what is merit determination? what is absolute merit? how to draw rubric? what is relative merit?...
TRANSCRIPT
Analyzing data: Synthesis
What is merit determination? What is absolute merit? How to draw
rubric? What is relative merit? How to draw
rubric?
Review
S519
It is a tool to allow us to draw overall evaluative conclusions from multiple findings about a single evaluand.
Synthesis is the process of combining a set of ratings or performances on several components or dimensions into an overall rating.
Synthesis methodology
S519
Merit determination To develop the rubrics To use rubrics to summarize the multiple
findings Rubrics are one of the simplest methods to
blend data. But when data is a bit more complex, it is
difficult to use a rubric as the only tool Data are not equally important or reliable Multi dimensions or multi components Different nuances and combinations (such as
Table8.3)
Synthesis methodology
S519
It is not meta-analysis A special statistical technique to give a
weighted average of effect sizes across multiple studies – for quantitative studies
It is not literature review or a summary A judgment from a reviewer’s point of
view.
It is not
S519
Doing poorly on some minimal important criteria
Doing poorly on some crucial criteria Are very different!
Keep in mind
S519
Synthesis for „ranking“ If it is „ranking“ (relative) evaluation:
Consider each alternative and make explicit comparisons
Synthesis for „grading“ If it is „grading“ (absolute) evaluation:
Consider different context settings and provide better interpretation of merit
Evaluation
S519
Quantitative synthesis Using numerical weights
Qualitative synthesis Using qualitative labels
Qualitative or quantitative
S519
The primary evaluation question is for absolute quality or value How well did the evaluand perform on
this dimension or component? How effective, valuable, or meritorious
is the evaluand overall? Is this worth the resources put into it?
Synthesis for “grading”
S519
Case: Personnel evaluation in a small accounting firm 13 defined tasks (e.g., telephone, reception,
data entry, etc.) Each employee has responsibility for 4-6 tasks
Evaluation: Importance weighting (through the voting of
the selected stakeholders) In-depth discussion with business owners Derive the importance metric and bars
Quantitative weighting example with „bars“
S519
Evaluation Define the levels of importance: 3 to 5 levels work well in most case Do not go to too many levels (why? Is this useful?) For example
task 1. minor task (1) 2. normal-priority task (2) 3. high-priority task (3) 4. extremely high-priority task (4)
Quantitative weighting example with „bars“
S519
Evaluation Setting up rubrics for each 13 tasks Normally 4-6 level is sufficient
Example: Performance Rubric 1. Totally unacceptable performance (1) 2. Mediocre (substandard) performance (2) 3. Good performance (expected level) (3) 4. Performance that exceeded expectations (4) 5. All-around excellent performance (5)
Synthesis – draw the overall conclusion See Exhibit 9.2 (p158)
Quantitative weighting example with „bars“
S519
Personal evaluation in a small accouting firm
Exercise
Tasks Importance Score for Alice
Telephone 1 2
Data entry 2 3
Tax data management
4 1
Client support 4 5
Reporting 3 3
Communicating 1 3
How about Alice according to Exhibit 9.2?
S519
Personal evaluation in a small accouting firm
Exercise
Tasks Importance Score for John
Telephone 1 2
Data entry 2 3
Tax data management
4 2
Client support 4 5
Reporting 3 3
Communicating 1 3
How about John according to Exhibit 9.2?
S519
Perosnal evaluation in a small accouting firm
Exercise
Tasks Importance Score for Chris
Telephone 1 2
Data entry 2 3
Tax data management
4 4
Client support 4 5
Reporting 3 3
Communicating 1 3
How about Chris according to Exhibit 9.2?
S519
How about Chris Mean=
1*2+2*3+4*4+4*5+3*3+1*3/(1+2+4+4+3+1)=56/15=3.73
What is Chris‘ performance?
Exerice
S519
Case: a school-based health program evaluation It contains 9 different components: nutrition education,
mental health services, safer sex, legal service and others.
How to evaluate these systems in low-budget and short period of time whether they are meeting important needs of the students and their families
Evaluation: Interview Student surveys
Qualitative weighting example 1 (with no „bars“)
S519
Survey question design: Two quantitative questions
How useful was the program to you? (4-point response scale: not at all useful, somewhat useful, useful, very useful)
How satisfied were you with the program? One qualitative question (open-end)?
What other changes or events, good or bad, have happened to you or someone you know because of receiving the service?
School health system evaluation
S519
Survey result about nutrition system shows in Table 9.1
Look at table 9.1, think about: How can you draw a conclusion from
this result about the nutrition system? Is it good or bad?
School health system evaluation
S519
Setting the importance for these three questions (1-strongest data, 3=weakest data) 1. Ratings of usefulness (directly related
to needs) 2. Responses to the open-ended
question 3. Satisfaction ratings
Creating rubrics for each question Table 9.2 for question 1 and question 2 Table 9.3 for open-ended question
School health system evaluation
S519
How to grade the nutrition system based on the first two quantitative questions: Based on Table 9.1, come out with the
rubric as Table 9.2 Why 90% is select, 70%-90%.. How to draw Table 9.2 from Table 9.1 and
collected data?
School health system evaluation
S519
Table 9.3 Rubric for converting data from
qualitative evaluation - open-ended responses into merit ratings
Is that a good way to do this? Are you happy with this table? If not, how do you want to improve it?
School health system evaluation
S519
Synthesis to draw overall conclusion Step-by-step Start with the strongest data (question
1) Blend with open-ended comments Finally take the satisfaction ratings into
account
See table 9.4 for the whole process
School health system evaluation
S519
How to draw final conclusion?
School health system evaluation
Usefulness ratings
Satisfaction ratings
Open-ended comments
Final coclusion:
Merit of the nutrition program
See table 9.4Discuss how to apply this to your group project
Using quantitative ratings to draw the suggested results and using qualitative ratings to find the positive or negative facts to re-adjust the results
S519
Bar A minimum level of performance on a specific dimension Performance below this cannot be compensated for by
much better performance on other dimensions (see Exhibit 9.2)
Hard hurdle (also referred as global bars) Overall passing requirement for an evaluand as a whole
(see Exhibit 9.2) Soft hurdle
Overall requirement for entry into a high rating category Place a limit on the maximum rating (e.g., I want all As
for my classes)
Qualitative (nonnumerical) weighting example 2
S519
Case: Evaluation of the learning capacity of a small biotechnology start-up company „biosleep“.
Evaluation 27 subdimensions of organizational learning
capacity (see table 9.5) Data collection: survey and interview Rubric: similar as Table 8.2 Importance is built by using strategy 6 in Chapter 7
Using program theory and evidence of causal linkages (p118-125)
Qualitative (nonnumerical) weighting example 2
S519
Evaluation Synthesis
Pack the ratings on the subdimensions into 8 main dimensions
Combine the ratings on these 8 main dimensions to draw an overall conclusion
Biosleep
S519
Dimension by dimension Layer by layer
Biosleep
Sub-dimnention1
Sub-dimnention2
Sub-dimnention3
Sub-dimnention4
Dimnention1
Dimnention2
Overall rating
S519
Synthesis Subdimensions Dimensions
Using Table 9.6 to draw conclusions of dimentions based on subdimensions
Using Table 9.6 to judge Table 9.5 and come out the result as Exhibit 9.4
Dimensions overall evaluation Based on Table 9.7 (created based on
literature review, What is your conclusion for the evaluation of
Biosleep? And why?
Biosleep
S519
Form your group project Discuss on how are you going to
grade your evaluation? Which example you would like to follow? How to develop rubric for dimension and
overall?
Exericse
S519