Evaluation Review

 

Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Click Here for More Information

Click here for more information

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Thompson, P. A.
Right arrow Articles by Furgason, J.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Thompson, P. A.
Right arrow Articles by Furgason, J.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?
Evaluation Review, Vol. 5, No. 2, 269-279 (1981)
DOI: 10.1177/0193841X8100500208

Other

Jargon and Data Do Make a Difference:

The Impact of Report Styles on Lay and Professional Evaluation Audiences

Pat A. Thompson

American Institute for Research

Robert D. Brown

University of Nebraska-Lincoln

John Furgason

University of Illinois

Use of communication theory as a paradigmfor studing the impact of different evaluation report styles on different audiences was explored. Ratings of the evaluation consultant and the evaluation report were influenced by use of jargon and data, but, as in previous studies, were generally unrelated to whether they were read by lay or professional audiences. In contrast, extend of agreement with recommendations were related primarily to audience type and rarely related to the style of the report.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Urban EducationHome page
D. L. Newman and R. D. Brown
School Board Member Role Expectations in Making Decisions about Educational Programs: Do Size of School and Region of Country Make a Difference?
Urban Education, October 1, 1993; 28(3): 267 - 280.
[Abstract]

Home page
 Am Educ Res JHome page
E. Pajak and C. D. Glickman
Informational and Controlling Language in Simulated Supervisory Conferences
American Educational Research Journal, January 1, 1989; 26(1): 93 - 106.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 REVIEW OF EDUCATIONAL RESEARCHHome page
J. B. Cousins and K. A. Leithwood
Current Empirical Research on Evaluation Utilization
Review of Educational Research, January 1, 1986; 56(3): 331 - 364.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 EDUCATIONAL EVALUATION AND POLICY ANALYSISHome page
W. K. Ripley
Medium of Presentation: Does It Make a Difference in the Reception of Evaluation Information?
Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, January 1, 1985; 7(4): 417 - 425.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 EDUCATIONAL EVALUATION AND POLICY ANALYSISHome page
R. D. Brown, D. L. Newman, and L. S. Rivers
An Exploratory Study of Contextual Factors as Influences on School Board Evaluation Information Needs for Decisionmaking
Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, January 1, 1985; 7(4): 437 - 445.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 EDUCATIONAL EVALUATION AND POLICY ANALYSISHome page
R. D. Brown, D. L. Newman, and L. S. Rivers
A Decisionmaking Context Model for Enhancing Evaluation Utilization
Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, January 1, 1984; 6(4): 393 - 400.
[PDF]