Content uploaded by Alfred Uhl
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Alfred Uhl on Jun 07, 2015
Content may be subject to copyright.
3
rd
NORDIC HEALTH RESEARCH CONFERENCE
6 – 9 September 2000, Tampere – Finland
Abstract
Evaluation versus Evalopathy
Support for Practical Improvement vs. Irrational Nuisance
Dr. Alfred Uhl, Ludwig-Boltzmann-Institute for Addiction Research, Vienna
The presentation will give examples for practical evaluation and pseudo-evaluation to illustrate some
central methodological and practical issues. The prime issues to be dealt with are “ambiguity of
terminology”, “basic methodological limitations / prospects” and “the practical role of evaluation
today”. A short selection of relevant aspects is presented in this abstract.
The term “evaluation of prevention” is associated with a broad variety of extremely different
meanings. The narrowest interpretation is “scientific proof that a certain approach is effective”, the
widest interpretation is “collection of any logical or empirical evidence related to a prevention
approach”.
Currently we are undoubtedly confronted with a global evaluation boom. The situation is
characterised by strong pressure to evaluate, by unrealistic expectations concerning the feasibility of
evaluation and by low standards concerning methodology and adequacy of the conclusions. Many
people are expected constantly to evaluate everything they do, regardless of whether this is sensible
and feasible in a specific situation. The implicit idea seems to be “Evaluate in any case and don’t
worry how! You can easily get away with a few superficial ad-hoc questions in a self-administered
questionnaire and the like.”
The desirable notion of developing promising prevention approaches and improving practical
prevention work through well planned and methodologically adequate research - regardless whether
this research is labelled evaluation or not - often deteriorates to a ridiculous ritual of pseudo-
evaluation. One could speak of “evalopathy” as a new form of mental disease spreading through the
scientific community. A development producing output not good enough to learn anything from, but
nevertheless drawing on scarce resources from practical work – is a way indirectly to diminish the
quality of evaluation.
It is my conviction that researchers, preventionists and evaluators have the means to improve the
state of prevention and evaluation if they are supplied with sufficient funds to do so and if the public
does not expect miracles. Real progress is possible if we decide to be more precise in our
terminology and conceptions, if we are ready to accept basic methodological limitations rather than
ignore them, if we are ready to admit inevitable uncertainties and if we accept that some things just
cannot be accomplished at the present stage. We should stand up against public pressure to
accomplish impossible tasks and we should consequently criticise colleagues who nourish unrealistic
expectations because of calculated insincerity or ignorance.