“Accuracy builds credibility.” – Jim Rohn

“Nobody sees reality whole; we all need others to show us the parts of it that they see better than we do. Nobody sees reality with total accuracy; we all need others to correct our own vision.” ‒ Lewis B. Smedes

“The single biggest problem in communication is the illusion that it has taken place.” – George Bernard Shaw

Because assessment and evaluation involves making judgements about program and/or process quality and effectiveness, it is essential for evaluators to consider and use accuracy standards. Yarbrough, Shulha, Hopson, & Caruthers (2011) have identified eight accuracy standards for evaluators: providing justified conclusions and decisions (A1), ensuring information is valid (A2) and reliable (A3), clearly articulating the program and context descriptions (A4), implementing intentionality in information management (A5), using sound designs and analyses processes (A6), providing sound reasoning in evaluation (A7), and being attentive to communication and reporting throughout the evaluation process (A8).

While all of the accuracy standards are important, communication and reporting (A8) is particularly critical (Hall & Hord, 2015; Perrin, 2010; Yarbrough, Shulha, Hopson, & Caruthers, 2011) and applicable to all phases of any successful evaluation process (Perrin, 2010; Yarbrough, Shulha, Hopson, & Caruthers, 2011). Effective and accurate communication is important for explaining the rational for findings, ensuring objectivity and reducing bias, and promoting collaboration throughout the process (Yarbrough, Shulha, Hopson, & Caruthers, 2011).

The communication and reporting standard is particularly relevant in working in both non-profit and educational settings. Both types of organizations have a multitude of stakeholders to consider throughout the process (Hall & Hord, 2015; Perrin, 2010; Yarbrough, Shulha, Hopson, & Caruthers, 2011). The varying needs of and relationships among the stakeholder groups can create a complex web through which an evaluator must maneuver (Perrin, 2010; Yarbrough, Shulha, Hopson, & Caruthers, 2011). In schools, for example, stakeholders include administrators, teachers, students, parents, school board members, and community members. When approaching an evaluation, stakeholders group may have varying expectations and desired outcomes (Yarbrough, Shulha, Hopson, & Caruthers, 2011). If stakeholders are not involved throughout the evaluation process, the final report may disregarded as inaccurate and useless (Perrin, 2010; Yarbrough, Shulha, Hopson, & Caruthers, 2011).

Intentional and thoughtful communication throughout the evaluation process establishes a dialogue between evaluators and stakeholders, encourages transparency, creates an atmosphere of collaboration, and promotes understanding (Yarbrough, Shulha, Hopson, & Caruthers, 2011). Evaluators can reduce the likelihood of surprising and alienating stakeholders through clarifying the purpose and expectations of the evaluation, providing informal and formal communication opportunities throughout the process, submitting drafts to key stakeholders for review prior to the final report, and providing stakeholders opportunities to be a part of the inquiry process (Perrin, 2010).  This approach will strengthen the likelihood that the evaluation report will be accurate, relevant, and usable (Perrin, 2010; Yarbrough, Shulha, Hopson, & Caruthers, 2011) and accepted by the stakeholders (Perrin, 2010; Yarbrough, Shulha, Hopson, & Caruthers, 2011).

References

Hall, G. E., & Hord, S. M. (2015). Implementing change: Patterns, principles, and potholes. (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.

Perrin, B. (2010). Learning from evaluation misadventures: the importance of good communication. Canadian Journal of Program Evaluation 25(3),115-124.

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.