Reporting, use & meta-evaluationEvaluation ethicsEvaluation qualityEvaluation criteriaProfessional standardsEvaluation governance
Evaluation Standards and Ethics
Evaluation Standards and Ethics
Also known as: Program evaluation standards、Evaluation ethics、AEA Guiding Principles
Checks evaluation purposes, procedures, ethics, information accuracy and accountability against standards. Records evidence of problems and improvements rather than relying on total scores alone. [1]
- Difficulty
- Intermediate
- Cost
- Low
- Duration
- Illustrative estimate (adjust for scale and team): standards application check: 1–2 days during planning / ethics review: 1–2 weeks
Content updated: 2026-09-13Source checked: 2026-09-13 (includes AI cross-checking)No documented human reviewIncludes fictional examples
How it works at a glance
The third edition of JCSEE's Program Evaluation Standards, published in 2010, comprises 30 standards across five attributes: utility, feasibility, propriety, accuracy and evaluation accountability. It can be used from evaluation design through implementation and reporting reviews. [1]
Standards examine evaluation quality from multiple perspectives. This site's simplified table is neither the full text of the official 30 standards nor certification of compliance. Record evidence for judgments, unconfirmed matters, and responsibilities and deadlines for corrections, without allowing averages to conceal important problems. [1]
- Select standards and ethical principles
- Apply standards during planning
- Ensure informed consent and ethical protection
- Address ethical issues during implementation
- Review quality at completion (self-check against standards)
- Institutionalize standards application
When to use it and when it is unsuitable
When to use it
- When reviewing and improving evaluation design against quality and ethics standards during planning
- When specifying quality criteria in procurement specifications and evaluator selection for commissioned evaluations
- When assessing report and process quality using standards for meta-evaluation
- When using training materials for evaluators or evaluation committees to learn what constitutes good practice
When it is unsuitable
- When standards are used only as a formal checklist without improvement. Use them as an improvement tool rather than merely for normative compliance.
- Blind application in regions with substantially different cultural or institutional contexts. Examine contextual fit.
Participants, roles, and deliverables
Participants and roles
All evaluation team members (ethical compliance), evaluation committee (standards review), and IRB (institutional review board, when considering research ethics review)
Main deliverables
- Completed evaluation ethics checklist
- Evaluation standards self-assessment
- Informed consent form
Implementation steps
- Select standards and ethical principlesSelect standards suited to the evaluation purpose and subject, recording their name, edition and review scope. This page primarily explains JCSEE's Program Evaluation Standards.
- Apply standards during planningCheck evaluation design and plans against selected standards, identifying problems across all five attributes. Prioritize utility (who the evaluation serves) and propriety (ethical considerations).
- Ensure informed consent and ethical protectionSpecify and implement participant information and consent procedures, anonymity and confidentiality protection, special consideration for vulnerable groups such as children, refugees and people with disabilities, and secure data management. Address research ethics review appropriately where required.
- Address ethical issues during implementationDefine procedures in advance for conflicts of interest, data manipulation, risks of participant harm and other issues. Record, report and correct problems when they arise.
- Review quality at completion (self-check against standards)After completion, conduct a self-check against the five Joint Committee attributes and record main strengths and weaknesses. Incorporate this into the report's methodological limitations section.
- Institutionalize standards applicationIncorporate evaluation standards into commissioning specifications, evaluator selection and evaluation committee review criteria. Provide regular ethics training to embed standards in practice.
Strengths and limitations
Strengths
- Linking standards with evidence for judgments makes review findings easier to explain to others.
- Provides a shared quality assurance tool across design, implementation and reporting
- Can identify and prevent ethical problems such as conflicts of interest and participant harm
- Provides a normative basis for clarifying evaluators', commissioners' and beneficiaries' rights and responsibilities
Limitations
- The simplified table does not constitute a review of all 30 standards. Consult the official text for the required scope and disclose unconfirmed matters.
- Joint Committee standards developed primarily for US educational and program evaluation; application elsewhere requires interpretive adaptation
- Compliance may focus on formal legitimacy while weakening attention to substantive improvement and learning
Common pitfalls
- Treating ethics review and informed consent as burdensome formalities without substantive participant protection
- Consulting standards only after completion and neglecting preventive use during design
- Commissioning external evaluators without checking conflicts of interest with the evaluated organization
Conditions of use and evidence
- The third edition comprises 30 standards across five attributes, including documentation and internal and external meta-evaluation. [1]
Check inadequate explanations before publication
The following is a fictional example for illustration. A resident survey evaluation report is checked before publication.
Scroll horizontally to view the table
| Assessment item | Judgment (〇△✕) | Evidence and comments | Improvement measures |
|---|---|---|---|
| Are users and uses clear? (U2/U3) | 〇 | Explicitly states that a community meeting will decide the venue | No change |
| Is necessary information available? (U5) | △ | Nonrespondents' circumstances cannot be checked | Add generalization scope to the summary |
Common errors in judgment
Common mistake
Accept remaining ethical issues because the proportion of 〇 ratings is high
How to revise
Resolve serious unconfirmed matters individually
ReasonA large total cannot offset inadequate protection of people.
Common mistake
Present a simplified check as official standards compliance certification
How to revise
Specify the standards used and review scope
ReasonSelf-assessment and third-party certification differ.
Organize your thinking by writing
Evaluation standards and ethics checklist
A practical template is available to fill in and print on A4 paper.
Open worksheetRelated practical guides
Related methods
References and checked sections
- Program Evaluation StandardsJoint Committee on Standards for Educational Evaluation · 2010 (third edition)
- Section consulted
- Standards Statements; Evaluation Accountability Standards (E1–E3)
- How it relates to the text
- The third edition comprises 30 standards across five attributes, including documentation and internal and external meta-evaluation.
Editorial and checking information
How to cite this page
EvalCompass Editorial Team. “Evaluation Standards and Ethics”. EvalCompass, updated 2026-09-13. https://evalcompass.jun-nakatani.com/en/methods/evaluation-standards/
Add the date you accessed the page. Text created by this site is available under CC BY 4.0. Quotations, external materials, and bundled fonts have their own terms of use. When reusing content, credit the source, link to the license, and indicate any changes.
Change history
- — Updated explanations to correspond with sources, and added method-specific fictional worksheet examples, judgment examples and revision history.