Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation
	Policy Information Center

Appendix C

HHS Evaluation Review Panel

The following individuals served on the evaluation review panel that made recommendations of the reports highlighted in chapter II of Performance Improvement 2001: Evaluation Activities of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

Douglas Barnett, Ph.D.
Department of Psychology
Wayne State University
Detroit, Michigan

Heather Becker, Ph.D.
Professor, School of Nursing
University of Texas
Austin, Texas

Leslie J. Cooksy, Ph.D.
Center for Community Development & Family Policy
College of Human Resources, Education, & Public Policy
University of Delaware
Newark, Delaware

Holly Korda, Ph.D., Panel Chair
Evaluation Consultant
Chevy Chase, Maryland

John Kralewski, Ph.D.
Director, Institute for Health Services Research
School of Public Health
University of Minnesota
Minneapolis, Minnesota

Anna Madison, Ph.D.
University of Massachusetts at Boston
Human Services Graduate Program
Boston, Massachusetts

Kenneth McLeroy, Ph.D.
School of Rural Public Health
Texas A&M University
College Station, Texas

Donna Mertens, Ph.D.
Gallaudet University
Washington, D.C.

Joy Quill
C.J. Quill and Associates, Inc.
Annapolis, Maryland

Mary Ann Scheirer, Ph.D.
Evaluation and Social Research Consultant
Annandale, Virginia

Program Evaluation Review Criteria

The following criteria were used by the HHS Evaluation Review Panel to select evaluation reports to be highlighted in the Chapter II of Performance Improvement 2001

OVERALL SIGNIFICANCE

• The study addresses a significant issue of policy relevance.
• Evaluation findings are likely to be useful.

CONCEPTUAL CRITERIA

Conceptual Foundations

• A literature review is included.
• The project is shown to be logically based on previous findings; the report uses either theory, or models, or both.
• The program assumptions are stated.
• The evaluation draws from any previous evaluation.
• The report is linked with a program and describes the program.
• The report presents multiple perspectives.
• Multiple relevant stakeholders are consulted and involved.
• The timing is appropriate because the program is ready for evaluation.

Questions for Evaluation

• The aims of the evaluation are clear, well-specified, and testable.
• The questions are feasible, significant, linked to the program, appropriate for the resources and audience, and derive logically from the conceptual foundations.
• The questions show ingenuity and creativity.

Findings and Interpretation

• The conclusions are justified by the analyses.
• The summary does not go beyond what the data will support.
• The appropriate qualifiers are stated.
• The conclusions fit the entire analysis.
• Equivocal findings are handled appropriately.
• The initial questions are answered.
• The interpretation ties in with the conceptual foundation.
• The report notes that the findings are either consistent with or deviate from the relevant literature.
• The presentation is understandable.
• The results have practical significance.
• The extent of program implication is assessed.

Recommendations

• The recommendations follow from findings, are worth carrying out, and are affordable, timely, feasible, useful, and appropriate.
• The recommendations are shown to be relevant to the questions asked.
• The breadth of specificity of the recommendations is addressed.
• Any recommendations for either future evaluations, or improvements, or both are clearly presented.

METHODS

Evaluation Design

• Design considerations include overall appropriateness, soundness, feasibility, funding and time constraints, generalizability, applicability for cultural diversity, assessment of the extent of program delivery, validity, feasibility for data collection, reliability of selected measurements, use of multiple measures of key concepts, and appropriateness of the sample.
• Variables are clearly specified and fit with the questions and concepts.
• The design permits measurement of the extent of program implementation and answering of the evaluation questions.

Data Collection

• Data are collected using appropriate units of measurement for analysis, controls for participant selection and assignment bias, and proper handling of missing data and attrition.
• Data collection is characterized by use of an appropriate comparison group of control; adequate sample size, response rate, and information about the sample; a data collection plan; data collection that is faithful to the plan; attention to and cooperation with the relevant community; project confidentiality; and consistency.
• The quality of the data (including the quality of any extant data sets used in the study) and the efficiency of sampling are addressed.
• The data collection is appropriate to evaluation questions.

Data Analysis

• The data analysis addresses the handling of attrition, the matching of the analysis to the design, the use of appropriate statistical controls, the use of methodology and levels of measurement appropriate to the type of data, and estimation of effect size.
• The analysis shows sensitivity to cultural categories.
• The analysis makes appropriate generalizability of inferences.
• The chosen analysis type is simple and efficient.

CROSS-CUTTING FACTORS

The following are cross-cutting factors that are likely to be important at all stages of a report: clarity, presentation, operation at a state-of-the-art level, appropriateness, understandability, innovation, generalizability, efficiency of approach, logical relationships, and discussion of the report's limitations. The report should also address ethical issues, possible perceptual bias, cultural diversity, and any gaps in study execution.