So sánh phương pháp

	Đánh giá chương trình mang tính phê phán	Đánh giá Chương trình
Lĩnh vực	Phương pháp thực địa	Phương pháp thực địa
Họ	Process / pipeline	Process / pipeline
Năm ra đời	1970s–1990s (deliberative democratic strand formalised ~1999; transformative paradigm ~2009)	1960s–1970s (Scriven 1967; Stufflebeam CIPP model 1971)
Người khởi xướng	Ernest House, Ken Howe, Donna Mertens (transformative/deliberative democratic evaluation traditions)	Michael Scriven; Daniel Stufflebeam; Peter Rossi
Loại	Qualitative/mixed-methods evaluation approach	Applied evaluation methodology
Công trình gốc	Mertens, D. M. (2009). Transformative Research and Evaluation. Guilford Press. ISBN: 978-1606230787	Rossi, P. H., Lipsey, M. W., & Freeman, H. E. (2004). Evaluation: A Systematic Approach (7th ed.). Sage. ISBN: 978-0761908944
Tên gọi khác	critical evaluation, emancipatory evaluation, critical-emancipatory program evaluation, transformative evaluation	evaluation research, program assessment, educational evaluation, systematic program evaluation
Liên quan	4	3
Tóm tắt	Critical program evaluation is an approach to assessing programs that integrates critical theory with standard evaluation methods. It moves beyond measuring whether a program met its stated objectives to interrogating whose interests the program serves, how power and privilege shape its design and outcomes, and whether it advances or hinders equity and social justice. The approach draws on deliberative democratic evaluation (House and Howe) and the transformative paradigm (Mertens), treating evaluation as an inherently value-laden, politically situated practice.	Program evaluation is a systematic, empirically grounded process of collecting and analyzing information about a program to determine its merit, worth, or significance. Applied across education, public health, social services, and policy, it addresses questions such as whether a program is reaching its target population, whether it is being implemented as designed, and whether it is producing the intended outcomes. It draws on both quantitative and qualitative methods and serves accountability, improvement, or knowledge-generation purposes.