Abstract
This paper sheds light on the issue of how psychology is involved in program evaluation. Several contributions of psychology to this methodological discipline are discussed. Using examples taken from the evaluation of European human-resources programs, the authors emphasize the role of behavioral and subjective variables. Also, the paper contends that the fundamental types of use debated in the evaluation literature can be enriched and clarified if notions from psychological theory are used. Finally, it is pointed out that although psychology is one of the social sciences traditionally involved in program evaluation, in the European context, psychologists seem to be almost absent from the evaluation of European programs. It is therefore suggested that European psychology and psychologists must make their presence more strongly felt in program evaluation.
References
(1993). Indirekte Auswirkungen der Arbeitslosigkeit. NZZ, 214, 27.
American Evaluation Association (1995). Membership directory. Greensboro, NC: AEA.(1992). Konzepte und Probleme der Evaluation aktiver Arbeitsmarktpolitik am Beispiel Fortbildung und Umschulung. MittAB, 25, 381-405.
(1994). Zu den psycho-sozialen Folgen der Arbeitslosigkeit in den neuen Bundesländern. Aus Politik und Zeitgeschichte, 16, (fs24), 16-28.
(1996). Increasing condom use: Evaluation of a theory-based intervention to prevent sexually transmitted diseases in young women. Health Psychology, 15, 371-382.
(1994). Evaluer les effets des dispositifs d'insertion pour les jeunes et les chòmeurs de longue durée. Un bilan méthodologique. Documents-Synthèse no. 98, CEREQ.
(1984). Can we be scientific in applied social sciences?. In R.F. ConnerD.G. AltmanC. JacksonEds., Evaluation studies (Review Annual, Vol. 9, pp. 26-48). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
(1985). Postpositivism critical multiplism. In L. ShotlandM.V. MarkEds., Social science and social policy. Palo Alto, CA: Sage.
(1985). Program evaluation. In G. LindzeyE. AronsonEds., Handbook of social psychology (3rd ed.). New York: Random House.
(1982). Designing evaluations of educational and social programs. San Francisco: Sage.
(1989). Message strategies for information campaigns: A social-psychological analysis. In C.T. SalmonEd., Information campaigns: Balancing social values and social change (pp. 229-258). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
European Commission (1996). Evaluation. (internal document). Brussels: Author.(1985). Psychological assessment and evaluability assessment. Psychological Assessment, 1–2, 5–14.
(1992). A model for planning evaluation research. In J. MayneM.L. Bemelmand-VidecJ. HudsonR. ConnerEds., Advancing public policy evaluation (pp. 205-213). Amsterdam: North-Holland.
(1996). Evaluability assessment and policy cycle: Measuring evaluability. In CEDEFOP (Ed.), Evaluation of European training, employment and human resource programs (pp. 75-81). Thessaloniki: European Centre for Development of Vocational Training.
(1990). Technology and the politics of expertise. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
(1993). Perspectives on budgeting, auditing, and evaluation: An introduction. In A. GrayB. JenkinsB. SesgswothEds., Budgeting, auditing, and evaluation (pp. 1-18). London: Transaction Pub.
Joint Committe on Standards for Evaluation (1994). The Program evaluation standards. Thousand Oaks: Sage.(1991). Zur Wirksamkeit von Fortbildungs- und Umschulungsmaßnahmen. Eine kritische Auseinandersetzung mit den Untersuchungen des Instituts für Arbeitsmarkt- und Berufsforschung. MittAB, 24, 317-332.
(1990). Evaluating AIDS prevention: Contributions of multiple disciplines. New Direction for Program Evaluation, 46. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Means (1995a). Organising intermediate evaluation in the context of partnerships. Handbook No. 1. Brussels: European Commission, Regional Policy and Cohesion.Means (1995b). Identifying the structuring effects of community interventions. Handbook No. 2. Brussels: European Commission, Regional Policy and Cohesion.(1989). Theoretical foundations of campaigns. In R.E. RiceC.K. AtkinEds., Public communication campaigns (pp. 45-65). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
(1987). Politics and evaluation. In D.J. PalumboEd., The politics of program evaluation. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
(1990). AIDS prevention: A public health psychology perspective. In L.C. LevitonA.M. HegedusA. KubrinEds., Evaluating AIDS prevention: Contributions of multiple disciplines. New Direction for Program Evaluation, 46. period; San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
(1993). Participation in further education over the life course. A longitudinal study of three birth cohorts in the Federal Republic of Germany. Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin für Sozialforschung, Discussion paper FS I 93-205, Berlin.
(1994). Evaluation ideologies. In R.F. ConnerD.G. AltmanC. JacksonEds., Evaluation studies (Review Annual, Vol. 9, pp. 49-80). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
(1995). Evaluation der Gemeinschaftsinitiative HORIZON in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland. Berlin: Forschungsstelle für Berufsbildung, Arbeitsmarkt und Evaluation, FHVR.
(1996). Evaluierung des Einsatzes von ESF-Mitteln in den neuen Bundesländern. Operationelles Programm des Bundes 1991-1993. Berlin: Forschungsstelle für Berufsbildung, Arbeitsmarkt und Evaluation, FHVR.
(1950). Basic principles of curriculum and instruction. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
(1992). Computer-assisted assessment: A normative perspective. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 8, 1-16.
(1997). Public policy and program evaluation. New Brunswick, NJ/London: Transaction Publishers. (Also published in Spanish as Política Pública y Evaluación de Programas. (1997). Madrid: Instituto Nacional de Servicios Sociales (INSERSO).
(1979). The many meanings of research utilization. Public Administration Review, 39, 426-431.
(1981). Measuring the use of evaluation. In J.A. CiarloEd., Utilizing evaluation: Concepts and measurement techniques (pp. 17-23). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
(1991). Social knowledge and public policy: Eight models of interaction. In P. WagnerEd., Social sciences and modern states: National experiences and theoretical crossroads (pp. 333-353). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
