Compare methods

	Summative Evaluation	Process Evaluation
Field	Public Policy	Public Policy
Family	Process / pipeline	Process / pipeline
Year of origin	1967	2015
Originator	Michael Scriven	Health-promotion & MRC evaluation tradition (Saunders et al.; Moore et al.)
Type	Judgement-oriented evaluation function	Implementation-focused program evaluation
Seminal source	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	Moore, G. F., Audrey, S., Barker, M., Bond, L., Bonell, C., Hardeman, W., et al. (2015). Process evaluation of complex interventions: Medical Research Council guidance. BMJ, 350, h1258.
Aliases	Outcome Judgement Evaluation, Accountability Evaluation	Implementation Evaluation, Implementation Fidelity Evaluation, Program Process Evaluation
Related	4	3
Summary	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.	Process evaluation examines how a program or policy was actually implemented, rather than only whether it achieved its outcomes. It documents what was delivered, to whom, how much, how well and in what context, so that outcome findings can be interpreted correctly. By assessing implementation fidelity, dose, reach, and the mechanisms and contextual factors at work, process evaluation explains why an intervention succeeded or failed and distinguishes a flawed program theory from a sound theory that was poorly delivered. The UK Medical Research Council's 2015 guidance and earlier health-promotion frameworks consolidated it as a core component of evaluating complex interventions.