{"id":1329,"date":"2023-08-09T15:07:53","date_gmt":"2023-08-09T13:07:53","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/evaltep.xcreative.cz\/uncategorized\/typologie-metaevaluaci\/"},"modified":"2023-09-15T15:37:45","modified_gmt":"2023-09-15T13:37:45","slug":"typology-of-metaevaluations","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/evaltep.xcreative.cz\/en\/articles\/typology-of-metaevaluations\/","title":{"rendered":"Typology of Metaevaluations"},"content":{"rendered":"

Typology of Metaevaluations<\/strong><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Abstrakt<\/strong><\/p>\n

Text v prvn\u00ed \u0159ad\u011b definuje metaevaluace, stru\u010dn\u011b poukazuje na okolnosti vzniku a rozvoje metaevaluac\u00ed a nasti\u0148uje typick\u00e9 c\u00edle, ke kter\u00fdm metaevalua\u010dn\u00ed projekty sp\u011bj\u00ed. Hlavn\u00ed \u010d\u00e1st textu je v\u011bnov\u00e1na doposud nepublikovan\u00e9mu rozboru jednotliv\u00fdch typ\u016f metaevaluac\u00ed; ka\u017ed\u00fd z p\u0159\u00edstup\u016f je nejprve stru\u010dn\u011b charakterizov\u00e1n a n\u00e1sledn\u011b jsou uv\u00e1d\u011bny aplika\u010dn\u00ed p\u0159ednosti a rizika spojen\u00e1 s jeho uplatn\u011bn\u00edm. Na podrobnou typologii metaevaluac\u00ed a zp\u016fsobu jejich proveden\u00ed navazuje samostatn\u00e1 \u010d\u00e1st textu, kter\u00e1 je v\u011bnov\u00e1na krit\u00e9ri\u00edm pou\u017e\u00edvan\u00fdm v metaevaluac\u00edch a zp\u016fsobu jejich stanoven\u00ed. Text v neposledn\u00ed \u0159ad\u011b poukazuje na vybran\u00e9 metodologick\u00e9 okolnosti prov\u00e1d\u011bn\u00ed metaevaluac\u00ed, p\u0159i\u010dem\u017e hlavn\u00ed pozornost je v\u011bnov\u00e1na v\u00fdb\u011bru prim\u00e1rn\u00edch evaluac\u00ed ur\u010den\u00fdch k proveden\u00ed metaevaluac\u00ed, volb\u011b podklad\u016f, na jejich\u017e z\u00e1klad\u011b jsou metaevaluace prov\u00e1d\u011bny a zp\u016fsobu hodnocen\u00ed jednotliv\u00fdch krit\u00e9ri\u00ed.<\/p>\n

Abstract<\/strong><\/p>\n

The text is trying to define what metaevaluation is and it also briefly points-out the key aspects of its introduction and development. The article also presents typical objectives that metaevaluations anticipate. Main part of the text is devoted to analysis of types of metaevaluations; each of\u00a0the\u00a0approaches je described and its main strengths and weaknesses are critically reviewed. Detailed typology of metaevaluations is followed by\u00a0explication of criteria used for metaevaluations and ways how such criteria are defined. The text presents also selected methodological aspects of conducting metaevaluations; attention is paid to sampling and criteria assessment.<\/p>\n

Kl\u00ed\u010dov\u00e1 slova<\/strong><\/p>\n

metaevaluace, evalua\u010dn\u00ed standardy, zvy\u0161ov\u00e1n\u00ed kvality<\/p>\n

Keywords<\/strong><\/p>\n

metaevaluation, evaluation standards, improving quality<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Tento \u010dl\u00e1nek byl zpracov\u00e1n v\u00a0r\u00e1mci projektu podpo\u0159en\u00e9ho Grantovou agenturou \u010cR, grant \u010d. 404\/11\/0949. Pr\u00e1ce byly provedeny v\u00a0r\u00e1mci Programu rozvoje v\u011bdn\u00edch oblast\u00ed na Univerzit\u011b Karlov\u011b (PRVOUK) \u010d. P07.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

1. \u00davod<\/strong><\/p>\n

Jedn\u00edm z\u00a0d\u016fle\u017eit\u00fdch c\u00edl\u016f evaluac\u00ed je poskytovat pou\u010den\u00ed z\u00a0realizovan\u00fdch aktivit, jak\u00fdmi mohou b\u00fdt nap\u0159. implementace program\u016f \u010di projekt\u016f nebo uskute\u010d\u0148ov\u00e1n\u00ed konkr\u00e9tn\u00edch intervenc\u00ed \u010di politik (Fitzpatrick et al. 1999; House, Howe 1999; Owen 2006). V\u00a0tomto ohledu je z\u0159eteln\u00e1 snaha evaluac\u00ed (a zejm\u00e9na pak evaluac\u00ed formativn\u00edch) p\u0159in\u00e1\u0161et u\u017eite\u010dn\u00e9 a vyu\u017eiteln\u00e9 n\u00e1m\u011bty na zlep\u0161en\u00ed prov\u00e1d\u011bn\u00fdch intervenc\u00ed, odstran\u011bn\u00ed \u010di sn\u00ed\u017een\u00ed v\u00fdskytu implementa\u010dn\u00edch selh\u00e1n\u00ed a na zvy\u0161ov\u00e1n\u00ed efektivity prov\u00e1d\u011bn\u00fdch program\u016f (Clarke 1999). Ot\u00e1zkou z\u016fst\u00e1v\u00e1, nakolik reflexivn\u00ed jsou evaluace samotn\u00e9, resp. do jak\u00e9 m\u00edry sami evalu\u00e1to\u0159i mohou \u010derpat podn\u011bty ke\u00a0sv\u00e9mu vlastn\u00edmu zlep\u0161en\u00ed a rozvoji evalua\u010dn\u00edch kompetenc\u00ed ze sv\u00fdch vlastn\u00edch aktivit.<\/p>\n

Z\u00a0hodnocen\u00ed v\u00fdvoje evalua\u010dn\u00edho oboru od konce 60. let je patrn\u00fd soustavn\u00fd z\u00e1jem o z\u00edsk\u00e1v\u00e1n\u00ed zp\u011btn\u00e9 vazby t\u00fdkaj\u00edc\u00ed se prov\u00e1d\u011bn\u00fdch evaluac\u00ed adresovan\u00e9 evalu\u00e1tor\u016fm samotn\u00fdm. Mnoh\u00e9 evalua\u010dn\u00ed p\u0159\u00edstupy navrhovan\u00e9 prominentn\u00edmi evalu\u00e1tory (nap\u0159. Scriven 1973, Stufflebeam 2001, Patton 2008 \u010di House 1980) pova\u017euj\u00ed za p\u0159irozenou sou\u010d\u00e1st rozvoje evalua\u010dn\u00edch kompetenc\u00ed a dovednost\u00ed, \u017ee jednotliv\u00e9 subjekty zapojen\u00e9 v\u00a0evalua\u010dn\u00edm procesu[1] vytv\u00e1\u0159ej\u00ed specifick\u00e9 postupy a mechanismy umo\u017e\u0148uj\u00edc\u00ed systematick\u00e9 z\u00edsk\u00e1v\u00e1n\u00ed a vyhodnocov\u00e1n\u00ed zp\u011btn\u00e9 vazby k prov\u00e1d\u011bn\u00fdm evaluac\u00edm.<\/p>\n

Metaevaluace (d\u00e1le jen MEV) v\u00a0tomto ohledu p\u0159edstavuj\u00ed z\u00e1sadn\u00ed \u010dinnost, kterou v\u00a0druh\u00e9 polovin\u011b \u0161edes\u00e1t\u00fdch let popsal M. Scriven (1991) a definoval ji jako evaluaci ji\u017e proveden\u00e9 evaluace. Baz\u00e1ln\u00edm c\u00edlem MEV je ov\u011b\u0159it, v jak\u00fdch ohledech a do jak\u00e9 m\u00edry proveden\u00e9 evaluace odpov\u00eddaj\u00ed zad\u00e1n\u00ed, o\u010dek\u00e1v\u00e1n\u00ed \u010di obecn\u011b definovan\u00fdm standard\u016fm (Schwandt, Halpern 1988). Nicm\u00e9n\u011b MEV jsou multifunkcion\u00e1ln\u00ed, tzn., \u017ee oby\u010dejn\u011b sleduj\u00ed v\u011bt\u0161\u00ed po\u010det c\u00edl\u016f, a tak MEV mohou krom\u011b ji\u017e uveden\u00e9ho poskytovat rozbor kvality proveden\u00e9 evaluace, mohou prov\u00e1d\u011bt kontrolu zam\u011b\u0159enou na identifikaci konkr\u00e9tn\u00edch nedostatk\u016f \u010di nep\u0159esnost\u00ed nebo mohou anticipovat edukativn\u00ed c\u00edle a p\u0159in\u00e1\u0161et pou\u010den\u00ed realiz\u00e1tor\u016fm evaluac\u00ed i u\u017eivatel\u016fm v\u00fdsledk\u016f proveden\u00fdch evaluac\u00ed.<\/p>\n

MEV mohou b\u00fdt rovn\u011b\u017e vedeny snahou o prov\u00e1d\u011bn\u00ed evaluace samotn\u00fdch evalu\u00e1tor\u016f, tedy jako evaluaci evalu\u00e1tor\u016f. Takov\u00e1to forma MEV vych\u00e1z\u00ed z\u00a0p\u0159edpokladu, \u017ee samotn\u00ed evalu\u00e1to\u0159i jsou jednou ze zainteresovan\u00fdch stran (Guba, Lincoln 1989) a tak by i oni m\u011bli b\u00fdt evaluov\u00e1ni, stejn\u011b tak\u00a0jako ostatn\u00ed subjekty. Kl\u00ed\u010dov\u00fdm motivem je v\u00a0tomto ohledu snaha eliminovat \u010di alespo\u0148 kontrolovat subjektivn\u00ed prvek v\u00a0prim\u00e1rn\u00edch evaluac\u00edch a dos\u00e1hnout tak vy\u0161\u0161\u00ed kredibility z\u00edsk\u00e1van\u00fdch evalua\u010dn\u00edch z\u00e1v\u011br\u016f[2]. P\u016fvodn\u00ed Scrivenova p\u0159edstava o roli a v\u00fdznamu MEV byla d\u00e1le rozpracov\u00e1na a roz\u0161\u00ed\u0159ena D. Stufflebeamem, kter\u00fd ch\u00e1pal MEV nejen jako n\u00e1stroj hodnocen\u00ed zp\u016fsobu proveden\u00ed prim\u00e1rn\u00edch evaluac\u00ed, ale p\u0159edev\u0161\u00edm
\njako ucelen\u00fd soubor opat\u0159en\u00ed slou\u017e\u00edc\u00edch k\u00a0tomu, aby evaluace p\u0159in\u00e1\u0161ely jasn\u00e1 zji\u0161t\u011bn\u00ed a jednozna\u010dn\u00e9 z\u00e1v\u011bry (Stufflebeam, Shinkfield 2007). V\u00a0jeho pojet\u00ed je patrn\u00e1 snaha pojmout MEV jako praktickou pom\u016fcku ur\u010denou samotn\u00fdm realiz\u00e1tor\u016fm evaluac\u00ed.<\/p>\n

2. Typy metaevaluac\u00ed<\/strong><\/p>\n

Typologie a podrobn\u00fd rozbor jednotliv\u00fdch variant a zp\u016fsob\u016f uspo\u0159\u00e1d\u00e1n\u00ed MEV doposud nebyl proveden, a to ani v\u00a0\u010desk\u00e9 a dokonce ne ani v zahrani\u010dn\u00ed literatu\u0159e. Aktu\u00e1ln\u00ed prameny jsou v\u011bt\u0161inou jen kazuistick\u00e9 \u2013 popisuj\u00ed konkr\u00e9tn\u00ed design, jen\u017e byl v\u00a0dan\u00fdch podm\u00ednk\u00e1ch zvolen, popisuj\u00ed se charakteristiky prim\u00e1rn\u00edch evaluac\u00ed. Pou\u017eit\u00e9 metody a techniky jsou v\u0161ak pops\u00e1ny jen r\u00e1mcov\u011b a nesm\u011b\u0159uj\u00ed k\u00a0formulaci obecn\u00fdch doporu\u010den\u00ed \u010di\u00a0n\u00e1vod\u016f, oby\u010dejn\u011b chyb\u00ed zobecn\u011bn\u00e9 pou\u010den\u00ed \u010di n\u00e1vod, jak koncipovat MEV v\u00a0dal\u0161\u00edch podobn\u00fdch situac\u00edch. Tento text je tedy v\u00a0tomto ohledu prvn\u00edm n\u00e1stinem obecn\u011bji koncipovan\u00e9ho pojedn\u00e1n\u00ed o typech MEV.<\/p>\n

N\u00e1sleduj\u00edc\u00ed typologie proto vznikala jednak odvozen\u00edm z\u00a0jin\u00fdch technik pou\u017e\u00edvan\u00fdch v\u00a0analogick\u00fdch situac\u00edch bu\u010f p\u0159\u00edmo v\u00a0oblasti evaluac\u00ed (viz\u00a0rozli\u0161ov\u00e1n\u00ed sumativn\u00edch a formativn\u00edch MEV) nebo v\u00a0jin\u00fdch oblastech spole\u010denskov\u011bdn\u00edho v\u00fdzkumu (zejm. m\u00edra zapojen\u00ed realiz\u00e1tora), p\u0159\u00edpadn\u011b p\u0159enesen\u00edm vybran\u00fdch p\u0159\u00edstup\u016f z\u00a0jin\u00fdch obor\u016f (nap\u0159. p\u0159edm\u011bt evaluace). V\u00fdznamn\u00fdm zdrojem prezentovan\u00fdch typ\u016f jsou rovn\u011b\u017e praktick\u00e9 zku\u0161enosti nabyt\u00e9 v\u00a0r\u00e1mci dlouhodob\u00e9ho projektu zam\u011b\u0159en\u00e9ho na precizaci metaevalua\u010dn\u00edch postup\u016f. Tyto poznatky vych\u00e1zej\u00edc\u00ed z\u00a0praxe umo\u017enily posoudit relevanci jednotliv\u00fdch dichotomi\u00ed, zp\u0159esnit jejich v\u00fdznam a formulovat z\u00e1kladn\u00ed metodologick\u00e1 doporu\u010den\u00ed. Lze tedy rozli\u0161ovat typy MEV podle n\u00e1sleduj\u00edc\u00edch \u0161esti krit\u00e9ri\u00ed:<\/p>\n

a) dle inici\u00e1tora<\/strong><\/p>\n

V\u00a0prvn\u00ed \u0159ad\u011b stoj\u00ed za pozornost, kdo proveden\u00ed MEV iniciuje. Proveden\u00ed MEV m\u016f\u017ee b\u00fdt iniciov\u00e1no samotn\u00fdmi realiz\u00e1tory evaluace nebo m\u016f\u017ee b\u00fdt po\u017eadov\u00e1no dal\u0161\u00ed zainteresovanou stranou \u2013 typicky zadavatelem \u010di n\u011bkter\u00fdm z u\u017eivatel\u016f. Lze se setkat i se situac\u00ed, kdy inici\u00e1torem MEV je t\u0159et\u00ed strana, nap\u0159. kontroln\u00ed org\u00e1n, arbitr, koordina\u010dn\u00ed pracovi\u0161t\u011b, akademick\u00e1 instituce nebo potenci\u00e1ln\u00ed zadavatel evaluac\u00ed, kter\u00fd se proveden\u00edm MEV sna\u017e\u00ed pou\u010dit z\u00a0ji\u017e proveden\u00fdch evaluac\u00ed.<\/p>\n

V\u00a0tomto ohledu je t\u0159eba p\u0159ipomenout, \u017ee inici\u00e1tor MEV je v\u00fdznamnou zainteresovanou stranou, kter\u00e1 sv\u00fdm z\u00e1m\u011brem deklaruje sv\u016fj z\u00e1jem ve\u00a0vztahu k\u00a0prim\u00e1rn\u00ed evaluaci (tedy k\u00a0t\u00e9, je\u017e je p\u0159edm\u011btem MEV). To m\u00e1 pochopiteln\u011b vliv na metodiku MEV, na jej\u00ed celkov\u00fd design, na volbu krit\u00e9ri\u00ed, je\u017e by m\u011bla b\u00fdt pou\u017eita pro hodnocen\u00ed prim\u00e1rn\u00ed evaluace a na zp\u016fsob nakl\u00e1d\u00e1n\u00ed s\u00a0v\u00fdsledky MEV.<\/p>\n

V\u00a0p\u0159\u00edpad\u011b, \u017ee inici\u00e1torem je zadavatel, je obvyklou snahou vyt\u011b\u017eit ze zp\u016fsobu prov\u00e1d\u011bn\u00ed evaluac\u00ed nov\u00e9 poznatky vyu\u017eiteln\u00e9 v\u00a0procesu zad\u00e1v\u00e1n\u00ed nov\u00fdch evaluac\u00ed. V\u00a0p\u0159\u00edpad\u011b, \u017ee inici\u00e1torem MEV je subjekt, kter\u00fd je \u010dast\u00fdm zadavatelem (a u\u017eivatelem) evaluac\u00ed, pak se z\u00e1jem obrac\u00ed k\u00a0identifikaci charakteristik, je\u017e jsou realizovan\u00fdm evaluac\u00edm spole\u010dn\u00e9, a kter\u00e9 mohou b\u00fdt nezam\u00fd\u0161len\u00fdm d\u016fsledkem zp\u016fsobu zad\u00e1v\u00e1n\u00ed evaluac\u00ed \u010di stylem \u0159\u00edzen\u00ed a kontroly jednotliv\u00fdch evaluac\u00ed. V\u00a0n\u011bkter\u00fdch p\u0159\u00edpadech (nemus\u00ed to v\u0161ak b\u00fdt pravidlem) je MEV ze strany zadavatele iniciov\u00e1na jako n\u00e1stroj z\u00edsk\u00e1v\u00e1n\u00ed informac\u00ed pou\u017eiteln\u00fdch p\u0159i n\u00e1sledn\u00e9m \u0159\u00edzen\u00ed kvality prov\u00e1d\u011bn\u00fdch evaluac\u00ed (Benson et al. 2001). Pokud je inici\u00e1torem MEV samotn\u00fd realiz\u00e1tor evaluace, je obvykl\u00fdm d\u016fvodem snaha identifikovat okolnosti dan\u00e9ho evalua\u010dn\u00edho projektu, kter\u00e9 jsou odli\u0161n\u00e9 od ostatn\u00edch evaluac\u00ed (nap\u0159. v\u00fdznamn\u011b del\u0161\u00ed \u010das nutn\u00fd k\u00a0realizaci hloubkov\u00fdch rozhovor\u016f, odchylky v\u00a0n\u00e1vratnosti v\u00a0prov\u00e1d\u011bn\u00e9m dotazn\u00edkov\u00e9m \u0161et\u0159en\u00ed, po\u010det a rozsah p\u0159ipom\u00ednek zadavatele k\u00a0prvn\u00ed verzi zpr\u00e1vy apod.).<\/p>\n

Specifikovat u proveden\u00e9 MEV inici\u00e1tora je v\u00fdznamn\u00e9, nebo\u0165 tato informace souvis\u00ed s\u00a0rozsahem informac\u00ed dostupn\u00fdch pro realizaci MEV (zadavatelsk\u00e9 MEV se mohou v\u00edce zam\u011b\u0159it na okolnosti zad\u00e1n\u00ed evaluac\u00ed a jejich vyu\u017eit\u00ed, naproti tomu realiz\u00e1torsk\u00e9 MEV se mohou v\u00edce soust\u0159edit na\u00a0vlastn\u00ed metodiku evaluace a zp\u016fsob jej\u00edho proveden\u00ed; MEV iniciovan\u00e9 t\u0159et\u00edmi stranami se oby\u010dejn\u011b zam\u011b\u0159uj\u00ed na posouzen\u00ed \u0161ir\u0161\u00edho r\u00e1mce, ve kter\u00e9m jsou MEV prov\u00e1d\u011bny, na hodnocen\u00ed kontextu, pop\u0159. na soulad s\u00a0obecn\u00fdmi standardy \u010di o\u010dek\u00e1v\u00e1n\u00edm.<\/p>\n

b) dle \u00fa\u010delu<\/strong><\/p>\n

Dal\u0161\u00ed z\u00a0v\u00fdznamn\u00fdch dichotomi\u00ed rozli\u0161uje MEV sumativn\u00ed a formativn\u00ed. Formativn\u00ed MEV lze spojovat se snahou o zlep\u0161ov\u00e1n\u00ed a rozv\u00edjen\u00ed hodnocen\u00fdch evaluac\u00ed. V\u00fdsledky takto pojat\u00fdch MEV tedy p\u0159edstavuj\u00ed pr\u016fb\u011b\u017enou zp\u011btnou vazbu, kter\u00e1 je vyu\u017e\u00edv\u00e1na pro korigov\u00e1n\u00ed b\u011b\u017e\u00edc\u00edch evaluac\u00ed a\u00a0pro\u00a0zv\u00fd\u0161en\u00ed jejich kvality. Formativn\u00ed MEV umo\u017e\u0148uj\u00ed v\u010das odhalit p\u0159\u00edpadn\u00e9 nedostatky, zjednat jejich n\u00e1pravu a minimalizovat p\u0159\u00edpadn\u00e9 negativn\u00ed dopady (Bingham, Felbinger 2002). D\u00e1le plat\u00ed, \u017ee podrobn\u00e1 anal\u00fdza nedostatk\u016f pr\u00e1v\u011b prov\u00e1d\u011bn\u00fdch evaluac\u00ed umo\u017e\u0148uje hlub\u0161\u00ed a p\u0159esn\u011bj\u0161\u00ed pochopen\u00ed fungov\u00e1n\u00ed pou\u017e\u00edvan\u00fdch postup\u016f a metod p\u0159\u00edmo v\u00a0re\u00e1ln\u00fdch podm\u00ednk\u00e1ch. Formativn\u00ed MEV tedy maj\u00ed obvykle (neplat\u00ed to v\u0161ak v\u017edy) intern\u00ed povahu, kdy evalu\u00e1tor hodnot\u00ed svou vlastn\u00ed evaluaci v\u00a0pr\u016fb\u011bhu jej\u00edho zpracov\u00e1v\u00e1n\u00ed. V\u00a0tomto p\u0159\u00edpad\u011b MEV umo\u017e\u0148uje lep\u0161\u00ed pochopen\u00ed, jak r\u016fzn\u00e1 rozhodnut\u00ed v\u00a0r\u00e1mci dan\u00e9ho evalua\u010dn\u00edho designu ovliv\u0148uj\u00ed kvalitu v\u00fdsledk\u016f a jak tato rozhodnut\u00ed dopadaj\u00ed na dan\u00fd evalua\u010dn\u00ed projekt. To d\u00e1v\u00e1 evalu\u00e1tor\u016fm p\u0159\u00edle\u017eitost ke zlep\u0161en\u00ed vlastn\u00edch \u010dinnost\u00ed, a to je\u0161t\u011b p\u0159edt\u00edm, ne\u017e\u00a0jsou v\u00fdsledky evaluace prezentov\u00e1ny zadavateli.<\/p>\n

Sumativn\u00ed MEV jsou pou\u017e\u00edv\u00e1ny v\u00a0situac\u00edch, kdy je t\u0159eba posoudit dosa\u017een\u00e9 v\u00fdsledky a zp\u016fsob proveden\u00ed evaluace. C\u00edlem evaluac\u00ed nen\u00ed v\u00a0tomto p\u0159\u00edpad\u011b hledat n\u00e1vrhy na zlep\u0161en\u00ed, n\u00fdbr\u017e konstatovat a osv\u011bd\u010dit dosa\u017een\u00ed \u010di nedosa\u017een\u00ed vyty\u010den\u00fdch c\u00edl\u016f (Daponte 2008). Sumativn\u00ed MEV jsou prov\u00e1d\u011bny bu\u010f po\u00a0skon\u010den\u00ed dan\u00e9 evaluace, nebo po p\u0159esn\u011b definovan\u00e9 etap\u011b (nap\u0159. po\u00a0p\u0159ed\u00e1n\u00ed vstupn\u00ed zpr\u00e1vy, po dokon\u010den\u00ed ter\u00e9nn\u00edch prac\u00ed, po p\u0159ed\u00e1n\u00ed draftu evalua\u010dn\u00ed zpr\u00e1vy apod.). Vzhledem k\u00a0tomu, \u017ee takov\u00e9to MEV b\u00fdvaj\u00ed \u010dasto prov\u00e1d\u011bny po dokon\u010den\u00ed a akceptaci prim\u00e1rn\u00ed evaluace zadavatelem, p\u0159\u00edpadn\u00e9 n\u00e1vrhy na jej\u00ed zlep\u0161en\u00ed stejn\u011b nemohly b\u00fdt zohledn\u011bny. Z\u00a0podobn\u00e9ho d\u016fvodu si sumativn\u00ed MEV nekladou za c\u00edl hledat v\u00a0procesu realizace prim\u00e1rn\u00ed evaluace p\u0159\u00edle\u017eitosti a mo\u017enosti, jak dos\u00e1hnout zlep\u0161en\u00ed.<\/p>\n

Sumativn\u00ed MEV je prov\u00e1d\u011bna t\u0159et\u00ed (nez\u00e1vislou) stranou za \u00fa\u010delem pos\u00edlen\u00ed legitimity v\u00fdsledk\u016f MEV a z\u00a0d\u016fvodu snaz\u0161\u00ed identifikace zdroj\u016f chyb vyskytnuv\u0161\u00edch se v\u00a0prim\u00e1rn\u00ed evaluaci. Tento p\u0159\u00edstup m\u00e1 pozitivn\u00ed efekty pro\u00a0budouc\u00ed evalua\u010dn\u00ed projekty a je faktick\u00fdm spojen\u00edm mezi jinak samostatn\u00fdmi evaluacemi. Inici\u00e1torem sumativn\u00ed evaluace m\u016f\u017ee b\u00fdt kter\u00fdkoliv subjekt zm\u00edn\u011bn\u00fd v\u00a0p\u0159edchoz\u00ed \u010d\u00e1sti (tedy zadavatel, realiz\u00e1tor i p\u0159\u00edpadn\u00e1 t\u0159et\u00ed strana), typick\u00fdm inici\u00e1torem je v\u0161ak zadavatel evaluace.<\/p>\n

c) dle p\u0159edm\u011btu MEV<\/strong><\/p>\n

P\u0159edm\u011btem MEV mohou b\u00fdt na jedn\u00e9 stran\u011b v\u00fdstupy proveden\u00e9 evaluace (tj. typicky evalua\u010dn\u00ed zpr\u00e1vy) nebo, na stran\u011b druh\u00e9, cel\u00fd proces prim\u00e1rn\u00ed evaluace, a to v\u010detn\u011b jednotliv\u00fdch proces\u016f vykon\u00e1van\u00fdch b\u011bhem jej\u00ed p\u0159\u00edpravy, v\u00a0r\u00e1mci identifikace a anal\u00fdzy zainteresovan\u00fdch stran \u00fa\u010dastn\u00edc\u00edch se zad\u00e1n\u00ed prim\u00e1rn\u00ed evaluace, p\u0159i v\u00fdb\u011bru jej\u00edho realiz\u00e1tora atd. Rozhodnut\u00ed o p\u0159edm\u011btu MEV je z\u00e1sadn\u00ed, nebo\u0165 m\u00e1 vliv na volbu metod proveden\u00ed MEV. V\u00a0p\u0159\u00edpad\u011b, \u017ee c\u00edlem MEV je posuzov\u00e1n\u00ed fin\u00e1ln\u00edch v\u00fdstup\u016f proveden\u00e9 evaluace, pak MEV bude m\u00edt velmi pravd\u011bpodobn\u011b podobu desk research, kdy metaevalu\u00e1tor provede rozbor obsahu evalua\u010dn\u00ed zpr\u00e1vy s\u00a0vyu\u017eit\u00edm metod a technik obsahov\u00e9, pop\u0159. v\u00fdpov\u011bdn\u00ed anal\u00fdzy.<\/p>\n

Krom\u011b samotn\u00fdch z\u00e1v\u011bre\u010dn\u00fdch v\u00fdstup\u016f v\u0161ak mohou b\u00fdt p\u0159edm\u011btem MEV tak\u00e9 dal\u0161\u00ed dokumenty ovliv\u0148uj\u00edc\u00ed zp\u016fsob proveden\u00ed prim\u00e1rn\u00ed evaluace a jej\u00ed charakter (nap\u0159. zad\u00e1vac\u00ed dokumentace, smlouva o realizaci evaluace apod.). S\u00a0pou\u017eit\u00fdmi metodami souvis\u00ed tak\u00e9 volba a definice jednotliv\u00fdch krit\u00e9ri\u00ed, podle kter\u00fdch jsou p\u0159i prov\u00e1d\u011bn\u00ed MEV prim\u00e1rn\u00ed evaluace hodnoceny.<\/p>\n

V\u00a0situaci, kdy p\u0159edm\u011btem MEV je posouzen\u00ed odborn\u00e9 \u00farovn\u011b prim\u00e1rn\u00ed evaluace \u010di jej\u00ed metodologick\u00e9 spr\u00e1vnosti, pak MEV m\u016f\u017ee b\u00fdt obohacena o\u00a0prvky peer-review, kdy nez\u00e1visl\u00ed odborn\u00edci a specialist\u00e9 poskytnou vlastn\u00ed odborn\u00e1 stanoviska ke konkr\u00e9tn\u00edm charakteristik\u00e1m prim\u00e1rn\u00ed evaluace (Combs, Falletta 2000). Takov\u00fdmto zp\u016fsobem lez posuzovat mj. vhodnost a korektnost identifikace zainteresovan\u00fdch stran, volbu adekv\u00e1tn\u00edch evalua\u010dn\u00edch metod, zvolen\u00fd zp\u016fsob anal\u00fdzy informac\u00ed \u010di transparentnost zpracov\u00e1n\u00ed \u00fadaj\u016f a dovozen\u00ed evalua\u010dn\u00edch z\u00e1v\u011br\u016f.<\/p>\n

Pokud je c\u00edlem MEV komplexn\u00ed vyhodnocen\u00ed zp\u016fsobu proveden\u00ed prim\u00e1rn\u00ed evaluace, je velmi pravd\u011bpodobn\u00e9, \u017ee p\u0159i realizace MEV bude desk research dopln\u011bn ter\u00e9nn\u00edm v\u00fdzkumem, kdy metaevalu\u00e1tor provede nap\u0159. individu\u00e1ln\u00ed hloubkov\u00e9 rozhovory se zadavateli prim\u00e1rn\u00ed evaluace, se\u00a0z\u00e1stupci evaluovan\u00fdch c\u00edlov\u00fdch skupin, pop\u0159. s\u00a0vybran\u00fdmi \u010dleny evalua\u010dn\u00edho t\u00fdmu.<\/p>\n

d) dle realiz\u00e1tora MEV<\/strong><\/p>\n

Toto hledisko je t\u0159eba rozli\u0161it od iniciace MEV, nebo\u0165 se v\u00a0aplika\u010dn\u00ed praxi lze setkat s\u00a0t\u00edm, \u017ee inici\u00e1torem a realiz\u00e1torem MEV jsou rozd\u00edln\u00e9 subjekty. Velmi \u010dasto zadavatel prim\u00e1rn\u00ed evaluace iniciuje proveden\u00ed MEV, nicm\u00e9n\u011b pov\u011b\u0159\u00ed touto \u010dinnost\u00ed t\u0159et\u00ed stranu. \u010cast\u00e1 je situace, kdy inici\u00e1torem MEV je realiz\u00e1tor prim\u00e1rn\u00ed evaluace, kter\u00fd sv\u011b\u0159\u00ed jej\u00ed proveden\u00ed t\u0159et\u00ed stran\u011b. Vyskytuj\u00ed se i p\u0159\u00edpady, kdy zadavatel po\u017eaduje proveden\u00ed MEV po realiz\u00e1torovi prim\u00e1rn\u00ed evaluace formou jak\u00e9si auto-evaluace. V\u00fdchodiskem rozli\u0161ov\u00e1n\u00ed konkr\u00e9tn\u00edch subjekt\u016f prov\u00e1d\u011bj\u00edc\u00edch MEV je fakt, \u017ee n\u011bkter\u00e9 organizace \u2013 zadavatel\u00e9 evaluac\u00ed mohou k\u00a0prov\u00e1d\u011bn\u00ed MEV vyu\u017e\u00edvat sv\u00e9 vlastn\u00ed pracovn\u00edky. T\u0159et\u00ed strana je subjektem, kter\u00fd neparticipoval na prim\u00e1rn\u00ed evaluaci a nebyl ani anga\u017eov\u00e1n zadavatelem prim\u00e1rn\u00ed evaluace.<\/p>\n

D\u016fvod\u016f, pro\u010d n\u011bkte\u0159\u00ed zadavatel\u00e9 prim\u00e1rn\u00edch evaluac\u00ed vyu\u017e\u00edvaj\u00ed k\u00a0realizaci MEV vlastn\u00ed pracovn\u00edky nam\u00edsto toho, aby realizovaly jednotliv\u00e9 metaevalua\u010dn\u00ed projekty na smluvn\u00edm z\u00e1klad\u011b s\u00a0extern\u00edmi subjekty, je hned n\u011bkolik. U mnoh\u00fdch zadavatel\u016f mohou b\u00fdt MEV pova\u017eov\u00e1ny za sou\u010d\u00e1st vlastn\u00edho \u0159\u00edzen\u00ed, a tak vznik\u00e1 pot\u0159eba po pr\u016fb\u011b\u017en\u00e9 MEV jednotliv\u00fdch prim\u00e1rn\u00edch evaluac\u00ed (Preskill, Russ-eft 2005). N\u011bkter\u00e9 organizace nav\u00edc zad\u00e1vaj\u00ed relativn\u011b vysok\u00fd po\u010det prim\u00e1rn\u00edch evaluac\u00ed, co\u017e vytv\u00e1\u0159\u00ed p\u0159edpoklady pro systematick\u00e9 prov\u00e1d\u011bn\u00ed MEV a pro vy\u0161kolen\u00ed vlastn\u00edch pracovn\u00edk\u016f pro prov\u00e1d\u011bn\u00ed takov\u00e9to \u010dinnosti. V t\u011bchto p\u0159\u00edpadech tato forma MEV umo\u017e\u0148uje dan\u00e9 organizaci redukovat n\u00e1klady na realizaci vysok\u00e9ho mno\u017estv\u00ed, relativn\u011b standardizovan\u00fdch MEV. Hlavn\u00ed v\u00fdhody prov\u00e1d\u011bn\u00ed MEV zadavateli prim\u00e1rn\u00edch evaluac\u00ed lze dovodit ze souhrnu Khakeeho (2003), kter\u00fd v\u00a0podobn\u00e9m kontextu poukazuje p\u0159edev\u0161\u00edm na p\u0159esnou a\u00a0detailn\u00ed znalost prost\u0159ed\u00ed, c\u00edl\u016f a z\u00e1m\u011br\u016f \u2013 intern\u00ed pracovn\u00edk je zkr\u00e1tka sou\u010d\u00e1st\u00ed dan\u00e9 organiza\u010dn\u00ed struktury a kultury, a tak p\u0159\u00edpadn\u00e9 riziko plynouc\u00ed z\u00a0nepochopen\u00ed c\u00edl\u016f MEV a \u00fa\u010delu jej\u00edho proveden\u00ed je relativn\u011b n\u00edzk\u00e9. Tato v\u00fdhoda se d\u00e1le m\u016f\u017ee prom\u00edtnout do volby adekv\u00e1tn\u011bj\u0161\u00edch postup\u016f pou\u017eit\u00fdch p\u0159i MEV a do efektivn\u011bj\u0161\u00ed komunikace z\u00edskan\u00fdch v\u00fdsledk\u016f.<\/p>\n

Naproti tomu v\u00fdhodou MEV prov\u00e1d\u011bn\u00fdch t\u0159et\u00edmi stranami (tedy obvykle nez\u00e1visl\u00fdmi evalu\u00e1tory) je potenci\u00e1ln\u011b vy\u0161\u0161\u00ed profesionalita, p\u0159\u00edpadn\u011b specializace na n\u011bkter\u00e9 konkr\u00e9tn\u00ed typy a metody MEV. Pokud je tedy po\u017eadov\u00e1n specifick\u00fd \u010di m\u00e9n\u011b standardn\u00ed typ MEV, je pravd\u011bpodobn\u011bj\u0161\u00ed, \u017ee\u00a0t\u0159et\u00ed strana (extern\u00ed evalu\u00e1tor) bude v\u00a0tomto ohledu dosahovat vy\u0161\u0161\u00ed excelence ne\u017e vlastn\u00ed pracovn\u00edk zadavatelsk\u00e9 organizace (Smith, Brandon 2008). Pochopiteln\u00fdm d\u016fvodem spolupr\u00e1ce se\u00a0t\u0159et\u00edmi stranami je realizace sumativn\u00edch MEV; v\u00a0tomto p\u0159\u00edpad\u011b je \u00fa\u010dast intern\u00edch pracovn\u00edk\u016f s\u00a0ohledem na mo\u017en\u00fd konflikt z\u00e1jm\u016f p\u0159inejmen\u0161\u00edm nevhodn\u00e1 a ne\u017e\u00e1douc\u00ed.<\/p>\n

Specifick\u00fdm p\u0159\u00edpadem prov\u00e1d\u011bn\u00ed MEV jsou \u0161et\u0159en\u00ed prov\u00e1d\u011bn\u00e1 samotn\u00fdmi realiz\u00e1tory, kdy jde de facto o vlastn\u00ed hodnocen\u00ed, nebo\u0165 MEV prov\u00e1d\u00ed p\u0159\u00edmo realiz\u00e1tor prim\u00e1rn\u00ed evaluace. Ress-eft a Bober (2007) zmi\u0148uj\u00ed z\u00e1kladn\u00ed charakteristiky, je\u017e jsme v\u00a0kontextu MEV d\u00e1le doplnili a\u00a0roz\u0161\u00ed\u0159ili. Jde p\u0159edev\u0161\u00edm o tyto:<\/p>\n

reflexivn\u00ed praxe<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n

MEV proveden\u00e1 samotn\u00fdm realiz\u00e1torem je \u010dinnost\u00ed, kter\u00e1 vyu\u017e\u00edv\u00e1 na\u00a0schopnosti jednotliv\u00fdch subjekt\u016f prov\u00e9st reflexi sebe sama. Vlastn\u00ed hodnocen\u00ed vede dot\u010den\u00e9 subjekty k\u00a0tomu, aby v\u011bnovaly pozornost konkr\u00e9tn\u00edm aspekt\u016fm sv\u00e9 \u010dinnosti.<\/p>\n

pr\u016fb\u011b\u017en\u00e9 zji\u0161\u0165ov\u00e1n\u00ed kvality<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n

Subjekty prov\u00e1d\u011bj\u00edc\u00ed vlastn\u00ed hodnocen\u00ed systematicky hledaj\u00ed pou\u010den\u00ed ve\u00a0sv\u00e9 \u010dinnosti a posuzuj\u00ed adekv\u00e1tnost jednotliv\u00fdch opat\u0159en\u00ed vzhledem k\u00a0c\u00edl\u016fm, kter\u00fdch dos\u00e1hly. Smysl vlastn\u00edho hodnocen\u00ed z\u00a0hlediska evalua\u010dn\u00ed praxe je t\u0159eba hledat tak\u00e9 ve stimulaci postup\u016f a krok\u016f, kter\u00e9 umo\u017en\u00ed soustavn\u011b vyhled\u00e1vat a vyhodnocovat zp\u011btnou vazbu t\u00fdkaj\u00edc\u00ed se vykon\u00e1van\u00e9 evalua\u010dn\u00ed \u010dinnosti; vlastn\u00ed hodnocen\u00ed tak posiluje odpov\u011bdnost za\u00a0konkr\u00e9tn\u00ed kroky, kter\u00e9 jsou na \u00farovni jednotliv\u00fdch subjekt\u016f prov\u00e1d\u011bny. Vlastn\u00ed hodnocen\u00ed lze vyu\u017e\u00edt v\u00a0situac\u00edch, kdy je dosa\u017een\u00ed definovan\u00fdch c\u00edl\u016f \u010di ov\u011b\u0159en\u00ed jin\u00fdch c\u00edl\u016f dan\u00e9 evaluace snadno identifikovateln\u00e9 (a potenci\u00e1ln\u011b snadno p\u0159ezkoumateln\u00e9) a kdy nen\u00ed t\u0159eba pou\u017e\u00edvat komplexn\u00ed mapu sofistikovan\u00fdch indik\u00e1tor\u016f. Vlastn\u00ed hodnocen\u00ed vych\u00e1z\u00ed z p\u0159edpokladu, \u017ee realiz\u00e1to\u0159i maj\u00ed z\u00e1jem na vlastn\u00edm zlep\u0161ov\u00e1n\u00ed.<\/p>\n

aplika\u010dn\u00ed omezen\u00ed<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n

Z\u00e1sadn\u00edm nedostatkem vlastn\u00edho hodnocen\u00ed m\u016f\u017ee b\u00fdt jeho subjektivn\u00ed charakter, kv\u016fli kter\u00e9mu je tento p\u0159\u00edstup diskvalifikov\u00e1n z\u00a0n\u011bkter\u00fdch aplika\u010dn\u00edch situac\u00ed; MEV prov\u00e1d\u011bn\u00e9 samotn\u00fdmi realiz\u00e1tory tak nelze nap\u0159. vyu\u017e\u00edt, pokud jsou sledov\u00e1ny sumativn\u00ed c\u00edle. Vlastn\u00ed hodnocen\u00ed m\u00e1 tedy sp\u00ed\u0161e formativn\u00ed charakter a jeho vyu\u017eitelnost je tak p\u0159\u00edmo z\u00e1visl\u00e1 na d\u016fv\u011b\u0159e mezi realiz\u00e1torem MEV a prim\u00e1rn\u00ed evaluace na jedn\u00e9 stran\u011b a zadavatelem na stran\u011b druh\u00e9.<\/p>\n

e) dle pl\u00e1novitosti<\/strong><\/p>\n

MEV lze rovn\u011b\u017e rozli\u0161ovat podle toho, zda se s\u00a0proveden\u00edm MEV po\u010d\u00edtalo u\u017e p\u0159i zad\u00e1v\u00e1n\u00ed prim\u00e1rn\u00ed evaluace (\u010di dokonce p\u0159ed jej\u00ed p\u0159\u00edpravou)
\nnebo zdali bylo takov\u00e9ho rozhodnut\u00ed u\u010din\u011bno a\u017e pozd\u011bji (nap\u0159. pot\u00e9, kdy\u00a0je prim\u00e1rn\u00ed evaluace dokon\u010dena). V\u00a0tomto ohledu jde tedy o to, zdali je MEV sou\u010d\u00e1st\u00ed projektu p\u0159ipravovan\u00e9 prim\u00e1rn\u00ed evaluace \u010di zdali je samostatn\u00fdm projektem realizovan\u00fdm v\u00edcem\u00e9n\u011b nez\u00e1visle na prim\u00e1rn\u00ed evaluaci.<\/p>\n

V\u00a0praxi v\u00fdznamn\u011b \u010dast\u011bji p\u0159eva\u017euje druh\u00fd p\u0159\u00edstup, kdy se rozhodnut\u00ed o\u00a0proveden\u00ed MEV uskute\u010d\u0148uje \u010dastokr\u00e1t a\u017e v\u00a0n\u00e1vaznosti na v\u00fdsledky dokon\u010den\u00e9 evaluace (Depoy, French 2003). Takov\u00e1to praxe v\u0161ak vede k\u00a0tomu, \u017ee zad\u00e1van\u00e9 MEV maj\u00ed sumativn\u00ed charakter. \u010castokr\u00e1t jsou jak\u00fdmi \u201eauditem\u201c, od n\u011bho\u017e se\u00a0o\u010dek\u00e1v\u00e1, \u017ee identifikuje p\u0159\u00edpadn\u00e9 chyby a selh\u00e1n\u00ed p\u0159i realizaci prim\u00e1rn\u00ed evaluace a poskytne tak argument k\u00a0odm\u00edtnut\u00ed \u201enevhodn\u00fdch\u201c z\u00e1v\u011br\u016f prim\u00e1rn\u00ed evaluace. Pokud k\u00a0rozhodnut\u00ed o realizaci MEV doch\u00e1z\u00ed a\u017e\u00a0po\u00a0dokon\u010den\u00ed prim\u00e1rn\u00ed evaluace, m\u016f\u017ee b\u00fdt obt\u00ed\u017en\u00e9 stanovit adekv\u00e1tn\u00ed krit\u00e9ria, a pokud se to nakonec poda\u0159\u00ed, m\u016f\u017ee b\u00fdt obt\u00ed\u017en\u00e9 (\u010di dokonce nemo\u017en\u00e9) z\u00edskat pot\u0159ebn\u00e9 informace a \u00fadaje. Z\u00a0t\u011bchto d\u016fvod\u016f je vhodn\u00e9 pl\u00e1novat proveden\u00ed MEV u\u017e p\u0159i p\u0159\u00edprav\u011b prim\u00e1rn\u00ed evaluace.<\/p>\n

f) dle participativnosti<\/strong><\/p>\n

Participativn\u00ed MEV prob\u00edh\u00e1 ve spolupr\u00e1ci s ostatn\u00edmi zainteresovan\u00fdmi stranami, zejm\u00e9na pak s\u00a0realiz\u00e1torem prim\u00e1rn\u00ed evaluace a s\u00a0jej\u00edm zadavatelem. Participativn\u00ed MEV \u00a0\u010din\u00ed z\u00a0t\u011bchto zainteresovan\u00fdch stran \u201ekolegy-evalu\u00e1tory\u201c, kte\u0159\u00ed ovliv\u0148uj\u00ed design prov\u00e1d\u011bn\u00e9 MEV a jsou tak vta\u017eeni do\u00a0procesu rozhodov\u00e1n\u00ed o postupu evalua\u010dn\u00ed \u010dinnosti, sb\u011bru dat i anal\u00fdzy a vyhodnocen\u00ed v\u00fdsledk\u016f. Participativn\u00ed MEV vych\u00e1zej\u00ed z\u00a0p\u0159edstavy plnohodnotn\u00e9ho, p\u0159\u00edm\u00e9ho a aktivn\u00edho zapojen\u00ed zainteresovan\u00fdch stran, co\u017e\u00a0\u010din\u00ed z\u00a0metaevalua\u010dn\u00edho procesu hust\u00e9 p\u0159edivo interaktivn\u00edch \u010dinnost\u00ed. Realiz\u00e1tor p\u0159i participativn\u00ed MEV vystupuje jako partner jednotliv\u00fdch zainteresovan\u00fdch stran, jako konzultant \u010di kou\u010d, kter\u00fd stimuluje, rozv\u00edj\u00ed a\u00a0vyb\u00edz\u00ed jednotliv\u00e9 subjekty k\u00a0aktivit\u011b v\u00a0r\u00e1mci jednotliv\u00fdch etap MEV.<\/p>\n

Participativn\u00ed MEV tak vedou nejen k\u00a0samotn\u00e9 evaluaci, ale napom\u00e1haj\u00ed jednotliv\u00fdm zainteresovan\u00fdm stran\u00e1m rozum\u011bt princip\u016fm MEV, pom\u00e1haj\u00ed jim uv\u011bdomovat si souvislosti jednotliv\u00fdch \u010dinnost\u00ed, a mohou tak\u00a0zlep\u0161it zapojen\u00ed dot\u010den\u00fdch zainteresovan\u00fdch stran do proces\u016f, je\u017e jsou p\u0159edm\u011btem MEV (Alkin 2004).<\/p>\n

Participativn\u00ed MEV jsou \u010dastokr\u00e1t myln\u011b spojov\u00e1ny s\u00a0kvalitativn\u00edmi metodami, patrn\u011b proto, \u017ee se v\u00a0jejich p\u0159\u00edpad\u011b o\u010dek\u00e1v\u00e1 vy\u0161\u0161\u00ed m\u00edra pochopen\u00ed, vhledu a obecn\u011b v\u011bt\u0161\u00ed prostor, je\u017e m\u00e1 zkouman\u00fd subjekt k\u00a0dispozici ke\u00a0sv\u00e9mu vlastn\u00edmu vyj\u00e1d\u0159en\u00ed. Nicm\u00e9n\u011b plat\u00ed, \u017ee participativn\u00ed MEV se\u00a0k\u00a0\u017e\u00e1dn\u00e9 konkr\u00e9tn\u00ed metod\u011b nep\u0159imykaj\u00ed, nav\u00edc n\u011bkte\u0159\u00ed p\u0159edstavitel\u00e9 (Bradley 2007; Hall, Hall 2004; Weiss 1998) sami vyvracej\u00ed n\u00e1zor, \u017ee kvalitativn\u00ed v\u00fdzkumn\u00e9 techniky vedou k\u00a0vy\u0161\u0161\u00ed m\u00ed\u0159e zapojen\u00ed zainteresovan\u00fdch stran. Poukazuj\u00ed p\u0159itom na fakt, \u017ee \u00fa\u010dastn\u00edci kvalitativn\u00edch \u0161et\u0159en\u00ed nemohou ovlivnit jejich design (co\u017e je z\u00e1kladem participace) stejn\u011b tak
\njako \u00fa\u010dastn\u00edci kvantitativn\u00edch \u0161et\u0159en\u00ed.<\/p>\n

Z\u00a0\u0159ady p\u0159\u00edklad\u016f konkr\u00e9tn\u00ed aplika\u010dn\u00ed praxe se ukazuje, \u017ee participativn\u00ed MEV nejen\u017ee zapojuje jednotliv\u00e9 zainteresovan\u00e9 strany do procesu hodnocen\u00ed, ale dokonce m\u016f\u017ee p\u0159isp\u011bt i k\u00a0vy\u0161\u0161\u00ed m\u00ed\u0159e vyu\u017e\u00edv\u00e1n\u00ed dosa\u017een\u00fdch v\u00fdsledk\u016f (Caracelli, Preskill 2000). V\u00a0tomto ohledu se toti\u017e ukazuje, \u017ee\u00a0zapojen\u00ed jednotliv\u00fdch zainteresovan\u00fdch stran posiluje d\u016fv\u011bryhodnost z\u00edskan\u00fdch z\u00e1v\u011br\u016f, co\u017e se pozitivn\u011b odr\u00e1\u017e\u00ed ve vy\u0161\u0161\u00ed m\u00ed\u0159e jejich vyu\u017eit\u00ed.<\/p>\n

Z uveden\u00e9ho p\u0159ibl\u00ed\u017een\u00ed participativn\u00edho p\u0159\u00edstupu se m\u016f\u017ee zd\u00e1t, \u017ee opa\u010dn\u00fd, tedy neparticipativn\u00ed, p\u0159\u00edstup je nevhodn\u00fd. Nicm\u00e9n\u011b je t\u0159eba upozornit na skute\u010dnost, \u017ee oba p\u0159\u00edstupy jsou vyv\u00e1\u017een\u00e9 a nelze \u017e\u00e1dn\u00fd z\u00a0nich automaticky preferovat. V\u00fdhodou neparticipativn\u00edch p\u0159\u00edstup\u016f je, \u017ee oby\u010dejn\u011b vedou k\u00a0vy\u0161\u0161\u00ed validit\u011b z\u00edskan\u00fdch z\u00e1v\u011br\u016f. Participativn\u00ed MEV toti\u017e v\u00a0d\u016fsledku sv\u00e9 prim\u00e1rn\u00ed orientace na podporu zapojen\u00ed co zainteresovan\u00fdch stran, zakl\u00e1daj\u00ed sv\u00e9 z\u00e1v\u011bry na metod\u00e1ch a postupech, kter\u00e9 sice mohou b\u00fdt akceptov\u00e1ny mezi realiz\u00e1torem MEV a realiz\u00e1tory prim\u00e1rn\u00ed evaluace, ale u\u017e nemus\u00ed b\u00fdt p\u0159ijateln\u00e9 pro zadavatele MEV.<\/p>\n

Aplika\u010dn\u00ed potenci\u00e1l participativn\u00edch MEV je p\u0159i praktick\u00e9 realizaci omezen z\u00e1jmem (\u010di sp\u00ed\u0161e nez\u00e1jmem) zainteresovan\u00fdch stran zapojit se aktivn\u011b do\u00a0procesu MEV. Nelze pova\u017eovat za samoz\u0159ejm\u00e9, \u017ee se realiz\u00e1tor bude cht\u00edt zapojit do MEV, kterou m\u016f\u017ee vn\u00edmat jako z\u00e1sah a naru\u0161en\u00ed sv\u00fdch z\u00e1jm\u016f; nen\u00ed mo\u017en\u00e9 samoz\u0159ejm\u011b p\u0159edpokl\u00e1dat, \u017ee realiz\u00e1tor prim\u00e1rn\u00ed evaluace bude m\u00edt z\u00e1jem poskytovat dodate\u010dn\u00e9 (\u010dastokr\u00e1t intern\u00ed \u010di citliv\u00e9) \u00fadaje o zp\u016fsobu proveden\u00ed evaluace (Batini, Scannapieco 2006) \u010di si osvojovat zp\u016fsoby prov\u00e1d\u011bn\u00ed vlastn\u00edho hodnocen\u00ed. Rovn\u011b\u017e se\u00a0ukazuje, \u017ee nedostate\u010dn\u00e1 schopnost zainteresovan\u00fdch stran spolu komunikovat neumo\u017e\u0148uje dos\u00e1hnout uspokojiv\u00e9ho v\u00fdsledku p\u0159i vyu\u017eit\u00ed participativn\u00edch MEV.<\/p>\n

3. Prameny krit\u00e9ri\u00ed pro prov\u00e1d\u011bn\u00ed MEV<\/strong><\/p>\n

P\u0159edchoz\u00ed \u010d\u00e1st se zam\u011b\u0159ila na vybran\u00e9 typy MEV, zat\u00edmco v\u00a0t\u00e9to \u010d\u00e1sti je pozornost v\u011bnov\u00e1na p\u0159edev\u0161\u00edm obsahu MEV a zejm\u00e9na pak zdroj\u016fm, ze\u00a0kter\u00fdch je mo\u017en\u00e9 \u010derpat krit\u00e9ria hodnocen\u00ed pou\u017e\u00edvan\u00fdch p\u0159i MEV. Krom\u011b cel\u00e9ho spektra potenci\u00e1ln\u011b vyu\u017eiteln\u00fdch dokument\u016f zahrnuj\u00edc\u00edho zad\u00e1vac\u00ed dokumentaci prim\u00e1rn\u00edch evaluac\u00ed, metodiky, manu\u00e1ly a p\u0159\u00edru\u010dky je zvl\u00e1\u0161tn\u00ed pozornost v\u011bnov\u00e1na oborov\u00fdm norm\u00e1m coby samoregula\u010dn\u00edm n\u00e1stroj\u016fm zvy\u0161ov\u00e1n\u00ed kvality prov\u00e1d\u011bn\u00fdch evaluac\u00ed.<\/p>\n

V\u00a0posledn\u00edm obdob\u00ed je v podm\u00ednk\u00e1ch \u010cR patrn\u00fd s\u00edl\u00edc\u00ed z\u00e1jem o zji\u0161\u0165ov\u00e1n\u00ed, m\u011b\u0159en\u00ed a \u0159\u00edzen\u00ed kvality evaluac\u00ed, a to nejen v\u00a0oblasti evaluace struktur\u00e1ln\u00edch fond\u016f, ale tak\u00e9 v\u00a0oblasti evaluace projekt\u016f zahrani\u010dn\u00ed rozvojov\u00e9 spolupr\u00e1ce a n\u011bkter\u00fdch dal\u0161\u00edch oblastech, kter\u00e9 evaluacemi aktivn\u011b vyu\u017e\u00edvaj\u00ed. Tyto tendence je t\u0159eba ch\u00e1pat jako p\u0159irozenou reakci na \u201eprvn\u00ed generaci\u201c prov\u00e1d\u011bn\u00fdch evaluac\u00ed. Shrom\u00e1\u017ed\u011bn\u00e9 evalua\u010dn\u00ed zpr\u00e1vy a dokon\u010den\u00e9 evalua\u010dn\u00ed projekty p\u0159edstavuj\u00ed ji\u017e pom\u011brn\u011b rozs\u00e1hl\u00fd soubor podklad\u016f,
\nkter\u00fd poskytuje vhodn\u00e9 informace vyu\u017eiteln\u00e9 pro budouc\u00ed nastaven\u00ed ukazatel\u016f kvality realizovan\u00fdch evaluac\u00ed. V\u00a0t\u00e9to souvislosti je t\u0159eba uv\u00e9st, \u017ee\u00a0MEV nejsou prim\u00e1rn\u011b n\u00e1strojem \u0159\u00edzen\u00ed kvality, nicm\u00e9n\u011b mohou v\u00a0t\u011bchto snah\u00e1ch o zvy\u0161ov\u00e1n\u00ed kvality pomoci.<\/p>\n

V\u00fdchoz\u00edm pramenem, od n\u011bho\u017e se odv\u00edjej\u00ed krit\u00e9ria hodnocen\u00ed prim\u00e1rn\u00edch evaluac\u00ed, je samotn\u00fd c\u00edl, kter\u00fd vede dot\u010den\u00e9 subjekty k\u00a0realizaci MEV. Zvolen\u00e1 krit\u00e9ria jsou tak odvozeny od c\u00edl\u016f MEV a zohled\u0148uj\u00ed konkr\u00e9tn\u00ed pot\u0159eby jejich zadavatel\u016f (inici\u00e1tor\u016f). Jin\u00fdm vyu\u017eiteln\u00fdm pramenem, z\u00a0n\u011bho\u017e jsou krit\u00e9ria odvozov\u00e1na, je zad\u00e1vac\u00ed dokumentace prim\u00e1rn\u00ed evaluace. Takov\u00fdmto zp\u016fsobem jsou krit\u00e9ria stanovov\u00e1na v\u00a0p\u0159\u00edpadech, kdy je c\u00edlem MEV stanovit m\u00edru souladu proveden\u00e9 evaluace a jej\u00edho zad\u00e1n\u00ed; MEV se\u00a0zam\u011b\u0159uje na posouzen\u00ed, do jak\u00e9 m\u00edry naplnila proveden\u00e1 evaluace p\u016fvodn\u00ed zad\u00e1n\u00ed, zdali navr\u017een\u00fd design evaluace sm\u011b\u0159oval k\u00a0zodpov\u011bzen\u00ed jednotliv\u00fdch evalua\u010dn\u00edch ot\u00e1zek, zdali byla pou\u017eita adekv\u00e1tn\u00ed metodika apod.<\/p>\n

V\u00fdznamn\u00fdm pramenem krit\u00e9ri\u00ed pro MEV jsou d\u00e1le metodiky vyd\u00e1van\u00e9 zadavateli, nebo\u0165 tyto dokumenty vyty\u010duj\u00ed oblast pou\u017eiteln\u00fdch metodik zpracov\u00e1n\u00ed evaluace[3] a stanovuj\u00ed okruh akceptovateln\u00fdch postup\u016f (Uusikyla, Virtanen 2000). V\u00a0r\u00e1mci MEV se pak sleduje, do jak\u00e9 m\u00edry a jak\u00fdm konkr\u00e9tn\u00edch zp\u016fsobem byly uplatn\u011bny postupy popisovan\u00e9 v\u00a0metodice.<\/p>\n

Dal\u0161\u00edm pramenem, z\u00a0n\u011bho\u017e lze \u010derpat krit\u00e9ria pro proveden\u00ed MEV, jsou manu\u00e1ly a p\u0159\u00edru\u010dky \u2013 tedy prameny stanovuj\u00edc\u00ed doporu\u010den\u00e9 postupy pro\u00a0tvorbu jednotliv\u00fdch v\u00fdstup\u016f a evalua\u010dn\u00edch zpr\u00e1v. Tyto zdroje obvykle stanovuj\u00ed v\u00fdznam kl\u00ed\u010dov\u00fdch pojm\u016f, obracej\u00edc\u00ed pozornost k\u00a0jednotliv\u00fdm metod\u00e1m vyu\u017eiteln\u00fdch v\u00a0r\u00e1mci prov\u00e1d\u011bn\u00ed evaluac\u00ed a slou\u017e\u00ed tak realiz\u00e1tor\u016fm evaluac\u00ed jako pramen informac\u00ed o uplatniteln\u00fdch metod\u00e1ch a postupech vyu\u017eiteln\u00fdch p\u0159i prov\u00e1d\u011bn\u00ed evaluac\u00ed. Ze sv\u00e9 podstaty sice nemaj\u00ed z\u00e1vazn\u00fd charakter (na rozd\u00edl od metodik), nicm\u00e9n\u011b p\u016fsob\u00ed silou sv\u00e9 odborn\u00e9 autority, nebo\u0165 zadavatel\u00e9 evaluac\u00ed o\u010dek\u00e1vaj\u00ed, \u017ee jednotliv\u00e9 \u010dinnosti prov\u00e1d\u011bn\u00e9 v\u00a0r\u00e1mci zad\u00e1van\u00fdch evaluac\u00ed budou korespondovat s odborn\u00fdm standardem, kter\u00fd je v\u00a0t\u011bchto manu\u00e1lech a p\u0159\u00edru\u010dk\u00e1ch pops\u00e1n. P\u0159esto\u017ee manu\u00e1ly a p\u0159\u00edru\u010dky maj\u00ed ni\u017e\u0161\u00ed z\u00e1vaznost ne\u017e metodiky, nicm\u00e9n\u011b i\u00a0tento typ dokument\u016f m\u016f\u017ee b\u00fdt vyu\u017eit p\u0159i p\u0159\u00edpad\u011b krit\u00e9ri\u00ed dan\u00e9 MEV.<\/p>\n

Specifick\u00fdm typem dokument\u016f, kter\u00e9 mohou p\u0159edstavovat obsahovou z\u00e1kladnu, z\u00a0n\u00ed\u017e MEV mohou \u010derpat a fakticky tak\u00e9 \u010derpaj\u00ed krit\u00e9ria pro\u00a0hodnocen\u00ed prim\u00e1rn\u00edch evaluac\u00ed, jsou samoregula\u010dn\u00ed n\u00e1stroje. V\u00a0tomto p\u0159\u00edpad\u011b jde o dokumenty, jimi\u017e se realiz\u00e1to\u0159i sami zavazuj\u00ed k\u00a0respektov\u00e1n\u00ed konkr\u00e9tn\u00edch pravidel (Shadish et al. 1995). Samoregula\u010dn\u00ed n\u00e1stroje typicky zahrnuj\u00ed etick\u00e9 kodexy a procesn\u011b zam\u011b\u0159en\u00e9 normy \u010di soubory standard\u016f. Spole\u010dn\u00fdm jmenovatelem t\u011bchto dokument\u016f je, \u017ee jsou p\u0159ipraveny p\u0159\u00edmo samotn\u00fdmi realiz\u00e1tory evaluac\u00ed, obvykle na p\u016fd\u011b oborov\u00fdch asociac\u00ed a\u00a0sdru\u017een\u00ed. \u010castokr\u00e1t maj\u00ed charakter souboru pravidel, je\u017e jsou pova\u017eov\u00e1ny za d\u016fle\u017eit\u00e9. Obvykle pokr\u00fdvaj\u00ed jednotliv\u00e1 v\u00fdznamn\u00e1 t\u00e9mata, kter\u00e1 souvis\u00ed jak s realizac\u00ed evaluac\u00ed, tak tak\u00e9 s\u00a0jejich zad\u00e1v\u00e1n\u00edm a utilizac\u00ed.<\/p>\n

V\u00a0r\u00e1mci evalua\u010dn\u00edho oboru jsou kl\u00ed\u010dov\u00fdm dokumentem tohoto typu Standardy evaluace program\u016f (Program Evaluation Standards), kter\u00e9 vznikly na p\u016fd\u011b Spole\u010dn\u00e9ho v\u00fdboru pro standardy evaluac\u00ed ve vzd\u011bl\u00e1v\u00e1n\u00ed (Joint Committee on Standards for Educational Evaluation), nicm\u00e9n\u011b velmi rychle se roz\u0161\u00ed\u0159ily mimo r\u00e1mec vzd\u011bl\u00e1vac\u00edch evaluac\u00ed a byly p\u0159ijaty mnoh\u00fdmi evalua\u010dn\u00edmi asociacemi a spole\u010dnostmi po cel\u00e9m sv\u011bt\u011b \u2013 krom\u011b USA, Kanady a Austr\u00e1lie tak\u00e9 ve \u0160v\u00fdcarsku a v N\u011bmecku. Rovn\u011b\u017e \u010cesk\u00e1 evalua\u010dn\u00ed spole\u010dnost tyto standardy p\u0159ijala, a to na sklonku roku 2013. V\u00a0sou\u010dasn\u00e9 podob\u011b je komplex jednotliv\u00fdch standard\u016f rozd\u011blen do \u010dty\u0159 oblast\u00ed definuj\u00edc\u00edch po\u017eadavky na prim\u00e1rn\u00ed evaluace s\u00a0ohledem k\u00a0jejich u\u017eite\u010dnosti, proveditelnosti, korektnosti a p\u0159esnosti (Sanders 1994). Jednotliv\u00e9 oblasti d\u00e1le zahrnuj\u00ed n\u011bkolik konkr\u00e9tn\u00edch charakteristik, kter\u00e9 by p\u0159i\u00a0designu a prov\u00e1d\u011bn\u00ed evaluac\u00ed m\u011bly b\u00fdt zohledn\u011bny.<\/p>\n

V\u00a0r\u00e1mci MEV mohou b\u00fdt pro ka\u017edou charakteristiku (\u010di pro ka\u017ed\u00fd jednotliv\u00fd standard) identifikov\u00e1na konkr\u00e9tn\u00ed krit\u00e9ria (ukazatele), je\u017e vystihuj\u00ed smysl a \u00fa\u010del jednotliv\u00fdch standard\u016f. Pokud je nap\u0159. c\u00edlem MEV ov\u011b\u0159it, do\u00a0jak\u00e9 m\u00edry napl\u0148uje prim\u00e1rn\u00ed evaluace standard A9, tj. ospravedlnitelnost z\u00e1v\u011br\u016f, lze se v\u00a0r\u00e1mci MEV zam\u011b\u0159it na krit\u00e9ria odr\u00e1\u017eej\u00edc\u00ed mj. skute\u010dnost, zdali prim\u00e1rn\u00ed evaluace cituje zdroje informac\u00ed, o n\u011b\u017e se op\u00edr\u00e1, zdali jsou formulovan\u00e9 z\u00e1v\u011bry vztahov\u00e1ny pouze k\u00a0p\u0159\u00edslu\u0161n\u00e9mu obdob\u00ed a kontextu a vyh\u00fdbaj\u00ed se nep\u0159\u00edpustn\u00fdm generalizac\u00edm, zdali jsou uv\u00e1d\u011bny tak\u00e9 dal\u0161\u00ed alternativn\u00ed z\u00e1v\u011bry, kter\u00e9 lze z\u00a0pou\u017e\u00edvan\u00fdch fakt\u016f dovodit a dal\u0161\u00ed.<\/p>\n

V\u00a0souvislosti s\u00a0odvozen\u00edm krit\u00e9ri\u00ed a s jejich konstrukc\u00ed je t\u0159eba upozornit, \u017ee reliabilitu prov\u00e1d\u011bn\u00e9 MEV posiluj\u00ed p\u0159edev\u0161\u00edm krit\u00e9ria faktografick\u00e9 povahy, zat\u00edmco krit\u00e9ria postojov\u00e9ho charakteru reliabilitu naopak sni\u017euj\u00ed (Byrn 2002). Podobn\u011b tak\u00e9 krit\u00e9ria bin\u00e1rn\u00edho charakteru (ano\/ne) \u010di krit\u00e9ria s n\u00edzk\u00fdm po\u010dtem kategori\u00ed (3\u20134) obecn\u011b p\u0159isp\u00edvaj\u00ed k\u00a0vy\u0161\u0161\u00ed reliabilit\u011b MEV, zat\u00edmco v\u00a0p\u0159\u00edpad\u011b krit\u00e9ri\u00ed s\u00a0vy\u0161\u0161\u00edm po\u010dtem z\u00e1znamov\u00fdch kategori\u00ed je t\u0159eba po\u010d\u00edtat s\u00a0ni\u017e\u0161\u00ed spolehlivost\u00ed danou ni\u017e\u0161\u00edmi o\u010dek\u00e1van\u00fdmi \u010detnostmi p\u0159ipadaj\u00edc\u00edmi na jednotliv\u00e9 kategorie.<\/p>\n

Rovn\u011b\u017e je p\u0159i p\u0159\u00edprav\u011b krit\u00e9ri\u00ed MEV t\u0159eba po\u010d\u00edtat se z\u00e1znamem cel\u00e9 \u0159ady klasifika\u010dn\u00edch krit\u00e9ri\u00ed (po\u010det stran evalua\u010dn\u00ed zpr\u00e1vy, charakteristiky autora zpr\u00e1vy, rozpo\u010det, doba proveden\u00ed apod.) a dal\u0161\u00edch pomocn\u00fdch znak\u016f, kter\u00e9 p\u0159i n\u00e1sledn\u00e9 anal\u00fdze usnad\u0148uj\u00ed charakterizaci typu posuzovan\u00e9 evaluace.<\/p>\n

Specifick\u00fdmi krit\u00e9rii mohou b\u00fdt kvalitativn\u00ed charakteristiky z\u00edsk\u00e1van\u00e9 pomoc\u00ed hloubkov\u00fdch rozhovor\u016f. V\u00a0r\u00e1mci MEV tyto rozhovory b\u00fdvaj\u00ed pou\u017e\u00edv\u00e1ny s\u00a0c\u00edlem ov\u011b\u0159it spr\u00e1vnost kvantitativn\u00edch krit\u00e9ri\u00ed, z\u00edskat explikaci dosa\u017een\u00fdch hodnot a zachytit kontext, v\u00a0n\u011bm\u017e byly prim\u00e1rn\u00ed evaluace prov\u00e1d\u011bny.<\/p>\n

4. N\u011bkter\u00e9 metodologick\u00e9 souvislosti MEV<\/strong><\/p>\n

V\u00a0r\u00e1mci tohoto textu nen\u00ed mo\u017en\u00e9 v\u011bnovat pozornost v\u0161em relevantn\u00edm nuanc\u00edm metaevalua\u010dn\u00edho designu a prezentovat zde jednotliv\u00e9 metody a\u00a0techniky vyu\u017e\u00edvan\u00e9 p\u0159i MEV. Proto se pozornost zam\u011b\u0159uje na t\u0159i vybran\u00e9 okolnosti, je\u017e v\u00fdznamn\u00fdm zp\u016fsobem formuj\u00ed charakter prov\u00e1d\u011bn\u00fdch MEV. Mezi tyto okolnosti pat\u0159\u00ed volba podklad\u016f pou\u017e\u00edvan\u00fdch p\u0159i MEV; ta pochopiteln\u011b vych\u00e1z\u00ed z c\u00edl\u016f MEV, nicm\u00e9n\u011b s\u00a0ohledem k\u00a0jejich dostupnosti a n\u00e1klad\u016fm spojen\u00fdch s\u00a0jejich z\u00edsk\u00e1n\u00edm m\u016f\u017ee c\u00edle MEV zp\u011btn\u011b ovliv\u0148ovat (Isaac, Michael 1997). Druhou okolnost\u00ed je zp\u016fsob v\u00fdb\u011bru prim\u00e1rn\u00edch evaluac\u00ed ur\u010den\u00fdch k\u00a0MEV, kter\u00fd je stejn\u011b d\u016fle\u017eit\u00fd jako volba krit\u00e9ri\u00ed MEV. T\u0159et\u00ed okolnost\u00ed je zp\u016fsob proveden\u00ed, resp. organizace vlastn\u00ed metaevalua\u010dn\u00ed \u010dinnosti. Vzhledem ke\u00a0skute\u010dnosti, \u017ee v\u00fdznamn\u00e1 \u010d\u00e1st MEV se zam\u011b\u0159uje na hodnocen\u00ed evalua\u010dn\u00edch zpr\u00e1v, je obsah t\u00e9to \u010d\u00e1sti p\u0159izp\u016fsoben charakteristik\u00e1m, kter\u00e9 odr\u00e1\u017eej\u00ed vlastnosti t\u011bchto dokument\u016f.<\/p>\n

4.1 Design MEV<\/strong><\/p>\n

Design MEV, a t\u00edm i jej\u00ed metodika, se odv\u00edj\u00ed od c\u00edl\u016f MEV. Plat\u00ed, \u017ee MEV m\u016f\u017ee b\u00fdt provedena mnoh\u00fdmi zp\u016fsoby a p\u0159i jej\u00ed realizaci mohou b\u00fdt vyu\u017eity rozli\u010dn\u00e9 metody a techniky. Podobn\u011b tak\u00e9 mohou b\u00fdt p\u0159i MEV pou\u017eity rozli\u010dn\u00e9 datov\u00e9 zdroje. N\u00e1sleduj\u00edc\u00ed p\u0159ehled poukazuje na n\u011bkter\u00e9 podklady, se kter\u00fdmi se metaevalu\u00e1tor setk\u00e1v\u00e1 a na jejich\u017e z\u00e1klad\u011b formuluje sv\u00e9 z\u00e1v\u011bry:<\/p>\n

a) Evalua\u010dn\u00ed zpr\u00e1va<\/p>\n

Naprost\u00e1 v\u011bt\u0161ina MEV se op\u00edr\u00e1 o evalua\u010dn\u00ed zpr\u00e1vy, zna\u010dn\u00e1 \u010d\u00e1st MEV dokonce ani s\u00a0jin\u00fdmi podklady nepracuje. V\u00a0r\u00e1mci takto koncipovan\u00fdch MEV lze hodnotit obsah, strukturu evalua\u010dn\u00edch zpr\u00e1v, spln\u011bn\u00ed form\u00e1ln\u00edch n\u00e1le\u017eitost\u00ed, kter\u00e9 maj\u00ed evalua\u010dn\u00ed zpr\u00e1vy m\u00edt apod. Jde v\u00a0tomto p\u0159\u00edpad\u011b o\u00a0neju\u017e\u0161\u00ed vymezen\u00ed MEV.<\/p>\n

Evalua\u010dn\u00ed zpr\u00e1vy jsou tedy pou\u017e\u00edv\u00e1ny jako zdroj informac\u00ed o proveden\u00e9 evaluaci a na jej\u00edm z\u00e1klad\u011b je hodnocen samotn\u00fd proces proveden\u00ed prim\u00e1rn\u00ed evaluace. V\u00a0tomto p\u0159\u00edpad\u011b je t\u0159eba po\u010d\u00edtat s\u00a0ni\u017e\u0161\u00ed validitou MEV z\u00e1v\u011br\u016f, nebo\u0165 v\u00a0evalua\u010dn\u00ed zpr\u00e1v\u011b mohou mnoh\u00e9 \u00fadaje a informace chyb\u011bt nebo mohou b\u00fdt pops\u00e1ny natolik v\u00e1gn\u011b, \u017ee neumo\u017e\u0148uj\u00ed rekonstruovat pou\u017eit\u00fd evalua\u010dn\u00ed design. N\u011bkter\u00e9 okolnosti prov\u00e1d\u011bn\u00e9 prim\u00e1rn\u00ed evaluace v\u0161ak nelze pro \u00fa\u010dely MEV vyu\u017e\u00edt ani v\u00a0p\u0159\u00edpad\u011b velmi detailn\u00edch evalua\u010dn\u00edch zpr\u00e1v. Pokud nap\u0159. nen\u00ed dostupn\u00e1 zad\u00e1vac\u00ed dokumentace a protokoly z\u00a0kontroln\u00edch dn\u016f, nelze rozhodnout, zdali je vysok\u00fd po\u010det evalua\u010dn\u00edch ot\u00e1zek d\u00e1n rozhodnut\u00edm zadavatele \u010di iniciativou realiz\u00e1tora evaluace[4]. Metaevalu\u00e1tor v\u00a0takov\u00e9m p\u0159\u00edpad\u011b m\u016f\u017ee jen porovnat po\u010det evalua\u010dn\u00edch ot\u00e1zek s\u00a0ostatn\u00edmi evaluacemi (v r\u00e1mci benchmarkingu). Na druh\u00e9 stran\u011b lze na evalua\u010dn\u00ed zpr\u00e1vy pohl\u00ed\u017eet jako na v\u00fdsledek procesu, p\u0159i kter\u00e9m zadavatel\u00e9 specifikuj\u00ed sv\u00e9 po\u017eadavky, p\u0159ipom\u00ednkuj\u00ed d\u0159\u00edv\u011bj\u0161\u00ed verze z\u00e1v\u011bre\u010dn\u00fdch zpr\u00e1v a v\u011bt\u0161\u00ed \u010di men\u0161\u00ed m\u011brou se spolupod\u00edlej\u00ed na jej\u00edm obsahu a\u00a0zam\u011b\u0159en\u00ed. Zaj\u00edmavou \u00falohou v\u00a0tomto ohledu b\u00fdv\u00e1 ur\u010den\u00ed, zdali v\u016fbec v\u00a0dan\u00e9m p\u0159\u00edpad\u011b jde o evalua\u010dn\u00ed zpr\u00e1vu \u010di o dokument jin\u00e9ho druhu (v\u00fdzkumnou zpr\u00e1vu, studii, analytick\u00fd materi\u00e1l, re\u0161er\u0161i apod.), resp. jde o\u00a0ur\u010den\u00ed, zdali byla prov\u00e1d\u011bn\u00e1 aktivita skute\u010dnou evaluac\u00ed.<\/p>\n

b) dal\u0161\u00ed dokumenty<\/p>\n

MEV m\u016f\u017ee p\u0159i vyu\u017eit\u00ed evalua\u010dn\u00edch zpr\u00e1v spolu s\u00a0dal\u0161\u00edmi dokumenty vztahuj\u00edc\u00edmi se k\u00a0prov\u00e1d\u011bn\u00e9 evaluaci mnohem l\u00e9pe zasadit danou evaluac\u00ed do konkr\u00e9tn\u00edho kontextu (Leeuw2002). Typicky lze v\u00a0tomto ohledu vyu\u017e\u00edt zad\u00e1vac\u00ed dokumentaci, z\u00e1pisy a protokoly z\u00a0kontroln\u00edch dn\u016f \u010di\u00a0protokoly o vypo\u0159\u00e1d\u00e1n\u00ed p\u0159ipom\u00ednek. Takto pojat\u00e1 MEV je sice komplexn\u011bj\u0161\u00ed ne\u017e MEV v\u00a0p\u0159edchoz\u00edm p\u0159\u00edpad\u011b, nicm\u00e9n\u011b st\u00e1le je zalo\u017eena zejm\u00e9na na metod\u00e1ch a\u00a0technik\u00e1ch anal\u00fdzy sekund\u00e1rn\u00edch dokument\u016f.<\/p>\n

c) interview se zadavateli a realiz\u00e1tory<\/p>\n

MEV se m\u016f\u017ee v\u00a0tomto p\u0159\u00edpad\u011b zam\u011b\u0159ovat i na ostatn\u00ed okolnosti proveden\u00ed prim\u00e1rn\u00ed evaluace jak\u00fdmi jsou mj. postup v\u00fdb\u011bru realiz\u00e1tora, proces kontraktace, specifikace a konkretizace zad\u00e1n\u00ed, postupy a \u010dinnosti souvisej\u00edc\u00ed s\u00a0akceptac\u00ed z\u00e1v\u011bre\u010dn\u00e9 zpr\u00e1vy, vz\u00e1jemn\u00e1 komunikace zadavatele a realiz\u00e1tora atd.). MEV v\u00a0tomto ohledu p\u0159edpokl\u00e1d\u00e1 z\u00edsk\u00e1v\u00e1n\u00ed specifick\u00fdch prim\u00e1rn\u00edch \u00fadaj\u016f (nap\u0159. z\u00e1znamy interview) a jejich vyhodnocen\u00ed spolu s\u00a0dostupn\u00fdmi dokumenty (Posavac, Carey 2003).<\/p>\n

d) interview se zainteresovan\u00fdmi stranami a n\u00e1v\u0161t\u011bvy in-situ<\/p>\n

Nejrozs\u00e1hlej\u0161\u00ed forma MEV m\u016f\u017ee zahrnovat dokonce i re-evaluaci, tedy zopakov\u00e1n\u00ed proveden\u00fdch anal\u00fdz, opakovan\u00e9 n\u00e1v\u0161t\u011bvy u respondent\u016f dotazovan\u00fdch v\u00a0r\u00e1mci prim\u00e1rn\u00ed evaluace \u010di ov\u011b\u0159en\u00ed prov\u00e1d\u011bn\u00fdch v\u00fdpo\u010dt\u016f. MEV v\u00a0takov\u00e9m p\u0159\u00edpad\u011b m\u016f\u017ee p\u0159in\u00e9st velmi podrobn\u00e9 poznatky o okolnostech realizace prim\u00e1rn\u00ed evaluace a m\u016f\u017ee pouk\u00e1zat na n\u00edzkou spolehlivost n\u011bkter\u00fdch evalua\u010dn\u00edch z\u00e1v\u011br\u016f[5].<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

4.2 V\u00fdb\u011br prim\u00e1rn\u00edch evaluac\u00ed pro MEV<\/strong><\/p>\n

V\u00a0tomto p\u0159\u00edpad\u011b je t\u0159eba za z\u00e1kladn\u00ed soubor pova\u017eovat v\u0161echny proveden\u00e9 evaluace v\u00a0r\u00e1mci dan\u00e9ho obdob\u00ed (nap\u0159. programovac\u00ed obdob\u00ed). S ohledem k\u00a0jejich po\u010dtu je mo\u017en\u00e9 prov\u00e9st MEV:<\/p>\n

a) jedn\u00e9 prim\u00e1rn\u00ed evaluace; MEV v\u00a0takov\u00e9m p\u0159\u00edpad\u011b m\u00edvaj\u00ed charakter p\u0159\u00edpadov\u00fdch studi\u00ed<\/p>\n

b) souboru vybran\u00fdch prim\u00e1rn\u00edch evaluac\u00ed; MEV v\u00a0dan\u00e9m p\u0159\u00edpad\u011b m\u00e1 charakter bu\u010f komparativn\u00ed studie, kter\u00e1 se zam\u011b\u0159\u00ed na srovn\u00e1n\u00ed vybran\u00fdch podsoubor\u016f prim\u00e1rn\u00edch evaluac\u00ed (nap\u0159. evalua\u010dn\u00ed zpr\u00e1vy p\u0159ipraven\u00e9 v\u00a0r\u00e1mci jednotliv\u00fdch opera\u010dn\u00edch program\u016f) nebo je p\u0159ehledovou studi\u00ed, kter\u00e1 se zam\u011b\u0159uje na kvantifikaci vybran\u00fdch charakteristik odr\u00e1\u017eej\u00edc\u00edch zp\u016fsob prov\u00e1d\u011bn\u00ed prim\u00e1rn\u00edch evaluac\u00ed<\/p>\n

c) v\u0161ech proveden\u00fdch prim\u00e1rn\u00edch evaluac\u00ed; MEV m\u00e1 podobn\u011b
\njako v\u00a0p\u0159echoz\u00edm p\u0159\u00edpad\u011b, charakter p\u0159ehledov\u00e9 studie. V\u00a0tomto p\u0159\u00edpad\u011b v\u0161ak nen\u00ed problematika v\u00fdb\u011bru prim\u00e1rn\u00edch evaluac\u00ed relevantn\u00ed.<\/p>\n

V r\u00e1mci prov\u00e1d\u011bn\u00ed MEV je mo\u017en\u00e9 po zv\u00e1\u017een\u00ed konkr\u00e9tn\u00edch v\u00fdhod a nev\u00fdhod zvolit n\u011bkterou z n\u00e1sleduj\u00edc\u00edch v\u00fdb\u011brov\u00fdch technik:<\/p>\n

Prost\u00fd n\u00e1hodn\u00fd v\u00fdb\u011br prim\u00e1rn\u00edch evaluac\u00ed<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n

V\u00fdhodou prost\u00e9ho n\u00e1hodn\u00e9ho v\u00fdb\u011bru je jednoduchost jeho proveden\u00ed a\u00a0mo\u017enost v\u00fdpo\u010dtu standardn\u00ed chyby v\u00fdb\u011bru. Na druh\u00e9 stran\u011b plat\u00ed, \u017ee\u00a0prost\u00fd n\u00e1hodn\u00fd v\u00fdb\u011br m\u016f\u017ee v\u00e9st k nesystematick\u00fdm zkreslen\u00edm a vych\u00fdlen\u00edm, kter\u00e9 nelze p\u0159edem odhadnout. D\u00e1le plat\u00ed, \u017ee v p\u0159\u00edpad\u011b mal\u00e9ho po\u010dtu prim\u00e1rn\u00edch evaluac\u00ed se riziko v\u00fdb\u011brov\u00e9ho vych\u00fdlen\u00ed d\u00e1le zvy\u0161uje.<\/p>\n

Stratifikovan\u00fd n\u00e1hodn\u00fd v\u00fdb\u011br prim\u00e1rn\u00edch evaluac\u00ed<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n

V\u00fdhodou stratifikovan\u00e9ho n\u00e1hodn\u00e9ho v\u00fdb\u011bru je, \u017ee tento typ v\u00fdb\u011bru l\u00e9pe zohled\u0148uje strukturu z\u00e1kladn\u00edho souboru (tedy souboru prim\u00e1rn\u00edch evaluac\u00ed) a sni\u017euje riziko v\u00fdb\u011brov\u00e9ho vych\u00fdlen\u00ed. Stratifikovan\u00fd n\u00e1hodn\u00fd v\u00fdb\u011br m\u016f\u017ee b\u00fdt nevhodn\u00fd kv\u016fli nedostate\u010dn\u00fdm informac\u00edm obsa\u017een\u00fdch ve\u00a0v\u00fdb\u011brov\u00e9 opo\u0159e, kter\u00e1 nemus\u00ed v\u017edy obsahovat prom\u011bnn\u00e9, kter\u00e9 by bylo mo\u017en\u00e9 vyu\u017e\u00edt pro smyslupln\u00e9 nastaven\u00ed strat.<\/p>\n

V\u00fdb\u011br prim\u00e1rn\u00edch evaluac\u00ed \u00fasudkem<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n

Tento typ v\u00fdb\u011bru lze aplikovat jen v p\u0159\u00edpad\u011b n\u00edzk\u00e9ho po\u010dtu prim\u00e1rn\u00edch evaluac\u00ed. Plat\u00ed, \u017ee tento typ v\u00fdb\u011bru je obt\u00ed\u017en\u011b obhajiteln\u00fd, nebo\u0165 k v\u00fdb\u011bru jednotek doch\u00e1z\u00ed na z\u00e1klad\u011b subjektivn\u00edho posouzen\u00ed. Lze ho akceptovat, pokud je MEV koncipov\u00e1na jako p\u0159\u00edpadov\u00e1 studie, nicm\u00e9n\u011b i v\u00a0tomto p\u0159\u00edpad\u011b je nutn\u00e1 srozumiteln\u00e1 argumentace, pro\u010d (tj. na z\u00e1klad\u011b jak\u00fdch znak\u016f) byla dan\u00e1 prim\u00e1rn\u00ed evaluace vybr\u00e1na.<\/p>\n

Transparentn\u00ed a metodologicky korektn\u00ed v\u00fdb\u011br prim\u00e1rn\u00edch evaluac\u00ed, je\u017e\u00a0jsou ur\u010deny pro MEV je v\u00fdznamnou okolnost\u00ed, kter\u00e1 m\u016f\u017ee ovlivnit kvalitu samotn\u00e9 MEV, a to zejm\u00e9na v\u00a0p\u0159\u00edpad\u011b p\u0159ehledov\u011b \u010di komparativn\u011b koncipovan\u00fdch MEV, kdy pou\u017eit\u00ed nevhodn\u00e9 techniky v\u00fdb\u011bru m\u016f\u017ee zp\u016fsobit posunut\u00ed (bias) metaevalua\u010dn\u00edch z\u00e1v\u011br\u016f.<\/p>\n

4.3 Postup hodnocen\u00ed<\/strong><\/p>\n

Pokud jde o vlastn\u00ed hodnocen\u00ed jednotliv\u00fdch parametr\u016f prim\u00e1rn\u00ed evaluace, b\u00fdv\u00e1 pou\u017e\u00edv\u00e1n jeden ze dvou typick\u00fdch postup\u016f. Bu\u010f je hodnocen\u00ed dan\u00e9ho p\u0159\u00edpadu provedeno v\u00fdlu\u010dn\u011b jedn\u00edm metaevalu\u00e1torem nebo v\u00a0r\u00e1mci dan\u00e9 MEV prov\u00e1d\u00ed hodnocen\u00ed ka\u017ed\u00e9ho jednotliv\u00e9ho krit\u00e9ria v\u011bt\u0161\u00ed po\u010det hodnotitel\u016f (Wholey et al. 2004). V\u00a0tomto p\u0159\u00edpad\u011b jsou jednotliv\u00e1 krit\u00e9ria zaznamen\u00e1v\u00e1na obvykle dv\u011bma a\u017e p\u011bti na sob\u011b nez\u00e1visl\u00fdmi hodnotiteli, kdy ka\u017ed\u00fd z\u00a0nich postupuje samostatn\u011b podle stanoven\u00fdch instrukc\u00ed.<\/p>\n

V\u00fdhodou prvn\u00edho p\u0159\u00edstupu zalo\u017een\u00e9ho na jednotliv\u00e9m posouzen\u00ed je vy\u0161\u0161\u00ed konzistence hodnocen\u00ed, nebo\u0165 ve\u0161ker\u00e9 hodnocen\u00ed prov\u00e1d\u00ed jedna osoba, a\u00a0vy\u0161\u0161\u00ed rychlost proveden\u00ed MEV, je\u017e je dan\u00e1 t\u00edm, \u017ee se prov\u00e1d\u00ed jen jedno hodnocen\u00ed. Na druh\u00e9 stran\u011b je t\u0159eba po\u010d\u00edtat s\u00a0t\u00edm, \u017ee celkov\u00e1 doba hodnocen\u00ed je omezena individu\u00e1ln\u00ed kapacitou dan\u00e9ho hodnotitele (Splauding 2008). Z\u00e1sadn\u00edmi nev\u00fdhodami jsou ni\u017e\u0161\u00ed reliabilita a vysok\u00e1 m\u00edra subjektivity. Vzhledem k\u00a0tomu nelze tento p\u0159\u00edstup pou\u017e\u00edt, pokud je c\u00edlem prov\u00e9st sumativn\u00ed MEV.<\/p>\n

V\u00fdhodou druh\u00e9ho p\u0159\u00edstupu je vy\u0161\u0161\u00ed reliabilita, objektivizace z\u00e1v\u011br\u016f a vy\u0161\u0161\u00ed p\u0159esnost hodnocen\u00ed. Nev\u00fdhodou je p\u0159edev\u0161\u00edm zdlouhav\u00e9 zpracov\u00e1n\u00ed, organiza\u010dn\u00ed n\u00e1ro\u010dnost a vy\u0161\u0161\u00ed n\u00e1klady spojen\u00e9 s\u00a0realizac\u00ed hodnocen\u00ed. Specifickou okolnost\u00ed, kter\u00e1 komplikuje p\u0159\u00edpravu takto koncipovan\u00e9 MEV, je jednak nutn\u00e1 kalibrace hodnotitel\u016f zabezpe\u010duj\u00edc\u00ed jednotn\u00fd zp\u016fsob z\u00e1znamu sledovan\u00fdch krit\u00e9ri\u00ed[6], a d\u00e1le pak konsolidace v\u011bt\u0161\u00edho po\u010dtu hodnocen\u00ed.<\/p>\n

V\u00a0p\u0159\u00edpad\u011b, \u017ee je po\u0159izov\u00e1n v\u00edce\u010detn\u00fd z\u00e1znam sledovan\u00fdch krit\u00e9ri\u00ed, je v\u00a0dal\u0161\u00ed f\u00e1zi nutn\u00e9 ov\u011b\u0159it shodu individu\u00e1ln\u00edch hodnocen\u00ed jednotliv\u00fdch metaevalu\u00e1tor\u016f a v p\u0159\u00edpad\u011b neshody postupovat podle p\u0159edem stanoven\u00fdch krok\u016f sm\u011b\u0159uj\u00edc\u00edch ke konvergenci individu\u00e1ln\u00edch hodnocen\u00ed. V\u00a0tomto ohledu jsou st\u00e1vaj\u00edc\u00ed hodnotitel\u00e9 bu\u010f po\u017e\u00e1d\u00e1ni o dosa\u017een\u00ed konsenzu, nebo je dan\u00fd p\u0159\u00edpad hodnocen je\u0161t\u011b dal\u0161\u00edm nez\u00e1visl\u00fdm hodnotitelem. V\u00a0n\u011bkter\u00fdch p\u0159\u00edpadech lze tak\u00e9 p\u0159istoupit k\u00a0opakovan\u00e9mu hodnocen\u00ed st\u00e1vaj\u00edc\u00edmi hodnotiteli (analogie test \u2013 re-test reliability). Tyto sc\u00e9n\u00e1\u0159e se\u00a0mohou li\u0161it v\u00a0z\u00e1vislosti na typu krit\u00e9ria; pokud jde o faktografick\u00e9 \u00fadaje (jako nap\u0159. po\u010det stran, rok p\u0159\u00edpravy zpr\u00e1vy apod.) lze danou informaci ov\u011b\u0159it relativn\u011b snadno a tak\u00e9 plat\u00ed, \u017ee v\u00a0tomto p\u0159\u00edpad\u011b je m\u00edra shody
\nmezi nez\u00e1visl\u00fdmi hodnotiteli velmi vysok\u00e9 (b\u011b\u017en\u011b p\u0159esahuje 90 procent).<\/p>\n

Jin\u00e1 je situace v\u00a0p\u0159\u00edpad\u011b m\u011bkk\u00fdch, bodovan\u00fdch \u00fadaj\u016f. Pokud v\u00a0tomto p\u0159\u00edpad\u011b dosahuje m\u00edra shody mezi hodnotiteli 75 \u2013 80 procent, jde sice o\u00a0vysokou m\u00edru shody, nicm\u00e9n\u011b i tak je nutn\u00e9 vznikl\u00e9 neshody v\u00a0hodnocen\u00ed uspokojiv\u00fdm zp\u016fsobem vy\u0159e\u0161it. Pokud m\u00edra shody mezi metaevalu\u00e1tory \u010din\u00ed m\u00e9n\u011b ne\u017e 50 procent, je t\u0159eba hledat zdroj takto vysok\u00e9 neshody. M\u016f\u017ee j\u00edm b\u00fdt nap\u0159. odli\u0161n\u00fd zp\u016fsob hodnocen\u00ed n\u011bkter\u00e9ho z\u00a0hodnotitel\u016f, v\u00e1gn\u011b definovan\u00e9 krit\u00e9rium hodnocen\u00ed \u010di nep\u0159esn\u00e9 pravidlo z\u00e1znamu dan\u00e9ho krit\u00e9ria.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Pozn\u00e1mky pod \u010darou:<\/strong>
\n[1] Nemus\u00ed se jednat pouze o realiz\u00e1tory evaluac\u00ed, ale tak\u00e9 o pracovn\u00edky intern\u00edch evalua\u010dn\u00edch jednotek \u010di o zadavatele, p\u0159\u00edpadn\u011b dal\u0161\u00ed u\u017eivatele evaluac\u00ed.
\n[2] Je t\u0159eba m\u00edt st\u00e1le na pam\u011bti, \u017ee se na z\u00e1klad\u011b evaluac\u00ed uskute\u010d\u0148uj\u00ed mnoh\u00e1 rozhodnut\u00ed, kter\u00e1 nav\u00edc mohou m\u00edt z\u00e1sadn\u00ed v\u00fdznam pro fungov\u00e1n\u00ed evaluovan\u00fdch subjekt\u016f. Nen\u00ed proto divu, \u017ee se rozhodovatel\u00e9 sna\u017e\u00ed ujistit, \u017ee jejich rozhodnut\u00ed stoj\u00ed na spolehliv\u00fdch, validn\u00edch a robustn\u00edch z\u00e1kladech (Stufflebeam, 2001).
\n[3] To je v evaluac\u00edch mimo\u0159\u00e1dn\u011b v\u00fdznamn\u00e9, nebo\u0165 evaluace jsou transdisciplin\u00e1rn\u00edm oborem, v n\u011bm\u017e se setk\u00e1vaj\u00ed metody a techniky r\u016fzn\u00fdch obor\u016f (ekonomie, pedagogick\u00e9ho v\u00fdzkumu, sociologie, demografie a mnoh\u00fdch dal\u0161\u00edch.).
\n[4] Podobn\u011b tak\u00e9 m\u016f\u017ee b\u00fdt absence konceptu\u00e1ln\u00edch model\u016f d\u016fsledkem n\u00edzk\u00e9ho pov\u011bdom\u00ed o tomto n\u00e1stroji mezi realiz\u00e1tory evalua\u010dn\u00edch \u0161et\u0159en\u00ed, ale stejn\u011b tak m\u016f\u017ee b\u00fdt d\u016fsledkem rozhodnut\u00ed zadavatele neza\u0159adit takov\u00fdto v\u00fdstup do z\u00e1v\u011bre\u010dn\u00e9 zpr\u00e1vy.
\n[5] V t\u00e9to souvislosti je t\u0159eba upozornit, \u017ee n\u00edzk\u00e1 spolehlivost nemus\u00ed b\u00fdt chybou realiz\u00e1tora prim\u00e1rn\u00ed evaluace, ale m\u016f\u017ee b\u00fdt p\u0159irozen\u00fdm d\u016fsledkem prom\u011bnlivosti prost\u0159ed\u00ed, ve kter\u00e9m byla prim\u00e1rn\u00ed evaluace prov\u00e1d\u011bna.
\n[6] Jde nap\u0159. o jednotn\u00e9 sledov\u00e1n\u00ed po\u010dtu stran; z\u00e1znam intenzity v\u00fdskytu dan\u00e9ho jevu \u010di m\u00edry napln\u011bn\u00ed n\u011bkter\u00e9ho ze sledovan\u00fdch krit\u00e9ri\u00ed.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Zdroje<\/strong><\/p>\n

[1] Alkin M. C., Evaluation Roots. London: SAGE Publication, 2004. ISBN: 9780761928942<\/p>\n

[2] Batini C., Scannapieco M., Data Quality. Concepts, Methodologies and\u00a0Techniques. Berlin: Springer-Verlag. 2006. ISBN: 9783540331728<\/p>\n

[3] Benson A. P., Hinn D. M., Lloyd C. (eds.), Visions of Quality: How Evaluators define, understand and represent program quality. London: JAI. 2001. ISBN: 9780762307715<\/p>\n

[4] Bingham R. D., Felbinger C. L., Evaluation in Practice. A Methodological Approach. New York: Seven Bridges Press. 2002. ISBN: 9781889119571<\/p>\n

[5] Bradley C. J. (ed.), Process Use in Theory, Research, and Practice. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. 2007. ISBN: 9780470255261<\/p>\n

[6] Byrn D., Interpreting Quantitative Data. London: SAGE Publication. 2002. ISBN: 9780761962625<\/p>\n

[7] Caracelli V. J., Preskill H. (eds.), The Expanding Scope of Evaluation Use. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. 2000. ISBN: 9780787954338<\/p>\n

[8] Clarke A., Evaluation Research. An Introduction to Principles, Methods and\u00a0Practice. London: SAGE Publications. 1999. ISBN: 9780761950950<\/p>\n

[9] Combs W. L., Falletta S. V., The Targeted Evaluation Process. Alexandria: ASTD. 2000. ISBN: 9781562861407<\/p>\n

[10] Daponte B. O., Evaluation Essentials. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. 2008. ISBN: 9780787984397<\/p>\n

[11] DePoy E., French G. S., Evaluation Practice. Toronto: Thomson. 2003. ISBN: 9780534543914<\/p>\n

[12] Fitzpatrick J. L., Morris M. (eds.), Current and Emerging Ethical Challenges in Evaluation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. 1999. ISBN: 9780787949020<\/p>\n

[13] Guba E. G., Lincoln Y. S., Fourth Generation Evaluation. London: SAGE Publishing. 1989. ISBN: 9780803932357<\/p>\n

[14] Hall D., Hall I., Evaluation and social research \u2013 introducing small-scale practice. New York: Palgrave McMillan. 2004. ISBN: 9780333930953<\/p>\n

[15] Hong D. H., Boden M., R&D Programme Evaluation \u2013 Theory and Practice. Hants: Ashgate. 2003. ISBN: 9780754632078<\/p>\n

[16] House E. R., Evaluating with Validity. London: SAGE Publishing. 1980. ISBN: 9780803914391<\/p>\n

[17] House E. R., Howe K. R., Values in Evaluation and Social Research. London: SAGE Publishing. 1999. ISBN: 9780761911555<\/p>\n

[18] Isaac S., Michael W. B., Handbook in Research and Evaluation. California: Edits. 1997. ISBN: 9780912736327<\/p>\n

[19] Khakee A., The Emerging Gap between Evaluation Research and Practice. Evaluation 2003, 9, 340-352. 2003.<\/p>\n

[20] Leeuw F.L., Evaluation in Europe 2000: Challenges to a Growth Industry. Evaluation 2002, 8, 5-12. 2002.<\/p>\n

[21] Owen J. M., Program Evaluation. Forms and Approaches. New York: The\u00a0Guilford Press. 2006. ISBN: 9781593854065<\/p>\n

[22] Patton M. Q., Utilization-Focused Evaluation. London: SAGE Publishing. 2008: ISBN: 9781412958615<\/p>\n

[23] Pollitt Ch., Evaluation in Europe: Boom or Bubble? Evaluation 1998, 4, 214-224. 1998.<\/p>\n

[24] Posavac E. J., Carey R. G., Program Evaluation. Methods and Case Studies. New Jersey: Pearson Education Inc. 2003. ISBN: 9780132275606<\/p>\n

[25] Preskill H., Russ-Eft D., Building Evaluation Capacity. London: SAGE Publishing. 2005. ISBN: 9780761928102<\/p>\n

[26] Rossi P. H., Lipsey M. W., Freeman H. E., Evaluation. A Systematic Approach. London: SAGE Publications. 2004. ISBN: 9780761908944<\/p>\n

[27] Russ-Eft D., Bober M. J., de la Teja I., Foxon M. J., Koszalka T. A., Evaluators Competencies. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers. 2007. ISBN: 9780787995997<\/p>\n

[28] Sanders R. J., The Program Evaluation Standards 2. London: SAGE Publishing. 1994. ISBN: 9780803957329<\/p>\n

[29] Schwandt T. A., Halpern E. S., Linking Auditing and Metaevaluation. London: SAGE Publishing. 1988. ISBN: 9780803929685<\/p>\n

[30] Scriven M., The Methodology of Evaluation. In Worthen B. R., Sanders J. R. (eds.) Educational Evaluation: Theory and Practice. Belmont: Wadsworth. 1973. ISBN: 9780839600558<\/p>\n

[31] Scriven M., Evaluation Thesaurus. London: SAGE Publishing. 1991. ISBN: 9780803943643<\/p>\n

[32] Shadish W. R., Newman D. L., Scheirer M. A., Wye Ch., (eds.), Guiding Principles for Evaluators. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. 1995. ISBN: 9780787999247<\/p>\n

[33] Smith N. L., Brandon P. R., Fundamental Issues in Evaluation. New York: The Guilford Press. 2008. ISBN: 9781593853426<\/p>\n

[34] Spaulding D. T., Program Evaluation in Practice. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. 2008. ISBN: 9780787986858<\/p>\n

[35] Stufflebeam D. L. (ed.), Evaluation Models. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. 2001. ISBN: 9780787957551<\/p>\n

[36] Stufflebeam D. L., Shinkfield A. J., Evaluation, Theory, Models &\u00a0Applications. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. 2007. ISBN: 9780787977658<\/p>\n

[37] Uusikyl\u00e4 P., Virtanen P., Meta-Evaluation as a Tool for Learning: A\u00a0Case Study of the European Structural Fund Evaluations in Finland. Evaluation 2000, 6, 50-65. 2000.<\/p>\n

[38] Weiss C. H, Evaluation. New Jersey, Prentice Hall. 1998. ISBN: 9780133097252<\/p>\n

[39] Wholey J. S., Hatry H. P., Newcomer KE. (eds.), Handbook of Practical Program Evaluation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. 2004. ISBN: 9780787967130<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The text is trying to define what metaevaluation is and it also briefly points-out the key aspects of its introduction and development. The article also presents typical objectives that metaevaluations anticipate. Main part of the text is devoted to analysis of types of metaevaluations; each of the approaches je described and its main strengths and weaknesses are critically reviewed. Detailed typology of metaevaluations is followed by explication of criteria used for metaevaluations and ways how such criteria are defined. The text presents also selected methodological aspects of conducting metaevaluations; attention is paid to sampling and criteria assessment.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[26],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1329","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-articles"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/evaltep.xcreative.cz\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1329","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/evaltep.xcreative.cz\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/evaltep.xcreative.cz\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/evaltep.xcreative.cz\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/evaltep.xcreative.cz\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1329"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/evaltep.xcreative.cz\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1329\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1333,"href":"https:\/\/evaltep.xcreative.cz\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1329\/revisions\/1333"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/evaltep.xcreative.cz\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1329"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/evaltep.xcreative.cz\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1329"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/evaltep.xcreative.cz\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1329"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}