Amy Gullickson & Wes Martz – Interdisciplinary Evaluation Doctoral Students; Michael Scriven – Professor of Philosophy, Associate Director of The Evaluation Center, and Interdiscipinary Ph.D. in Evaluation Program Director, WMU,
Evaluation Center: February 12, 2008
Every year at least 40,000 people in the U.S. are victims of medical errors resulting in severe injury or death. The TriCorridor Center of Excellence in Simulation Research, housed at WMU’s College of Aviation, is attempting to reduce that number. Our efforts involve the use of simulations conducted in hospitals, which re-create real-life situations in order to evaluate the performance of medical professionals in terms of teamwork skills rather than technical medical skills. This presentation will discuss the challenges of creating a taxonomy, developing scales, and training raters for this project.
This paper explores how evaluative tools such as needs assessment, after-action review, and minimum specification documents can be used to help increase employee satisfaction and performance and thus, results for shareholders.
Building Shareholder Value Using Formative Evaluation (Wes Martz)
The use of formal evaluation as a tool to drive value from improved operational efficiency presents an opportunity to strengthen an organization’s performance and shareholder value. This presentation explores the application of evaluation outside the scope of human resource development initiatives and considers evaluation as a tool to build shareholder value. Specifically, a case study of a formative evaluation conducted at an operating division of a U.S.-based global manufacturer of industrial products is presented.
The Evaluator's Responsibility for the Consequences of an Evaluation (Michael Scriven)
Evaluations often have consequences, some intended, some unintended. The hard questions concern the extent to which the evaluator is responsible for these consequences. If the evaluation concludes with recommendations, then it's reasonable to suppose, and it's legally likely, that the evaluator will be held (at least partly) responsible for those consequences. But the much more fundamental question is how a typical evaluative conclusion can imply consequences at all. I will examine the traps that evaluatorshave fallen into when too-quickly moving from evaluative conclusions to recommendations, and indicate how and when to avoid the traps – or to avoid making recommendations.
Loading more stuff…
Hmm…it looks like things are taking a while to load. Try again?