Areas of evaluation are identified in which the formative/summative distinction appears inadequate: (1) knowledge-generating evaluations aimed at conceptual use; (2) developmental evaluation; and (3) use of evaluation to support intervention or empower participants. An argument is also made for the effectiveness of feedback that cannot be…

The viewpoints of contributors to the forum are reviewed. Many of the disagreements represent fundamental differences in what constitutes evaluation. All four authors agree that the formative/summative distinction is useful and will continue to be an important concept in program evaluation, although the distinction needs greater clarification.…

In 1991, Michael Scriven published "Beyond Formative and Summative Evaluation," a reconsideration of the classic distinction in evaluation roles. Debate about the roles of evaluation continued in the four papers that follow this introduction, all of which were presented at a forum at the 1995 International Evaluation Conference. (SLD)

The formative-summative distinction in evaluation is defended as a reasonable way to classify evaluation activities. Context ultimately defines the formative or summative functions of evaluation. The characteristics of an evaluator are defined, and points of agreement with the other contributors to the forum are noted. (SLD)

The formative/summative evaluation dichotomy suggested by M. Scriven is challenged, and a conceptual typology is presented that crosses improvement and assessment evaluation functions with process and outcome program stages for four basic types of evaluation. This framework accommodates mixed types of evaluations. (SLD)

Four forms of evaluation are outlined: (1) evaluation and development; (2) design evaluation; (3) process evaluation; and (4) summative evaluation. Each form is understood through five dimensions (orientation, state, focus, timing, and approach), which are illustrated through evaluation of a community services training program in Australia. (SLD)