Dictionary and translator for handheld
New : sensagent is now available on your handheld
A windows (pop-into) of information (full-content of Sensagent) triggered by double-clicking any word on your webpage. Give contextual explanation and translation from your sites !
With a SensagentBox, visitors to your site can access reliable information on over 5 million pages provided by Sensagent.com. Choose the design that fits your site.
Improve your site content
Add new content to your site from Sensagent by XML.
Crawl products or adds
Get XML access to reach the best products.
Index images and define metadata
Get XML access to fix the meaning of your metadata.
Please, email us to describe your idea.
Lettris is a curious tetris-clone game where all the bricks have the same square shape but different content. Each square carries a letter. To make squares disappear and save space for other squares you have to assemble English words (left, right, up, down) from the falling squares.
Boggle gives you 3 minutes to find as many words (3 letters or more) as you can in a grid of 16 letters. You can also try the grid of 16 letters. Letters must be adjacent and longer words score better. See if you can get into the grid Hall of Fame !
Change the target language to find translations.
Tips: browse the semantic fields (see From ideas to words) in two languages to learn more.
1.an approximate calculation of quantity or degree or worth"an estimate of what it would cost" "a rough idea how long it would take"
2.act of ascertaining or fixing the value or worth of
3.an appraisal of the value of something"he set a high valuation on friendship"
1.(MeSH)Studies determining the effectiveness or value of processes, personnel, and equipment, or the material on conducting such studies. For drugs and devices, CLINICAL TRIALS; DRUG EVALUATION; and DRUG EVALUATION, PRECLINICAL are available.
EvaluationE*val`u*a"tion (?), n. [Cf. F. évaluation, LL. evaluatio.] Valuation; appraisement. J. S. Mill.
Critique (MeSH), Evaluation Indexes (MeSH), Evaluation Methodology (MeSH), Evaluation Report (MeSH), Evaluation Research (MeSH), Evaluation Studies as Topic (MeSH), Methodology, Evaluation (MeSH), Pre-Post Tests (MeSH), Qualitative Evaluation (MeSH), Quantitative Evaluation (MeSH), Theoretical Effectiveness (MeSH), Use-Effectiveness (MeSH)
Computer Systems Evaluation • Disability Evaluation • Drug Evaluation • Drug Evaluation Studies • Drug Evaluation, FDA Phase 1 • Drug Evaluation, FDA Phase 2 as Topic • Drug Evaluation, FDA Phase 3 as Topic • Drug Evaluation, FDA Phase 4 as Topic • Drug Evaluation, FDA Phase I • Drug Evaluation, FDA Phase I as Topic • Drug Evaluation, FDA Phase II as Topic • Drug Evaluation, FDA Phase III as Topic • Drug Evaluation, FDA Phase IV as Topic • Drug Evaluation, Preclinical • Drug Utilization Evaluation • Evaluation Indexes • Evaluation Methodology • Evaluation Report • Evaluation Research • Evaluation Research, Nursing • Evaluation Studies • Evaluation Studies as Topic • Evaluation Studies, FDA Phase 1 • Evaluation Studies, FDA Phase 2 as Topic • Evaluation Studies, FDA Phase 3 as Topic • Evaluation Studies, FDA Phase 4 as Topic • Evaluation Studies, FDA Phase I • Evaluation Studies, FDA Phase II as Topic • Evaluation Studies, FDA Phase III as Topic • Evaluation Studies, FDA Phase IV as Topic • Evaluation Studies, Nursing • Evaluation Studies, Postmarketing • Evaluation, Drug Utilization • Evaluation, Nursing Program • Evaluation, Program • Evaluation, Work Capacity • Health Care Evaluation Mechanisms • Health Services Evaluation • Healthcare Evaluation Mechanisms • Methodology, Evaluation • Nurses Performance Evaluation • Nursing Evaluation Research • Nursing Program Evaluation • Program Evaluation • Program Evaluation, Nursing • Qualitative Evaluation • Quantitative Evaluation • Research, Nursing Evaluation • Self-Evaluation Programs • Work Capacity Evaluation • aid evaluation • diagnostic evaluation • evaluation method • evaluation of resources • expert evaluation • formative evaluation • project evaluation • second evaluation • summative evaluation
1st Combat Evaluation Group • 31st Test and Evaluation Squadron • 337th Test and Evaluation Squadron • 422d Test and Evaluation Squadron • 431st Test and Evaluation Squadron • 4477th Tactical Evaluation Flight • 49th Test and Evaluation Squadron • 53d Test and Evaluation Group • 53d Weapons Evaluation Group • 72d Test and Evaluation Squadron • 85th Test and Evaluation Squadron • Afghanistan Research and Evaluation Unit (AREU) • Air Force Operational Test and Evaluation Center • American Evaluation Association • Andhra Pradesh Randomized Evaluation Studies (APRESt) • Assessment and Evaluation Commission • Atlantic Undersea Test and Evaluation Center • Australian Drug Evaluation Committee • Bilingual Evaluation Understudy • Biographical evaluation • Biological Indicator Evaluation Resistometer • California Earthquake Prediction Evaluation Council • California Environmental Resources Evaluation System • Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research • Center for Drug Evaluation and Research • Center for the Evaluation of Risks to Human Reproduction • Comparison of normal-order evaluation and applicative-order evaluation • Comparison of usability evaluation methods • Competency evaluation • Competency evaluation (law) • Conservation Reporting and Evaluation System • Course evaluation • Daedalus Research Evaluation and Development Corporation • Defence Evaluation and Research Agency • Director, Program Analysis and Evaluation • Eager evaluation • Educational evaluation • Electronic Distributed Monitoring and Evaluation Solution • European Union System for the Evaluation of Substances • Evaluation (disambiguation) • Evaluation (workplace) • Evaluation Apprehension model • Evaluation Assurance Level • Evaluation Day • Evaluation approaches • Evaluation function • Evaluation of machine translation • Evaluation of the Rio de Janeiro bid for the 2016 Summer Olympics • Evaluation operator • Evaluation strategy • Fatality Assessment and Control Evaluation (FACE) • Fire Safety Evaluation System • Formation evaluation • Formation evaluation gamma ray • Formation evaluation neutron porosity • Formative evaluation • Graphical Evaluation and Review Technique • Gulf of evaluation • Hand evaluation • Hay job evaluation • Health Hazard Evaluation Program • Heuristic evaluation • Hydrologic Evaluation of Landfill Performance • IR evaluation • Immanent evaluation • Impact and evaluation of Western European colonialism and colonization • Impact evaluation • Independent Evaluation Group • Interactive Customer Evaluation • International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement • International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation • International Council on Educational Credential Evaluation • International Test and Evaluation Association • Iris Challenge Evaluation (ICE) • Job evaluation • Joint Air Delivery Test and Evaluation Unit • Joint Committee on Standards for Educational Evaluation • Kawabata Evaluation System • Lazy evaluation • MEASURE Evaluation • Marine Corps Operational Test and Evaluation Activity • Media evaluation • Narrative evaluation • National Centre for the Evaluation of Photoprotection • National Institute of Technology and Evaluation • National Institution for Academic Degrees and University Evaluation • Nebraska Diagnostic and Evaluation Center • Non-destructive evaluation • Normalization by evaluation • Operational Test and Evaluation Directorate • Operational Test and Evaluation Force • Operations Evaluation Department • Partial evaluation • Performance Evaluation • Post occupancy evaluation • Program Evaluation and Review Technique • Program evaluation • Programs Evaluation Office • Psychological evaluation • Railway Evaluation Act • Re-evaluation Counseling • Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals • Remote evaluation • Research, Development, and Evaluation Commission • Reservoir evaluation • Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors • Self-evaluation maintenance theory • Self-evaluation motives • Service Evaluation System • Short-circuit evaluation • Society of Petroleum Evaluation Engineers • Source evaluation • Standard Performance Evaluation Corporation • Standards Performance Evaluation Corporation • Supplier evaluation • Symbolic Trajectory Evaluation • Technology Evaluation Centers • Test d'évaluation du français • Trusted Computer System Evaluation Criteria • Tsunami Evaluation Coalition • Uniform Evaluation • United States Army Test and Evaluation Command • World Bank Director-General Evaluation • Zeta multi-evaluation algorithm
Evaluation (n.) [MeSH]
action de fixer un prix (fr)[Classe]
croyance (action ou chose) (fr)[Classe]
état affectif, sentiment, opinion... (fr)[ClasseParExt.]
orientation d'une pensée (fr)[Classe]
action de (ou fait d'être) (fr)[Classe...]
indicateur d'une mesure (fr)[Classe]
aggregate; total; result[Classe]
déterminer un prix (fr)[DomaineCollocation]
evaluation; budget; estimate; calculation; approximation[ClasseHyper.]
action de (ou fait d'être) (fr)[Classe...]
déterminer un prix (fr)[DomaineCollocation]
calculate, cipher, compute, cypher, figure, reckon, reckon up, work out - account, calculate - computational - estimate, estimation - judgement, judging, judgment - approximation, assessment, estimate, estimation, evaluation, idea - appraisal, estimate, estimation - assumption, conjecture, guess, hypothesis, impression, presumption, speculation, supposition, surmisal, surmise, theory, verge - estimate - evaluator, judge - guesser - approximate, approximative, broad, rough[Dérivé]
estimate, evaluate, judge, pass judgment - judge - judge, label, pronounce - judgmental - evaluation, rating - evaluation, rating, valuation - amount, measure, quantity - measure, measurement, measuring, mensuration - measure, measuring rod, measuring stick - value, worth - appraisal, assessment - appraiser, valuator - valuer - appraiser, authenticator - evaluator, judge - assessor, tax assessor - economic value, value - appraising, evaluative - assessable[Dérivé]
assessment, judgement, judgment[Hyper.]
appraise, assess, evaluate, measure, valuate, value - evaluation, rating - evaluation, rating, valuation - amount, measure, quantity - measure, measurement, measuring, mensuration - measure, measuring rod, measuring stick - value, worth - appraisal, assessment - appraiser, valuator - valuer - appraiser, authenticator - evaluator, judge - assessor, tax assessor - economic value, value - appraising, evaluative - assessable[Dérivé]
Evaluation is a systematic determination of a subject's merit, worth and significance, using criteria governed by a set of standards. It can assist an organization to ascertain the degree of achievement or value in regards to the aim and objectives of an undertaken project. The primary purpose of evaluation, in addition to gaining insight into prior or existing initiatives, is to enable reflection and assist in the identification of future change.
Evaluation is often used to characterize and appraise subjects of interest in a wide range of human enterprises, including the arts, criminal justice, foundations, non-profit organizations, government, health care and other human services.
Evaluation is the comparison of actual impacts against strategic plans. It looks at original objectives, at what was accomplished and how it was accomplished. It can be formative, that is taking place during the life of a project or organization, with the intention of improving the strategy or way of functioning of the project or organisation. It can also be summative, drawing lessons from a completed project or an organisation that is no longer functioning.
Evaluation is inherently a theoretically informed approach (whether explicitly or not), and consequently a definition of evaluation would have be tailored to the theory, approach, needs, purpose and methodology of the evaluation itself. Having said this, evaluation has been defined as:
The main purpose of a program evaluation can be to "determine the quality of a program by formulating a judgment" Marthe Hurteau,Sylvain Houle,Stéphanie Mongiat (2009).
An alternative view is that "projects, evaluators and other stakeholders (including funders) will all have potentially different ideas about how best to evaluate a project since each may have a different definition of ‘merit’. The core of the problem is thus about defining what is of value." From this perspective, evaluation "is a contested term", as "evaluators" use the term evaluation to describe an assessment, or investigation of a program whilst others simply understand evaluation as being synonymous with applied research.
There are two function considering to the evaluation purpose Formative Evaluations provide the information on the improving a product or a process Summative Evaluations provide information of short-term effectiveness or long-term impact to deciding the adoption of a product or process.
Not all evaluations serve the same purpose some evaluations serve a monitoring function rather than focusing solely on measurable program outcomes or evaluation findings and a full list of types of evaluations would be difficult to compile. This is because evaluation is not part of a unified theoretical framework, drawing on a number of disciplines, which include management and organisational theory, policy analysis, education, sociology, social anthropology, and social change.
Within the last three decades there have been tremendous theoretical and methodological developments within the field of evaluation. Despite its progress, there are still many fundamental problems faced by this field as "unlike medicine, evaluation is not a discipline that has been developed by practicing professionals over thousands of years, so we are not yet at the stage where we have huge encyclopaedias that will walk us through any evaluation step-by-step", or provide a clear definition of what evaluation entails (Davidson, 2005). It could therefore be argued that a key problem that evaluators face is the lack of a clear definition of evaluation, which may "underline why program evaluation is periodically called into question as an original process, whose primary function is the production of legitimate and justified judgments which serve as the bases for relevant recommendations." However, the strict adherence to a set of methodological assumptions may make the field of evaluation more acceptable to a mainstream audience but this adherence will work towards preventing evaluators from developing new strategies for dealing with the myriad problems that programs face.
It is claimed that only a minority of evaluation reports are used by the evaluand (client) (Datta, 2006). One justification of this is that "when evaluation findings are challenged or utilization has failed, it was because stakeholders and clients found the inferences weak or the warrants unconvincing" (Fournier and Smith, 1993). Some reasons for this situation may be the failure of the evaluator to establish a set of shared aims with the evaluand, or creating overly ambitious aims, as well as failing to compromise and incorporate the cultural differences of individuals and programs within the evaluation aims and process.
None of these problems are due to a lack of a definition of evaluation but are rather due to evaluators attempting to impose predisposed notions and definitions of evaluations on clients. The central reason for the poor utilization of evaluations is arguably[by whom?] due to the lack of tailoring of evaluations to suit the needs of the client, due to a predefined idea (or definition) of what an evaluation is rather than what the client needs are (House, 1980).
The development of a standard methodology for evaluation will require arriving at applicable ways of asking and stating the results of questions about ethics such as agent-principal, privacy, stakeholder definition, limited liability and could-the-money-be-spent-more-wisely issues.
||This section may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. No cleanup reason has been specified. Please help improve this section if you can; the talk page may contain suggestions.|
Depending on the topic of interest, there are professional groups that review the quality and rigor of evaluation processes.
Evaluating programs and projects, regarding their value and impact within the context they are implemented, can be ethically challenging. Evaluators may encounter complex, culturally specific systems resistant to external evaluation. Furthermore, the project organization or other stakeholders may be invested in a particular evaluation outcome. Finally, evaluators themselves may encounter "conflict of interest (COI)" issues, or experience interference or pressure to present findings that support a particular assessment.
General professional codes of conduct, as determined by the employing organization, usually cover three broad aspects of behavioral standards, and include inter-collegial relations (such as respect for diversity and privacy), operational issues (due competence, documentation accuracy and appropriate use of resources) and conflicts of interest (nepotism, accepting gifts and other kinds of favoritism). However, specific guidelines particular to the evaluator’s role that can be utilized in the management of unique ethical challenges are required. The Joint Committee on Standards for Educational Evaluation has developed standards for program, personnel and student evaluation. The Joint Committee standards are broken into four sections: Utility, Feasibility, Propriety and Accuracy. Various European institutions have also prepared their own standards, more or less related to those produced by the Joint Committee. They provide guidelines about basing value judgments on systematic inquiry, evaluator competence and integrity, respect for people, and regard for the general and public welfare.
The American Evaluation Association has created a set of Guiding Principles for evaluators. The order of these principles does not imply priority among them; priority will vary by situation and evaluator role. The principles run as follows:
Independence is attained through ensuring independence of judgment is upheld such that evaluation conclusions are not influenced or pressured by another party, and avoidance of conflict of interest, such that the evaluator does not have a stake in a particular conclusion. Conflict of interest is at issue particularly where funding of evaluations is provided by particular bodies with a stake in conclusions of the evaluation, and this is seen as potentially compromising the independence of the evaluator. Whilst it is acknowledged that evaluators may be familiar with agencies or projects that they are required to evaluate, independence requires that they not have been involved in the planning or implementation of the project. A declaration of interest should be made where any benefits or association with project are stated. Independence of judgment is required to be maintained against any pressures brought to bear on evaluators, for example, by project funders wishing to modify evaluations such that the project appears more effective than findings can verify.
Impartiality pertains to findings being a fair and thorough assessment of strengths and weaknesses of a project or program. This requires taking due input from all stakeholders involved and findings presented without bias and with a transparent, proportionate and persuasive link between findings and recommendations. Thus evaluators are required to delimit their findings to evidence. A mechanism to ensure impartiality is external and internal review. Such review is required of significant (determined in terms of cost or sensitivity) evaluations. The review is based on quality of work and the degree to which a demonstrable link is provided between findings and recommendations.
Transparency requires that stakeholders are aware of the reason for the evaluation, the criteria by which evaluation occurs and the purposes to which the findings will be applied. Access to the evaluation document should be facilitated through findings being easily readable, with clear explanations of evaluation methodologies, approaches, sources of information and costs incurred.
Furthermore, the international organizations such as the I.M.F. and the World Bank have independent evaluation functions. The various funds, programmes, and agencies of the United Nations has a mix of independent, semi-independent and self-evaluation functions, which have organized themselves as a system-wide UN Evaluation Group (UNEG), that works together to strengthen the function, and to establish UN norms and standards for evaluation. There is also an evaluation group within the OECD-DAC, which endeavors to improve development evaluation standards.
Evaluation approaches are conceptually distinct ways of thinking about, designing and conducting evaluation efforts. Many of the evaluation approaches in use today make truly unique contributions to solving important problems, while others refine existing approaches in some way.
Two classifications of evaluation approaches by House and Stufflebeam and Webster can be combined into a manageable number of approaches in terms of their unique and important underlying principles.[clarification needed]
House considers all major evaluation approaches to be based on a common ideology entitled liberal democracy. Important principles of this ideology include freedom of choice, the uniqueness of the individual and empirical inquiry grounded in objectivity. He also contends that they are all based on subjectivist ethics, in which ethical conduct is based on the subjective or intuitive experience of an individual or group. One form of subjectivist ethics is utilitarian, in which “the good” is determined by what maximizes a single, explicit interpretation of happiness for society as a whole. Another form of subjectivist ethics is intuitionist/pluralist, in which no single interpretation of “the good” is assumed and such interpretations need not be explicitly stated nor justified.
These ethical positions have corresponding epistemologies—philosophies for obtaining knowledge. The objectivist epistemology is associated with the utilitarian ethic; in general, it is used to acquire knowledge that can be externally verified (intersubjective agreement) through publicly exposed methods and data. The subjectivist epistemology is associated with the intuitionist/pluralist ethic and is used to acquire new knowledge based on existing personal knowledge, as well as experiences that are (explicit) or are not (tacit) available for public inspection. House then divides each epistemological approach into two main political perspectives. Firstly, approaches can take an elite perspective, focusing on the interests of managers and professionals; or they also can take a mass perspective, focusing on consumers and participatory approaches.
Stufflebeam and Webster place approaches into one of three groups, according to their orientation toward the role of values and ethical consideration. The political orientation promotes a positive or negative view of an object regardless of what its value actually is and might be—they call this pseudo-evaluation. The questions orientation includes approaches that might or might not provide answers specifically related to the value of an object—they call this quasi-evaluation. The values orientation includes approaches primarily intended to determine the value of an object—they call this true evaluation.
When the above concepts are considered simultaneously, fifteen evaluation approaches can be identified in terms of epistemology, major perspective (from House), and orientation. Two pseudo-evaluation approaches, politically controlled and public relations studies, are represented. They are based on an objectivist epistemology from an elite perspective. Six quasi-evaluation approaches use an objectivist epistemology. Five of them—experimental research, management information systems, testing programs, objectives-based studies and content analysis—take an elite perspective. Accountability takes a mass perspective. Seven true evaluation approaches are included. Two approaches, decision-oriented and policy studies, are based on an objectivist epistemology from an elite perspective. Consumer-oriented studies are based on an objectivist epistemology from a mass perspective. Two approaches—accreditation/certification and connoisseur studies—are based on a subjectivist epistemology from an elite perspective. Finally, adversary and client-centered studies are based on a subjectivist epistemology from a mass perspective.
The following table is used to summarize each approach in terms of four attributes—organizer, purpose, strengths, and weaknesses. The organizer represents the main considerations or cues practitioners use to organize a study. The purpose represents the desired outcome for a study at a very general level. Strengths and weaknesses represent other attributes that should be considered when deciding whether to use the approach for a particular study. The following narrative highlights differences between approaches grouped together.
|Summary of approaches for conducting evaluations|
|Organizer||Purpose||Key strengths||Key weaknesses|
|Politically controlled||Threats||Get, keep or increase influence, power or money.||Secure evidence advantageous to the client in a conflict.||Violates the principle of full & frank disclosure.|
|Public relations||Propaganda needs||Create positive public image.||Secure evidence most likely to bolster public support.||Violates the principles of balanced reporting, justified conclusions, & objectivity.|
|Experimental research||Causal relationships||Determine causal relationships between variables.||Strongest paradigm for determining causal relationships.||Requires controlled setting, limits range of evidence, focuses primarily on results.|
|Management information systems||Scientific efficiency||Continuously supply evidence needed to fund, direct, & control programs.||Gives managers detailed evidence about complex programs.||Human service variables are rarely amenable to the narrow, quantitative definitions needed.|
|Testing programs||Individual differences||Compare test scores of individuals & groups to selected norms.||Produces valid & reliable evidence in many performance areas. Very familiar to public.||Data usually only on testee performance, overemphasizes test-taking skills, can be poor sample of what is taught or expected.|
|Objectives-based||Objectives||Relates outcomes to objectives.||Common sense appeal, widely used, uses behavioral objectives & testing technologies.||Leads to terminal evidence often too narrow to provide basis for judging the value of a program.|
|Content analysis||Content of a communication||Describe & draw conclusion about a communication.||Allows for unobtrusive analysis of large volumes of unstructured, symbolic materials.||Sample may be unrepresentative yet overwhelming in volume. Analysis design often overly simplistic for question.|
|Accountability||Performance expectations||Provide constituents with an accurate accounting of results.||Popular with constituents. Aimed at improving quality of products and services.||Creates unrest between practitioners & consumers. Politics often forces premature studies.|
|Decision-oriented||Decisions||Provide a knowledge & value base for making & defending decisions.||Encourages use of evaluation to plan & implement needed programs. Helps justify decisions about plans & actions.||Necessary collaboration between evaluator & decision-maker provides opportunity to bias results.|
|Policy studies||Broad issues||Identify and assess potential costs & benefits of competing policies.||Provide general direction for broadly focused actions.||Often corrupted or subverted by politically motivated actions of participants.|
|Consumer-oriented||Generalized needs & values, effects||Judge the relative merits of alternative goods & services.||Independent appraisal to protect practitioners & consumers from shoddy products & services. High public credibility.||Might not help practitioners do a better job. Requires credible & competent evaluators.|
|Accreditation / certification||Standards & guidelines||Determine if institutions, programs, & personnel should be approved to perform specified functions.||Helps public make informed decisions about quality of organizations & qualifications of personnel.||Standards & guidelines typically emphasize intrinsic criteria to the exclusion of outcome measures.|
|Connoisseur||Critical guideposts||Critically describe, appraise, & illuminate an object.||Exploits highly developed expertise on subject of interest. Can inspire others to more insightful efforts.||Dependent on small number of experts, making evaluation susceptible to subjectivity, bias, and corruption.|
|Adversary Evaluation||“Hot” issues||Present the pro & cons of an issue.||Ensures balances presentations of represented perspectives.||Can discourage cooperation, heighten animosities.|
|Client-centered||Specific concerns & issues||Foster understanding of activities & how they are valued in a given setting & from a variety of perspectives.||Practitioners are helped to conduct their own evaluation.||Low external credibility, susceptible to bias in favor of participants.|
|Note. Adapted and condensed primarily from House (1978) and Stufflebeam & Webster (1980).|
Politically controlled and public relations studies are based on an objectivist epistemology from an elite perspective.[clarification needed] Although both of these approaches seek to misrepresent value interpretations about an object, they function differently from each other. Information obtained through politically controlled studies is released or withheld to meet the special interests of the holder, whereas public relations information creates a positive image of an object regardless of the actual situation. Despite the application of both studies in real scenarios, neither of these approaches is acceptable evaluation practice.
As a group, these five approaches represent a highly respected collection of disciplined inquiry approaches. They are considered quasi-evaluation approaches because particular studies legitimately can focus only on questions of knowledge without addressing any questions of value. Such studies are, by definition, not evaluations. These approaches can produce characterizations without producing appraisals, although specific studies can produce both. Each of these approaches serves its intended purpose well. They are discussed roughly in order of the extent to which they approach the objectivist ideal.
Accountability is popular with constituents because it is intended to provide an accurate accounting of results that can improve the quality of products and services. However, this approach quickly can turn practitioners and consumers into adversaries when implemented in a heavy-handed fashion.
Evaluation is methodologically diverse using both qualitative methods and quantitative methods, including case studies, survey research, statistical analysis, and model building among others. A more detailed list of methods, techniques and approaches for conducting evaluations would include the following:
|Find more about Evaluation on Wikipedia's sister projects:|
|Definitions and translations from Wiktionary
|Images and media from Commons
|Learning resources from Wikiversity
|News stories from Wikinews
|Quotations from Wikiquote
|Source texts from Wikisource
|Textbooks from Wikibooks