Goal-Free Evaluation: A Potential Model for the Evaluation of Social Work Programs

Author(s): Brandon W. Youker

Source: Social Work Research , December 2013, Vol. 37, No. 4 (December 2013), pp. 432-
438
Published by: Oxford University Press

Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/42659884

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

Oxford University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
Social Work Research

This content downloaded from

182.1.116.57 on Tue, 13 Oct 2020 03:38:19 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Goal-Free Evaluation: A Potential Model for the
Evaluation of Social Work Programs
Brandon W Youker

Goal-free evaluation (GFE) is an evaluation model in which the evaluator is deliberately

kept from the stated (or implied) goals and objectives of the program; this is accomplished
by appointing a screener to keep goal-related information from the goal-free evaluator.
Screening the evaluator from program goals is designed to control bias inherent in goal-
based evaluation (GBE), a bias that contaminates the evaluator's ability to see the program's
true outcomes and true merit. Although GFE has been in use for more than half a century,
the literature on GFE remains sparse and highly theoretical and GBE continues to dominate
evaluation practice. This article introduces social workers to GFE, provides a brief history of
the model, discusses some of the theoretical arguments for and against it, and then attempts
to articulate actual principles and operations for conducting a GFE.

KEY WORDS: consumer ; evaluation; goal ; goal based ; goal free

Consumers are considered successful when they

ously and convincingly described the rea- actively progress toward and achieve these goals
Social sons ouslysons
for forworkevaluating
and evaluating convincingly
social work programs evaluation social literature described work has programs the previ- rea- and objectives. Therefore, it is natural to continue
(compare Brown, McCloskey, Galpin, Keen, & this goal-based thinking when evaluating social
Immins, 2008; Brun, 2005; DePoy & Gilson, work programs. However, goal orientation is wor-
2003; Dudley, 2009; Gardner, 2000; Ginsberg, thy of investigation. To what degree does an evalu-
2001; Grinnell, Gabor, & Unrau, 2010; Neil & ator consider or accept the goals and objectives that
Sellick, 2001; Qureshi, 1998; Shaw & Lishman, were established by upstream stakeholders, includ-
2005). However, probably the single greatest ing the program administration, management, staff,
endorsement for furthering evaluation study and designers, and funders (Davidson, 2005)?
use is the NASW Code of Ethics "Evaluation and A goal-free evaluation (GFE) refers to an evalua-
Research" (NASW, 2008). According to the code, tion in which the evaluator intentionally avoids
social workers have a responsibility to the client as learning the official or stated goals and objectives;
"clients' interests are primary." The evaluation rather, the evaluator observes and measures all
approach discussed throughout this article embodies actual outcomes and judges the program according
NASW's focus on social work clients. With this
to its positive and negative effects, outcomes, or
approach, the evaluator is concerned solely with
impact on its consumers. Goals and objectives are
the needs and interests of the programs' clients (or
useful tools for program administrators and manag-
consumers) rather than with the needs of the ers; however, for the evaluator, the focus on goals
administrators, managers, and staff; the evaluator
and objectives may prevent him or her from recog-
judges the program according to the actual effects
nizing relevant unintended positive and negative
it produces on its consumers. side effects. Thus, to aid the goal-free evaluator in
Historically, social work evaluation has been
conceiving and then observing all possible areas for
effects and outcomes, he or she is screened from all
heavily goal-oriented, evidenced by the fact that
goals are nearly always discussed in social work
goal-oriented information. The remainder of this
evaluation texts (for example, Brun, 2005; DePoyarticle introduces social workers to this lesser
& Gilson, 2003; Dudley, 2009; Ginsberg, 2001; known and rarely used evaluation model, offers
Grinnell & Unrau, 201 1). A budding social worker
a brief history of the model, articulates its four
methodological principles, examines the first of
learns to help consumers set, strive for, and hope-
fully attain realistic short- and long-term goals.
these principles, and concludes with a checklist for

doi: 1 0. 1 093/swr/svt032 O 201 3 National Association of Social Workers 432

This content downloaded from

182.1.116.57 on Tue, 13 Oct 2020 03:38:19 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
conducting a GFE and a discussion on the facilita- side effects (Stake, 1967). However, there was no
tion of a GFE. proposed alternative to GBE, until Scriven (1972)
introduced GFE.

BRIEF HISTORY For a few years following GFE's introduction,

there was mild interest in the approach among eval-
Goal-based evaluation (GBE) has been the domi-
nant approach to evaluation practice, since uation
Ralph scholars. The majority of the GFE literature
consisted
Tyler developed his objectives-based approach in of philosophical debates regarding its
logic,&strengths, weaknesses, and feasibility (House,
the 1940s (Alkin, 2004; Fitzpatrick, Sanders,
Worthen, 2004). In fact, Friedman, Rothman, 1980;
andSalasin, 1974; Scriven, 1972, 1973, 1974,
Withers (2006) claimed that "as evaluation 1976). Today a few evaluation texts dedicate a para-
emerged as an independent field within the social graph - at best - to GFE (for example, Fitzpatrick
sciences, it became closely identified with the et al., 2004; Grinnell, Unrau, & Gabor, 2011; Pat-
measurement of goal attainment" (p. 201). Conse- ton, 2002, Shaw & Lishman, 2005). Some of the
quently, there is a plethora of information pub- common criticisms of GFE include the arguments
lished on GBE theories and methodologies (for that GFE is too independent from the upstream
example, Bloom, Engelhart, Fürst, Hill, & Krath- stakeholders and therefore is not useful to them;
wohl, 1956; Campbell & Stanley, 1966; Chen & GFE ignores goals and objectives that were deliber-
Rossi, 1983; Cook & Campbell, 1979; Cronbach, ately constructed to be democratic; and only mature
1963, 1982; Metfessel & Michael, 1967; Popham, programs that are highly successful will be con-
Eisner, Sullivan, & Tyler, 1969; Suchman, 1967, vinced to try such a "risky" evaluation approach.
1969). This is reiterated by Mark, Henry, and However, most questions regarding GFE are unan-
Julnes (2000) who, in discussing early program swered. Nearly half a century since its introduction,
evaluation, stated that GBE was the dominant there are only a handful of GFE practitioners and
methodological paradigm in evaluation: two known attempts at systematic study (Evers,
1980; Youker, 2011). These studies examined the
Explicit program goals were converted to mea- utility of GFE as compared with GBE, and both
studies concluded that there was no practical signifi-
surable objectives, these were tested, and then
cant difference in usefulness between the two.
the program's performance was compared to
Evers's study had several program evaluation teams
the objectives. In this approach the evaluator's
led by an experienced evaluator and located in dif-
role was thought to be simply to test fact-based
ferent areas of the Midwest; the teams were ran-
claims that originated in statements about pro-
domly assigned to conduct evaluations using either
gram or policy goals; the complex issue of
GFE or GBE; and then the evaluators completed a
which outcomes should be selected for evalua-
questionnaire on the utility of each evaluation
tion and why - that is, of what social better-
approach. In Youker's study, a goal-free team and a
ment consists of - was left to others. The only
goal-based team simultaneously and independently
language evaluators had to speak was the lan- evaluated the same program. Youker then asked the
guage of measurable objectives. By sidestep- evaluation's immediate users (that is, program
ping this issue, early evaluators implicitly administrators and staff) about the utility of each of
preempted debate on any additional effects or the evaluation reports. This leads to Tourmen's
side effects that might bear on the worth of the
(2009) question: Why, without scientific study
program, (p. 33) favoring one evaluation method over the other,
"would they [social work evaluators], for example,
In the mid 1960s, a few evaluation scholars such as
prefer one method to another?" (p. 7). Perhaps one
Cronbach (1963), Scriven (1967), and Stake (1967)of the reasons for the dearth in GFE practitioners is
the lack of information in the literature about how
began promoting evaluative inquiry beyond simple
to conduct a GFE.
goal attainment. They described some of the limi-
tations associated with prespecified goals and
objectives and argued that the assessment of goalOPERATION ALIZI NG GFE
In his early writings on the subject, Scriven (1974)
achievement is only part of the evaluation process,
made an analogy between GFE and the double-
as the evaluator also has a responsibility to explore

Youker / Goal-Free Evaluation: A Potential Model for the Evaluation of Social Work Programs 433

This content downloaded from

182.1.116.57 on Tue, 13 Oct 2020 03:38:19 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
blind pharmaceutical study. In a double-blind program's goals may be due to problems inherent
pharmaceutical study, neither the research partici- in the notion of goals rather than staff incompe-
pants nor the researcher know whether a partici- tence, intransigence, or opposition to evaluation"
pant is in the control group or the experimental (p. 180). Whose goals and whose rhetoric? These
group. Rather, the researcher searches for all effects issues with goals are captured by the quote dubi-
- intended or unintended, positive, negative, or ously attributed to Henry Ford: "If I had asked peo-
neutral. The goal-free evaluator, like the pharma- ple what they wanted, they would have said, 'faster
ceutical evaluator, does not need to know the horses.'"
intended effect or outcome or the intended extent In a GFE, the evaluator's ignorance of stated
of the effect; rather, the evaluator is unaware as to goals is a requisite as the evaluation model is
which effects are goals and which are side effects. designed to maximize this independence. Conse-
Only after all the evaluation data have been quently, one of the main determinants of whether
recorded and in some cases analyzed (that is, triple- GFE is appropriate in a given situation is whether
blind GFE) does the goal-free evaluator learn the goal-free evaluator is, in fact, tabula rasa in
which effects are which. As with a pharmaceutical, terms of awareness of the program's goals and
if a program is achieving its goals, its effects should objectives. Therefore, like the juror in a criminal
be apparent (Scriven, 1991). trial, the goal-free evaluator's level of indepen-
Following the methods used by drug com- dence and externality from the program affects his
panies in double-blind pharmaceutical studies, or her credibility and impartiality and, hence, the
four principles that govern GFE are inductively entire evaluation. The evaluator should be free
reasoned: from the goals, and it is equally crucial that the
upstream stakeholders are willing to accommodate
1. Identify relevant effects to examine without the blinding and screening protocol. If blinding
referencing goals and objectives. cannot be ensured or arranged, GFE is not the
2. Identify what occurred without the prompt- appropriate evaluation approach.
ing of goals and objectives. The methodological requirements of GFE dic-
3. Determine if what occurred can logically be tate that an impartial person (that is, not assigned to
attributed to the program or intervention. GFE design and data collection), such as an admin-
4. Determine the degree to which the effects istrative assistant, a third party, or the evaluation
are positive, negative, or neutral. client, should serve as a screener (Youker, 2005).
Therefore, one of the first orders of business is for
Extrapolating from these principles, the ultimate the goal-free evaluator and evaluation client to
aim for the goal-free evaluator is to determine appoint one or more screeners. According to Evers
what occurred that can be attributed to the (1980), a screener is:
program.
The first principle underlying GFE involves the
an individual who assists the goal-free evaluator
avoidance of goals and objectives; the defining tool
during early stages of the evaluation both in
used by the goal-free evaluator is blinding. Scriven
terms of editing materials and serving as a liai-
(1972) used the analogy of removing the race-
son to the project staff. This person serves as a
horse's blinders to permit the viewing of periphery
critical buffer between the evaluator and
and "side" effects; the goal-free evaluator removes
sources of bias while the goal-free evaluator is
the blinders that cause fixation on goal-based
effects. trying to employ strategies of discovery and
investigation to uncover actual effects, (p. 40)
Goal-orientation not only potentially blinds
an evaluator, but also can heavily influence pro-
gram administrators and social work practitioners. The screener's role is to conduct the initial meet-

Scriven (1972) said that the overreliance on a pro-
gram's stated goals is not a matter of honesty but
rather of getting tangled in trivial details and failing
to see the grander picture. Patton (1997) agreed
and added that the "difficulties in clarifying a
ings with the evaluation clients and the program to
omit any and all goal-oriented communiqués and
documents from the goal-free evaluator; however,
the presence of a screener does not make the pro-
cess foolproof. It is possible that early on in an

434 Social Work Research Volume 37, Number 4 December 2013

This content downloaded from

182.1.116.57 on Tue, 13 Oct 2020 03:38:19 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
evaluation the goal-free evaluator will ascertain the
more obvious general purposes of the program (for
example, education, training, rehabilitation) or the
evaluator will infer the program's general mission
or aims by learning the names of the cooperating
organizations. Neither situation is a serious threat
to the goal-free nature of the evaluation, according
to Scriven (1974), as the program's specifically
an "ideal (never achievable) evaluation theory
[that] would describe and justify why certain
evaluation practices lead to particular kinds of
results across situations that evaluators confront"
(Shadish, Cook, & Levitón, 1991, p. 31). The
checklist is designed to direct GFE efforts and to
serve as a tool for assessing the evaluator's fidelity
to the model.

stated goals and objectives are not so blatant. Fur-
thermore, even in the case of someone accidentally
telling the evaluator a goal or objective, the evalua-
tor may not necessarily believe it (Scriven, 1973).
Throughout the evaluation, there may be threats
to the goal-free nature of the evaluation, some
more serious than others. It is worth keeping in
A formal pilot-testing of the checklist was not
feasible due to resource limitations and the rarity of
GFE practice. Instead, criteria were generated by
reviewing the literature on GFE, and then 10
selected evaluation experts critiqued the list. Their
suggestions were incorporated into the final check-
list shown in Table 2.

mind that the point of a GFE is to take the atten- There are two issues that must be dealt with that
tion off of goals so the evaluator can ignore are particular to the facilitation of GFE. The first
whether potential breaches are in fact stated goals. issue is based on how to explain this lesser known
The two studies that examined GFE (Evers, 1980; and sometimes controversial evaluation approach
Youker, 2011) took apparent precautions to shield to evaluation clients and stakeholders, whereas the
evaluators from goals via multiple screeners, train- second is concerned with evaluator direction. First,
ing of evaluators, and pre-evaluation preparation all evaluations seek buy-in from the program's
of program stakeholders. Neither study reported stakeholders; however, the rarity of GFE, the
being aware of any threats to the goal-free nature uniqueness of its method, and its disregard of the
of their evaluations. program's stated goals and objectives mean that
A list of potential sources of goal-oriented in- more pre-evaluation time and effort is needed to
formation is presented in Table 1. The table is explain GFE theory and methodology as well as to
intended to serve as a general tool for recognizing coordinate methodological requirements such as
common evaluation-related situations and materi- screening. Second, the rookie goal-free evaluator is
als and their relative likelihood of being a source ofoften left with two obvious questions: What data
goal-related information, thus warranting screen-should I collect, and what should I value? Scriven's
ing from the goal-free evaluator. The left column(1973, 1974, 1991) response to these questions is to
shows the sources for goal-based information (thatconduct a needs assessment that investigates
is, situations and documents); these sources are the needs of the program's consumers followed by
divided into categories based on the chronologicala comparison of these relevant needs with mea-
stages of evaluation. The right column consists ofsurements and observations of the program's cur-
the screening level, which is a prescriptive rating ofrent and (usually) past performances in meeting
the relative level of attention, effort, and thorough-those needs. In other words, for Scriven, the evalu-
ness required by the screener. At the end of ator values the satisfaction of consumers' needs.
Table 1, there is a description of each screening In actual practice, some goal-free evaluators have
level or level of caution recommended for protect-circumvented the needs assessment. For example,
ing the goal-free nature of the evaluation. The in more than one evaluation, goal-free evaluators
assigned screening levels are highly debatable andobserved a program in action and then graded the
should be considered an approximation; however, program by comparing its performance outcomes
Table 1 was examined and approved by Scrivento the outcomes of critical competitors and to pre-
(personal communication, February 22, 2007),existing standards that were created by such entities
which adds to its credibility. as governing bodies, associations, organizations,
A GFE checklist of dos and don'ts is provided inand consumer groups. Despite these and other
Table 2. This checklist is an idealized operationali-issues with implementing a GFE, a handful of eval-
zation of GFE, meaning that the checklist describesuators and evaluation clients have in fact used it.

Youker / Goal-Free Evaluation: A Potential Model for the Evaluation of Social Work Programs 435

This content downloaded from

182.1.116.57 on Tue, 13 Oct 2020 03:38:19 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Source of Potential Goal-Based Information Screening Level
Pre-site visit

Initial contacts (for example, phone calls, e-mails, face-to-face, and so on) High
Parts of the program proposal
1 . Overview of the problem General
2. Introductory passages Moderate
3. Program descriptions Moderate
4. Client profiles General
5. Needs assessment data General
6. Mission statement Entirely
screened
7. List of partnering organizations/programs and relationships Moderate
8. Goals and objectives (advance organizers [for example, logic models]) Entirely screened
9. Proposed strategies Entirely screened
1 0. Proposed activity plan(s) Entirely screened
1 1 . Proposed staffing plan High
12. Summary passages Moderate
13. Proposed budget General
Target group-evaluator interactions
I . Check target group (that is, consumer) needs Moderate
Representative project/program materials
1 . Curricular: texts, study guides, and pre- and posttests Moderate
2. Program brochures and promotional materials Entirely screened
3. Program training materials Moderate
4. Noncurricular: environmental or experiential or "gestalt" Moderate
5. Staff-employee rosters and demographic information General
6. Program staff job descriptions and responsibilities Moderate
7. Policy manuals Moderate
8. Organizational flowchart General
9. Client flowchart Moderate

10. Client eligibility requirements Moderate

I I . Contracts/agreements between the program and consumers Moderate
Process observation of treatment Moderate

Internal evaluation data High

External evaluation data Moderate
Historical/archival

1 . Minutes of staff meetings Moderate

2. Budget status reports and annual reports Moderate
3. Internal staff correspondence Moderate
4. Correspondence between project and funding agent Moderate
5. Miscellaneous progress reports Moderate
6. Client demographic information from intake forms General
Overview of research/literature in area of investigation General
On-site
Staff-evaluator interactions

1 . Staff introductions to the project High

2. Staff public relations tours Entirely screened
3. Final debriefings Moderate
4. Data about long- and short-term effects or benefits Moderate
Notes: General-level screening: Refers to situations or documents with a minimal likelihood of needing significant goal-oriented omissions, thus requiring bas
as having the evaluator send an e-mail to program people to remind them of the goal-free nature and having a screener conduct a review of the document. M
Refers to situations or documents with a moderate likelihood of needing significant goal-oriented omissions, thus requiring more diligent screening su
send multiple e-mails to program people, having the screener re-read (that is, re-screen) documents, or having multiple screeners for reading the same docum
ing: Refers to situations or documents with a high likelihood of needing significant goal-oriented omissions, thus requiring robust screening such as having t
people to make a screened version of the entire document, specifically targeting the goal-based material by sending internal memos to or meeting with progr
they understand what to share with evaluators, and/or using multiple screeners of documents. Entirely screened: Refers to situations or documents that are
thus are entirely omitted or only carefully excerpted before being given to the goal-free evaluator.

436 Social Work Research Volume 37, Number 4 December 2013

This content downloaded from

182.1.116.57 on Tue, 13 Oct 2020 03:38:19 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
This checklist is for conducting a goal-free evaluation (GFE). The judgments about the fidelity of the
evaluation approach can be made as follows: 0 unacceptable evaluator performance and v acceptable
evaluator performance. It is recommended that the evaluation approach's fidelity fails if it scores
unacceptable on one or more of the items.
GFE is the process of determining merit, with the evaluator maintaining partial or full independence from the stated (or implied) goals
and objectives of those who design, produce, or implement the program.
A goal is a broad or general statement of a program's or intervention's purposes usually constituting longer term expectations.
An objective is a specific, concrete, measurable statement of a program's or intervention's purpose usually constituting shorter term
expectations; a collection of objectives operationalize a goal.
GFE - Dos
• Identify and use a screener (that is, an intermediary who ensures that no goal- or objective-based information is communicated to
the goal-free evaluator).
• Refer all communiqués to the screener, and involve the screener throughout the evaluation to protect from potential
contamination.
• Have all written material screened for references to program goals or objectives prior to evaluator receipt.
• Advise all program people of the goal-free nature and the parameters of goal-free evaluation. Ensure that they understand they are
not to relay goal- or objective-related information.
• Stop program staff if they begin talking about goal-oriented information.
• Identify potential areas in which to search for effects (in part through a needs assessment) and use these as the basis for criteria to
be measured.
• Identify and select justifiable tools to measure performance and actual effects (that is, tools that are reasonable with adequate
grounds for use).
• Measure performance and actual effects and experiences; observe the program as is.
• Compare factual information about the program effects and experiences with pre-identified needs to assess the program's impact
on consumer needs.
• Offer a profile of the positive, negative, and neutral effects.
GFE - Don'ts
• Communicate with program staff regarding goals or objectives.
• Attempt to find stated goals and objectives.

CONCLUSION
the program's goals and objectives to be considered
There are managerial styles of evaluation, but GFEof the goals.
"free"
is consumer-oriented. In a GFE, the balance Theof four underlying principles governing GFE,
power is shifted from management to consumer in
the sources of goal-oriented information, and the
that the goal-free evaluator only examines the con-
checklist for conducting a GFE all serve as meth-
sumers' needs and outcomes and judges the pro-
odological guides for future goal-free evaluators.
gram based on the actual observable outcomes of
Nevertheless, evidence-based evaluation practice
its consumers. In ideal terms, GFE is a tool for
dictates that the real evidence of if, when, how,
social justice in that it forces evaluators and and under what conditions GFE is useful is found
evalua-
tion clients to keep in mind that the reason the scientific scrutiny of GFE. Therefore, this
through
program exists and the reason that thearticle socialcalls for empirical study of evaluation and
worker exists is the same - the consumer. GFE by social work evaluators. Milton Friedman,
GFE is a versatile model. It can be used in com- the Nobel Laureate economist, summarized the
bination with any other evaluation model as long GFE attitude when he said, "One of the great mis-
as the model does not dictate goal orientation.takes is to judge policies and programs by their
GFE can be used as a stand-alone evaluationintentions rather than their results" (Heffner,
approach; it can be used as a supplement to1975).
or EM3
in
conjunction with a GBE; or it can be used at the
beginning of an evaluation, which then becomes
REFERENCES
goal based (Scriven, 1991). There are only two
Alkin,sit-
M. C. (2004). Comparing evaluation points of view.
uations in which GFE should not be used:In (1)
M. Alkin (Ed.), Evaluation roots: Tracing theorists'
views and influence (pp. 3-1 1). Thousand Oaks, CA:
when the program stakeholders are unwilling orPublications.
Sage
Bloom,
unable to accommodate the goal-free nature B. S., Engelhart, M. D., Fürst, E. J., Hill, W. H., &
of the
Krathwohl, D. R. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objec-
evaluation model, and (2) when the evaluatortives:
has Handbook I, Cognitive domain. New York: David
too much prior knowledge of or experience with
McKay.

Youker / Goal-Free Evaluation: A Potential Model for the Evaluation of Social Work Programs 437

This content downloaded from

182.1.116.57 on Tue, 13 Oct 2020 03:38:19 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Brown, K., McCloskey, C., Galpin, D., Keen, S., & Patton, M. Q. (1997). Utilization-focused evaluation: The new
Immins, T. (2008). Evaluating the impact of post- century text (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publi-
qualifying social work education. Social Work Educa- cations.
tion, 27, 853-867. Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation meth-
Brun, C. F. (2005). A practical guide to social service evaluation. ods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Chicago: Lyceum Books. Popham, W. J., Eisner, E. W., Sullivan, H. J., & Tyler, L. L.
Campbell, S., & Stanley, J. C. (1966). Experimental and quasi- (1969). Instructional objectives (American Educational
exverimental designs for research. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Research Association Monograph Series on Curricu-
Chen, H., & Rossi, P. (1983). Evaluating with sense: The lum Evaluation No. 3). Chicago: Rand McNally.
theory-driven approach. Evaluation Review, 7, 283-302. Qureshi, H. (1998). Internal and external evaluation of social
Cook, T., & Campbell, D. (1979). Quasi-experimentation: work. Scandinavian Journal of Social Welfare, 7(2), 137-144.
Design and analysis issues for field settings. Chicago: Salasin, S. (1974). Exploring goal-free evaluation: An inter-
Rand McNally. view with Michael Scriven. Evaluation, 2(1), 9-16.
Cronbach, L.J. (1963). Course improvement through eval- Scriven, M. (1967). The methodology of evaluation. In
uation. Teachers College Record, 64 , 672-683. R. E. Stake (Ed.), Curriculum evaluation (American
Cronbach, L.J. (1982). Designing evaluations of educational and Educational Research Association Monograph Series
social programs. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. on Evaluation No. 1). Chicago: Rand McNally.
Davidson, E.J. (2005). Evaluation methodology basics: The nuts Scriven, M. (1972). Pros and cons about goal-free evalua-
and bolts of sound evaluation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage tion. Journal of Educational Evaluation, 3(4), 1-7.
Publications. Scriven, M. (1973). Goal-free evaluation. In E. R. House
DePoy, E., & Gilson, S. F. (2003). Evaluation practice: Think- (Ed.), School evaluation: The politics and process (pp.
ing and action principles for social work practice. Pacific 319-328). Berkelev, CA: McCutchan.
Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole. Scriven, M. (1974). Pros and cons about goal-free evalua-
Dudley, J. R. (2009). Social work evaluation: Enhancing what tion. In W.J. Popham (Ed.), Evaluation in education:
we do. Chicago: Lyceum Books. Current applications (pp. 34-67). Berkeley, CA:
E vers, J. W. (1980). A field study of goal-based and goal-free McCutchan.
evaluation techniques (Unpublished doctoral disserta- Scriven, M. (1976). Evaluation bias and its control. In G.
tion). Western Michigan University, Kalamazoo. V. Glass (Ed.), Evaluation studies review annual (Vol. 1).
Fitzpatrick, J. L., Sanders, J. R., & Worthen, B. R. (2004). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
Program evaluation: Alternative approaches and practical Scriven, M. (1991). Evaluation thesaurus (4th ed.). Newbury
guidelines (3rd ed.). Boston: Pearson Education. Park, CA: Sage Publications.
Friedman, V.J., Rothman, J., & Withers, B. (2006). The Shadish, W. R., Cook, T. D., & Levitón, L. C. (1991).
power of why: Engaging the goal paradox in program Foundations of program evaluation. Newbury Park, CA:
evaluation. American Journal of Evaluation, 27(2), Sage Publications.
201-218. Shaw, I., & Lishman, J. (Eds.). (2005). Evaluation and social
Gardner, F. (2000). Design evaluation: Illuminating social work work practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
practice for better outcomes. Social Work, 45, 176-182. Stake, R. E. (1967). The countenance of educational evalu-
Ginsberg, L. H. (2001). Social work evaluation: Principles and ation. Teacher College Record, 68, 523-540.
methods. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Suchman, E. (1967). Evaluative research: Principles and practice
Grinnell, R. M., Gabor, P. A., & Unrau, Y. A. (2010). Pro- in public service and social action programs. New York:
gram evaluation for social workers: Foundations of evidence- Russell Sage.
based programs (5th ed.). New York: Oxford University Suchman, E. (1969). Evaluating educational programs.
Press. Urban Review, 3(4), 15-17.
Grinnell, R. M., & Unrau, Y. A. (Eds.). (2011). Social work Tourmen, C. (2009). Evaluators' decision making: The
research and evaluation: Foundations of evidence-based prac- relationship between theory, practice, and experience.
tice (9th ed.). New York: Oxford University Press. American Journal of Evaluation, 30(1), 7-30.
Grinnell, R. M., Unrau, Y. A., & Gabor, P. A. (2011).Youker, Pro- B. W. (2005). Ethnography and evaluation: Their
gram evaluation. In R. Grinnell & Y. Unrau (Eds.), relationship and three anthropological models of eval-
Social work research and evaluation: Foundations of evidence-
uation. Journal of MultiDisciplinary Evaluation, 3,
based practice (9th ed., pp. 521-529). New York: 113-132.
Oxford University Press. Youker, B. W. (201 1). An analog experiment comparing goal-
Heffner, R. D. (Writer), & Heffner, R. D. (Director). free evaluation and goal achievement evaluation utility
(1975, December 7). Milton Friedman [Television (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Western Michi-
series episode]. In R. Heffner (Producer), The open gan University, Kalamazoo.
mind. Boston: American Public Television.
House, E. R. (1980). Evaluating with validity. Beverly Hills, Brandon W. Youker, PhD , is assistant professor, Social
CA: Sage Publications.
Mark, M. M., Henry, G. T., &Julnes, G. (2000). Evaluation: Work, Grand Valley State University , 401 W. Fulton Street,
An integrated framework for understanding, guiding, and De Vos Center, 391C, Grand Rapids, MI 49504 ; e-mail:
improving policies and programs. San Francisco: Jossey- youkerb@gvsu.edu. The author thanks the following evaluators
Bass.
who critiqued the goal-free evaluation checklist of dos and
Metfessel, N. S., & Michael, W. B. (1967). A paradigm
involving multiple criterion measures for the evalua- don'ts: Chris Coryn, Amy Gullickson, Wes Martz, Michael
tion of the effectiveness of school programs. Educa- Q. Patton, Liliana Rodríguez -Campos, James Sanders, Dan-
tional and Psychological Measurement, 27, 931-943.
iela Schröeter, Michael Scriven, Daniel Stufflebeam, and Lori
National Association of Social Workers. (2008). Code of eth-
ics of the National Association of Social Workers. Washing- Wingate.
ton, DC: Author.
Original manuscript received March 21, 2012
Neil, E., & & Sellick, C. (2001). A description and evalua- Final revision received June 19, 2012
tion of a social work training programme in Moldova. Accepted July 2, 2012
Social Work Education, 20, 577-592. Advance Access Publication December 19, 2013

438 Social Work Research Volume 37, Number 4 December 2013

This content downloaded from

182.1.116.57 on Tue, 13 Oct 2020 03:38:19 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms