← Back to catalogue
Research draft

evaluation

vr.tr.evaluation · ACT.PRC

Let an agent treat evaluation as a process with a subject, criteria, evidence, evaluator and use, and state findings with their basis and limits.

Thing Registry Activities and processes

Research draft, second pass

A second pass drafted this model: the structure a model of this thing needs, and what is known about it in the world. The line under this one says how the second half was obtained - researched against sources, or recalled without web access, in which case nothing here was read anywhere and every claim is a lead to verify. Unreviewed either way.

written by Claude from model knowledge without web access - no source was read, every claim is a lead to verify

Researched by: Claude

Purpose and description

Let an agent treat evaluation as a process with a subject, criteria, evidence, evaluator and use, and state findings with their basis and limits.

The systematic determination of the merit, worth or significance of something, such as a programme, product, policy, person or piece of work, using criteria and evidence.

What it is for: Judging quality and value to support decisions, accountability and learning.

It can be design and conduct it; commission it, from independent evaluators; use its findings, in decisions; challenge it, when method or independence is weak.

Distinguishing features

Judges value against criteria, not just describes

Needs evidence and a stated method

Independence affects credibility

Formative (to improve) or summative (to judge)

What it looks like

Reports, scores, ratings, assessments and impact assessments; the process itself involves data collection, analysis and judgement.

How it is recognised

A report with stated criteria, methods and findings

Named instruments such as data protection impact assessments or needs assessments

Ratings and scores are outputs, not the evaluation itself

Related models

uses - evidence gathering

measurement

produces - outputs

rating or report

is required by - some assessments are mandatory

law

is confused with - monitoring tracks, evaluation judges

monitoring

In practice

Families and kinds

programme and policy evaluation

impact assessment, including data protection impact assessment

needs assessment

research quality assessment

performance appraisal

health outcome assessment

Standards and regulation

OECD DAC evaluation criteria

GDPR Article 35 data protection impact assessment

National evaluation guidance such as the UK Magenta Book

Evaluation ethics codes

Failure modes and hazards

Criteria chosen to reach a desired answer

Lack of independence

Weak evidence presented as conclusive

Findings ignored

Also called

civil service commissiondata protection impact assessmentdocumentation fileresearch quality assessmentnutritional assessmentneeds assessmenthealth care outcome assessmentZertifikat Deutschfood gradingtea leaf gradingcomputer benchmarkingchicken egg sizesfootball ratingcontent ratingadvertisements rating systemself-applied content rating systemfilm ratingMāori social impact and program evaluationranked listevaluation studymedical ethical reviewhabilitationDoctor of Economicshabilitation to Supervise Researchauditionmilitary reviewcurrency gradingvaluationblind auditionscreen testforest valuationbusiness valuationcustoms valuationstock valuationinventory valuationpsychological evaluationtechnology assessmentart valuationLearning Designpsychopathological findings

+201

Where this came from

wikidata · CC0 1.0

Source repository Registry entry point

Also registered as vr.tr.evaluation

Drafted structure

Bundle to layer to finding to question, as the second pass will find it: 4 bundles · 8 layers · 8 findings · 16 questions.

Subject and purpose What is evaluated and why.

Purpose shapes design and use.

Subject

What is judged.

Subject

The subject of evaluation.

  1. What exactly is being evaluated? definition
  2. For what decision or purpose? definition

Type

Formative or summative, mandatory or voluntary.

Type

The kind of evaluation.

  1. Is this formative or summative? definition
  2. Is it legally required? provenance
Criteria and method How it judges.

Criteria and method determine credibility.

Criteria

Standards of judgement.

Criteria

Criteria used.

  1. Which criteria are applied, and who set them? provenance
  2. Are they appropriate for the purpose? boundary

Method and evidence

Data and analysis.

Method

Methods and evidence.

  1. What evidence and methods were used? provenance
  2. What are the main limitations? boundary
Evaluator Who evaluates.

Independence affects trust.

Independence

Conflicts of interest.

Independence

Independence of the evaluator.

  1. Who conducted the evaluation, and are they independent? provenance
  2. Were conflicts of interest declared? provenance

Competence

Qualification.

Competence

Qualifications of the evaluator.

  1. Are the evaluators qualified for this subject? provenance
  2. Was the evaluation peer reviewed? provenance
Findings and use What it concluded and what happened.

Findings matter when stated honestly and used.

Findings

Conclusions and strength.

Findings

Conclusions with confidence.

  1. What are the main findings, and how confident are they? measurement
  2. What was not assessed? boundary

Use

Decisions and follow-up.

Use

How findings were used.

  1. How have the findings been used? provenance
  2. Is the report public? provenance

What the second pass must settle

  • Should kinds of assessment be separate entries?
  • How should agents present evaluation findings with their strength?
  • How should mandatory assessments be linked to their legal basis?
Draft as JSON