Date: Friday, April 18, 2025
Hello, my fellow evaluation capacity builders (ECBers). My name is Omodolapo Ojo, and I am a doctoral student at the University of North Carolina Greensboro. My dissertation focuses on exploring, with a transformative lens—integrated culturally responsive evaluation and systems theory (CRE-ST)—the design and implementation of ECB.
My experience as a graduate research assistant on several evaluation efforts within the STEM Program Evaluation Lab (SPEL) and Office of Assessment, Evaluation, and Research Services (OAERS), as a competitor in the Evaluation Capacity Case Challenge (EC3) hosted by the Max Bell School of Public Policy, and as well as a researcher within the department of Information, Library, and Research Sciences (ILRS) has enhanced my understanding and application of ECB preassessment tools.
First and foremost, quality preassessment tools serve as the bedrock for ECB that meet stakeholders’ needs. From the moment I realized the critical role of preassessment tools in ECB, I have consistently collated ideas during my research and practical work on what a holistic preassessment tool would entail. I am excited to share this tool for use and critique as appropriate. Preassessment tools are used for gathering information before fully executing ECB initiatives.
The preassessment tool discussed here (see Table below) introduces an innovative perspective by infusing the CRE-ST lens into the individual or organizational evaluation capacity domains, informed by the work of Stafford Hood, Rodney Hopson, and Karen Kirkhart as well as Kevin Adams and colleagues. Traditional preassessment tools often highlight baseline knowledge, skills, and attitudes in evaluation without explicitly considering the diverse perspectives and lived experiences of individuals and groups involved. The CRE-ST lens extends the preassessment’s focus beyond technical efficiency to uncover or integrate from the onset the feasibilities of systemic efficiency, equitable engagement of diverse stakeholders’ values, and other contextually relevant component in ECB.
The CRE-ST pre-assessment tool, however, centers inclusive and equitable stakeholders’ values engagement in ECB initiatives in order to address the persistent challenges of ECB and its objective of sustainable evaluation practices, especially in contexts where evaluation culture seems weak and exclude the interest of specific stakeholder groups. Equitable engagement ensures that ECB efforts are representative and responsive to the priorities and context of diverse stakeholders. The CRE-ST preassessment tool boosts ECBers’ reflection on voices missing and heard, as well as diverse perspectives valued in the assessment process.
While this blog post does not currently include an example of the tool in action, my recent experience with the preassessment tool in an ECB work enhanced my sensitivity to commonly overlooked stakeholders’ needs and relevant contextual factors. This discovery led to a more meaningful engagement process and a richer understanding of the ECB initiatives. The nine domains highlighted in the preassessment tool have three basic assessment levels under each component—low/limited knowledge, medium/some understanding, and high/strong understanding. Focusing on each domain would guide in pre-determining individual or organizational stage in evaluation capacity development, from minimal level to proficiency in evaluation culture.
The American Evaluation Association is hosting Organizational Learning and Evaluation Capacity Building (OL-ECB) Topical Interest Group Week. The contributions all this week to AEA365 come from our OL-ECB TIG members. Do you have questions, concerns, kudos, or content to extend this AEA365 contribution? Please add them in the comments section for this post on the AEA365 webpage so that we may enrich our community of practice. Would you like to submit an AEA365 Tip? Please send a note of interest to AEA365@eval.org. AEA365 is sponsored by the American Evaluation Association and provides a Tip-a-Day by and for evaluators. The views and opinions expressed on the AEA365 blog are solely those of the original authors and other contributors. These views and opinions do not necessarily represent those of the American Evaluation Association, and/or any/all contributors to this site.