Different Types of Evaluations

Evaluations are often described using specialized terms, many of which are borrowed from other languages. In practice, these categories frequently overlap. Terms in italics are useful keywords for further research. 

By Purpose: 

Formative evaluations generate knowledge to improve the design of an intervention or strategy, typically conducted at an early stage. 

Summative evaluations focus on summarizing results and assessing the value of achieved outcomes, usually performed at the conclusion of an initiative. 

Both formative and summative evaluations serve the two primary goals of evaluation: promoting learning and improvement and ensuring accountability of those managing development assistance. The emphasis on learning versus accountability may vary, so some evaluations are mainly for learning, while others focus on accountability. 

By Object of Evaluation: 

Some evaluations focus on individual projects, while others examine a collection of initiatives (programs) or broader strategies. Each may evaluate results and impacts or concentrate on processes. The Evaluation Department also initiates systemic evaluations, examining the organization and management of development assistance. 

By Timing: 

Ex-ante evaluations occur before implementation. In Norwegian development cooperation, external expert reviews before support is granted (appraisals) function as ex-ante evaluations, even if not always labeled as such. 

Ex-post evaluations are conducted after the intervention has ended and are the most common type in Norwegian development assistance. 

Follow-up evaluations monitor an initiative or strategy over an extended period, from inception to completion. This can involve a single long-term evaluation or a series of separate assessments providing various perspectives. 

Mid-term evaluations are conducted at a specific point during implementation. In Norwegian development assistance, a mid-term review is often an external assessment of progress, which is essentially a mid-term evaluation, though it may not follow the same rigorous methodological and independence requirements as other types. 

By Main Role in the Evaluation: 

Internal evaluations are carried out by those involved in the project. These can promote learning but are less effective for ensuring accountability. In Norwegian development assistance, internal reviews are usually not classified as evaluations. 

Participatory evaluations emphasize involving affected stakeholders, such as intended beneficiaries and implementers. While beneficial for learning, objectivity can be compromised if those responsible for the intervention heavily influence the evaluation process. 

External evaluations are conducted by independent parties to maximize objectivity. All evaluations by the Evaluation Department are performed by external professionals. 

By Overall Methodological Approach: 

Most evaluations use a mix of methods, but approaches differ based on underlying scientific assumptions. This is a subject of ongoing debate among evaluation professionals. 

At one end of the spectrum are evaluations that consider reality so complex that definitive answers are hard to provide. These rely heavily on qualitative, process-oriented methods and aim to generate insight rather than determine effectiveness. Developmental evaluation is an example. 

On the other end are evaluations seeking the strongest possible evidence of an intervention’s effects, using structured, rigorous, and often quantitative methods wherever feasible. Impact evaluations fall into this category. For more details, see the section on evaluation methods. 

Review or Evaluation? 

Many development assistance initiatives are externally assessed at the request of those responsible for them. Although sometimes called evaluations, these are more commonly referred to as reviews (or appraisals if conducted before implementation). 

The distinction between reviews and evaluations is not always clear. Evaluations are usually more comprehensive, asking broader questions, and applying stricter methodological and independent standards than reviews.