9781439237861 | Scriven, M. (1967). The methodology of evaluation. In R. W. Tyler, R. M. Gagné, & M. Scriven (Eds.), Perspectives of Curriculum Evaluation (pp. 39–83). Chicago: Rand McNally. ISBN: 9780528616600 |
| Aliasnamen≠ | RBA, Outcomes-Based Accountability, OBA, Friedman Results-Based Accountability | Outcome Judgement Evaluation, Accountability Evaluation |
| Verwandt | 4 | 4 |
| Zusammenfassung≠ | Results-Based Accountability (RBA), also known as Outcomes-Based Accountability, is a disciplined performance framework developed by Mark Friedman and set out in his 2005 book Trying Hard Is Not Good Enough. It provides a simple, common-sense method for moving from talk about results to measurable action, organised around a sharp distinction between population accountability — the wellbeing of whole populations in a place — and performance accountability — how well a specific program, agency or service is doing. For each, RBA asks the same disciplined set of questions and drives toward concrete actions that 'turn the curve' on key indicators. | Summative evaluation is evaluation conducted to render an overall judgement of a program, policy or product — its merit, worth, effectiveness or impact — typically after it has been implemented or has matured. Named by Michael Scriven in his 1967 essay 'The Methodology of Evaluation' as the counterpart to formative evaluation, its purpose is to inform consequential decisions: whether to continue, expand, replicate, defund or certify an intervention. It addresses the bottom-line question 'did it work, and was it worth it?' for audiences such as funders, policymakers and the public. |
| ScholarGateDatensatz ↗ |
|
|