Formative Evaluation
Also known as: Improvement-Oriented Evaluation, Developmental Improvement Evaluation
Formative evaluation is evaluation conducted to improve a program, policy or product while it is still being developed or refined. The term was coined by Michael Scriven in his 1967 essay 'The Methodology of Evaluation', alongside its counterpart summative evaluation. Where summative evaluation renders a final verdict on a completed intervention, formative evaluation feeds timely information back to designers and implementers so they can fix problems, adjust components and strengthen the intervention before it is finalised or scaled.
Key highlights
- Enables timely course corrections while changes are still cheap and feasible.
- Improves program quality and implementation fidelity before a summative judgement or scale-up.
- Produces actionable, decision-focused feedback rather than a retrospective verdict.
- Reduces the risk of investing heavily in a flawed design by catching problems early.
Intuition
This section is available to Pro members. Upgrade to Pro
How it works
This section is available to Pro members. Upgrade to Pro
When to use it
Use formative evaluation during the design, pilot or early implementation of a program, when the goal is to improve it before a final judgement or scale-up. It is appropriate when the model is stable enough to assess and refine but not yet ready for a summative verdict, and when developers can and will act on feedback. It assumes there is still room to change the intervention and time to do so. It is the wrong choice when a definitive judgement of merit, worth or impact is required (use summative evaluation), or when the intervention is a genuinely emergent innovation with no stable model to improve, in which case developmental evaluation is the better fit. It pairs naturally with process evaluation, which supplies much of the implementation evidence.
Strengths & limitations
- Enables timely course corrections while changes are still cheap and feasible.
- Improves program quality and implementation fidelity before a summative judgement or scale-up.
- Produces actionable, decision-focused feedback rather than a retrospective verdict.
- Reduces the risk of investing heavily in a flawed design by catching problems early.
- Does not establish whether the program ultimately works or estimate its impact.
- Findings are tied to a developing version of the program and may not generalise to the final form.
- Rapid, iterative data collection often trades methodological rigour for timeliness.
- Continual feedback can encourage scope creep or destabilise a program if changes are made without discipline.
Common pitfalls
This section is available to Pro members. Upgrade to Pro
Applications
This section is available to Pro members. Upgrade to Pro
Frequently asked
What is the difference between formative and summative evaluation?
Formative evaluation is conducted to improve a program while it is still being developed; its audience is the developers and its currency is timely, actionable feedback. Summative evaluation is conducted to judge a completed program's merit, worth or impact; its audience is decision-makers and funders, and its currency is a defensible verdict. Scriven coined both terms together in 1967, and a single evaluation effort often moves from formative work during development to summative assessment once the program stabilises.
Is formative evaluation the same as process evaluation?
They overlap but are not identical. Process evaluation examines how a program is implemented — its activities, reach, fidelity and delivery — and can serve either formative or summative purposes. Formative evaluation is defined by its improvement purpose rather than its focus, and it frequently draws on process-evaluation data to identify what to fix. In practice formative evaluation often is process evaluation used to improve a developing program, but formative work can also examine early outcomes, not just process.
When should formative evaluation give way to summative evaluation?
Once the program has stabilised into a reasonably fixed model and the key question shifts from 'how do we improve this?' to 'does this work and is it worth continuing or scaling?', it is time for summative evaluation. Moving to summative judgement too early risks condemning a program still being refined; staying formative too long delays the accountability verdict funders need. The transition is a deliberate decision, often built into a program's evaluation plan as it matures.
Sources
- 1.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
You have read it. What now?
Cite this page
ScholarGate. (2026, June 22). Formative Evaluation. ScholarGate. https://scholargate.app/public-policy/formative-evaluation