Differences between Formative and Summative Evaluation
Formative Evaluation Summative Evaluation
Use To improve the program To make decisions about the program’s future or adoption
Audience Program managers and staff Administrators, policymakers, and/or potential consumers or funding agencies
By Whom Often internal evaluators supported by external evaluators
Often external evaluators, supported by internal evaluators
Major Characteristics Provides feedback so program personnel can improve it
Provides information to enable decision makers to decide whether to continue it, or consumers to adopt it
Design Constraints What information is needed? When?
What standards or criteria will be used to make decisions?
Purpose of Data Collection
Diagnostic Judgmental
Frequency of Data Collection
Frequent Infrequent
Sample Size Often small Usually large
Questions Asked What is working? What needs to be improved? How can it be improved?
What results occur? With whom? Under what conditions? With what training? At what cost?
Chapter 1 • Evaluation’s Basic Purpose, Uses, and Conceptual Distinctions 25
Beyond Formative and Summative. Our discussion of the purposes of evaluation reflects the changes and expansions that have occurred in the practice of evalua- tion over the decades. Michael Patton (1996) has described three purposes of eval- uation that do not fall within the formative or summative dimension. These include the following:
1. The contribution of evaluation to conceptual thinking, rather than immediate or instrumental decisions or judgments, about an object. As evaluation practice has expanded and research has been conducted on how evaluation is used, eval- uators have found that evaluation results are often not used immediately, but, rather, are used gradually—conceptually—to change stakeholders’ thinking about the clients or students they serve, about the logic models or theories for programs, or about the ways desired outcomes can be achieved.
2. Evaluation for broad, long-term organizational learning and continuous im- provement. Patton’s developmental evaluation falls within this category. Results from such evaluations are not used for direct program improvement (formative purposes), but to help organizations consider future directions, changes, and adap- tations that should be made because of new research findings or changes in the context of the program and its environment. (See Preskill [2008]; Preskill and Torres [2000].)
3. Evaluations in which the process of the evaluation may have more import than the use of the results. As we will discuss in Chapter 17, research on the use of evaluation has found that participation in the evaluation process itself, not just the results of the evaluation, can have important impacts. Such participation can change the way people plan programs in the future by providing them with skills in developing logic models for programs or by empowering them to participate in program planning and development in different ways. As we discussed, one pur- pose of evaluation is to improve democracy. Some evaluations empower the pub- lic or disenfranchised stakeholder groups to participate further in decision making by providing them with information or giving them a voice through the evalua- tion to make their needs or circumstances known to policymakers.
The distinction between formative and summative evaluations remains a pri- mary one when considering the types of decisions the evaluation will serve. How- ever, it is important to remember the other purposes of evaluation and, in so doing, to recognize and consider these purposes when planning an evaluation so that each evaluation may reach its full potential.