Joint Committee on Standards for
Educational Evaluation - 2018
Utility Standards
The utility standards are intended to increase the extent to which program stakeholders find evaluation
processes and products valuable in meeting their needs.
U1 Evaluator Credibility: Evaluations should be conducted by qualified people who establish
and maintain credibility in the evaluation context.
U2 Attention to Stakeholders: Evaluations should devote attention to the full range of
individuals and groups invested in the program and affected by its evaluation.
U3 Negotiated Purposes: Evaluation purposes should be identified and continually negotiated
based on the needs of stakeholders.
U4 Explicit Values: Evaluations should clarify and specify the individual and cultural values
underpinning purposes, processes, and judgments.
U5 Relevant Information: Evaluation information should serve the identified and emergent
needs of stakeholders.
Checklist of The Program Evaluation
Standards Statements
Joint Committee on
Standards for Educational Evaluation
The Program Evaluation Standards “identify and define evaluation question and guide
evaluators and evaluation users in the pursuit of evaluation quality” (Yarbrough, Shulha,
Hopson, & Caruthers, 2011). The Standards include thirty statements that define five
dimensions of program evaluation quality: utility, feasibility, propriety, accuracy, and
evaluation accountability. Each standard has a name and is expressed in a statement,
which is then explained in more detail in The Program Evaluation Standards book
(Yarbrough et al., 2011). The standards’ names and statements are reproduced below in
checklist form with permission of the Joint Committee on Standards for Educational
Evaluation (JCSEE).
The purpose of this checklist version of the Standards is to provide evaluation
practitioners, clients, users, and students with an accessible overview of the Standards.
We encourage users to read The Program Evaluation Standards in full, and then use this
checklist as a quick reference.
JOINT COMMITTEE WMICH.EDU/EVALUATION/CHECKLISTS 2
U6 Meaningful Processes and Products: Evaluations should construct activities, descriptions,
and judgments in ways that encourage participants to rediscover, reinterpret, or revise their
understandings and behaviors.
U7 Timely and Appropriate Communicating and Reporting: Evaluations should attend to the
continuing information needs of their multiple audiences.
U8 Concern for Consequences and Influence: Evaluations should promote responsible and
adaptive use while guarding against unintended negative consequences and misuse.
Feasibility Standards
The Feasibility standards are intended to increase evaluation effectiveness and efficiency.
F1 Project Management: Evaluations should use effective project management strategies.
F2 Practical Procedures: Evaluation procedures should be practical and responsive to the way
the program operates.
F3 Contextual Viability: Evaluations should recognize, monitor, and balance the cultural and
political interests and needs of individuals and groups.
F4 Resource Use: Evaluations should use resources effectively and efficiently.
Propriety Standards
The propriety standards support what is proper, fair, legal, right and just in evaluations.
P1 Responsive and Inclusive Orientation: Evaluations should be responsive to stakeholders
and their communities.
P2 Formal Agreements: Evaluation agreements should be negotiated to make obligations
explicit and take into account the needs, expectations, and cultural contexts of clients and other
stakeholders.
P3 Human Rights and Respect: Evaluations should be designed and conducted to protect
human and legal rights and maintain the dignity of participants and other stakeholders.
P4 Clarity and Fairness: Evaluations should be understandable and fair in addressing
stakeholder needs and purposes.
P5 Transparency and Disclosure: Evaluations should provide complete descriptions of findings,
limitations, and conclusions to all stakeholders, unless doing so would violate legal and propriety
obligations.
P6 Conflicts of Interests: Evaluations should openly and honestly identify and address real or
perceived conflicts of interests that may compromise the evaluation.
P7 Fiscal Responsibility: Evaluations should account for all expended resources and comply
with sound fiscal procedures and processes.
JOINT COMMITTEE WMICH.EDU/EVALUATION/CHECKLISTS 3
Accuracy Standards
The accuracy standards are intended to increase the dependability and truthfulness of evaluation
representations, propositions, and findings, especially those that support interpretations and judgments
about quality.
A1 Justified Conclusions and Decisions: Evaluation conclusions and decisions should be
explicitly justified in the cultures and contexts where they have consequences.
A2 Valid Information: Evaluation information should serve the intended purposes and support
valid interpretations.
A3 Reliable Information: Evaluation procedures should yield sufficiently dependable and
consistent information for the intended uses.
A4 Explicit Program and Context Descriptions: Evaluations should document programs and
their contexts with appropriate detail and scope for the evaluation purposes.
A5 Information Management: Evaluations should employ systematic information collection,
review, verification, and storage methods.
A6 Sound Designs and Analyses: Evaluations should employ technically adequate designs and
analyses that are appropriate for the evaluation purposes.
A7 Explicit Evaluation Reasoning: Evaluation reasoning leading from information and analyses
to findings, interpretations, conclusions, and judgments should be clearly and completely
documented.
A8 Communication and Reporting: Evaluation communications should have adequate scope
and guard against misconceptions, biases, distortions, and errors.
Evaluation Accountability Standards
The evaluation accountability standards encourage adequate documentation of evaluations and a
metaevaluative perspective focused on improvement and accountability for evaluation processes and
products.
E1 Evaluation Documentation: Evaluations should fully document their negotiated purposes
and implemented designs, procedures, data, and outcomes.
E2 Internal Metaevaluation: Evaluators should use these and other applicable standards to
examine the accountability of the evaluation design, procedures employed, information
collected, and outcomes.
E3 External Metaevaluation: Program evaluation sponsors, clients, evaluators, and other
stakeholders should encourage the conduct of external metaevaluations using these and other
applicable standards.
Reference
Yarbrough, D. B., Shulha, L. M., Hopson, R. K., & Caruthers, F. A. (2011). The program evaluation standards: A
guide for evaluators and evaluation users (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
JOINT COMMITTEE WMICH.EDU/EVALUATION/CHECKLISTS 4
Suggested Citation
Joint Committee on Standards for Educational Evaluation. (2018). Checklist of the program evaluation
standards statements. Retrieved from https://wmich.edu/evaluation/checklists
This checklist is provided as a free service to the user. The provider of the checklist has not modified or adapted the checklist to
fit the specific needs of the user and the user must use their own discretion and judgment in using the checklist. The provider of
the checklist makes no representations or warranties that this checklist is fit for the particular purpose contemplated by the user
and specifically disclaims any such warranties or representations.
