This Article Full Text (OnlineFirst PDF) All Versions of this Article: 1098214008322640v1 29/4/416    most recent Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by House, E. R. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Blowback: Consequences of Evaluation for Evaluation

^* To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: ernie.house{at}colorado.edu.

	Abstract

Drug studies are often cited as the best exemplars of evaluation design. However, many of these studies are seriously biased in favor of positive findings for the drugs evaluated, even to the point where dangerous effects are hidden. In spite of using randomized designs and double blinding, drug companies have found ways of producing the results they want, including manipulation of treatment, selection of sample, control of data, and calculated publication. Regulatory agencies have been neutralized. We have entered an era when evaluations are controlled by sponsors to produce the findings they want. Evaluations have become too important to be left to the evaluators. Such deceptive practices threaten the integrity of the evaluation field, perhaps its existence. There is no doubt these practices will spread into educational and social evaluation.

First published on September 5, 2008, doi:10.1177/1098214008322640

American Journal of Evaluation 2008;29:416.

A more recent version of this article appeared on December 1, 2008


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?