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
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 Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by White, L. T.
Right arrow Articles by Yates, S.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by White, L. T.
Right arrow Articles by Yates, S.
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. 8, No. 2, 167-186 (1984)
DOI: 10.1177/0193841X8400800202

Energy Conservation Research of California's Utilities

A Meta-Evaluation

Lawrence T. White

University of California, Santa Cruz

Dane Archer

University of California, Santa Cruz

Elliot Aronson

University of California, Santa Cruz

Larry Condelli

University of California, Santa Cruz

Barbara Curbow

University of California, Santa Cruz

Beverly McLeod

University of California, Santa Cruz

Thomas F. Pettigrew

University of California, Santa Cruz

Suzanne Yates

University of California, Santa Cruz

More than 200 evaluations of energy conservation programs conducted by California's four major utilities between 1977-1980 were reviewed and critiqued. In general, the evaluations were conducted in the marketing research tradition, were formative (rather than summative), and were dominated by nonexperimental surveys. Major threats to validity included:failure to consider secular economic and attitudinal trends, inadequate prior explication of key constructs, lack of random assignment, lack of appropriate comparison groups, overreliance on attitudes and self-reported behaviors as indices of conservation, and multiple unprotected statistical comparisons. Alternative evaluation techniques designed to reduce validity threats are presented, and a sample of the utilities' more recent work is assessed.


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?