Useful to whom? Evaluation utilisation theory and boundaries for programme evaluation scope
Bibliographic record
Abstract
CONTEXT: Programme evaluation is perpetually mandated in health professions education. Correspondingly, there has been an expansion in prescriptive methodological guides about 'how' to engage in various best practices in evaluation. However, what has gained less attention is an examination of the 'value' that different stakeholders seek to gain from programme evaluation. Evaluation utilisation theory and research can help us understand the diversity in both the driving forces for and the impact of programme evaluation. Awareness of the heterogeneity of evaluation utilisation priorities has implications for evaluation practices, including both methodological choices and understanding of the impact of programme evaluation in our field. METHODS: In this article, I expound on the concept of evaluation utilisation by drawing on evaluation theory and research. 'Evaluation utilisation' refers to the application of programme evaluation processes and findings to influence thinking and action. Herein, different forms of 'evaluation utilisation' (including instrumental, conceptual, process and persuasive (symbolic and legitimative) utilisation) are discussed, as well as the related concept of 'evaluation misuse'. Furthermore, how the prioritisation of different forms of 'evaluation utilisation' can influence the scope and impact of evaluation scholarship are also discussed. CONCLUSIONS: Programme evaluation is a form of inquiry that requires more than the exercise of robust methodological techniques. Rather, it necessitates attention to the, sometimes divergent, priorities of different stakeholder groups. Although there is scant research on evaluation practices in health professions education, evaluation utilisation theory can inform critical examination of evaluation practices and impact in our field. Critically, understanding this body of work can help inform those engaged in evaluation about what they are (or should be) prioritising when they conduct programme evaluation, and better align evaluation methodologies with their scholarly, curricular and administrative intentions. Implications for future research and high-quality, transparent evaluation scholarship are presented.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.300 | 0.418 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.080 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.028 | 0.045 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.023 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".