Provus’s Discrepancy

Evaluation Model (DEM)

PAULINE M. TORION
Discussant
Ph.D. Student
 Provus’s Discrepancy Evaluation Model (DEM)

Journal of Construction Education-Summer 1998, vol 3, No. 2, pp64-66

 The Discrepancy Evaluation Model (DEM), developed in 1969 by Malcom Provus to

provide information for program assessment and program improvement.
What is the definition of evaluation?

He defined evaluation as the process of agreeing upon program standards,

determining whether a discrepancy exists between some aspect of the program
and standards governing that aspect of the program, and using discrepancy
information to identify weaknesses of the program.

The DEM is defined as the comparison of an ACTUAL PERFORMANCE to a DESIRE

STANDARD
 Provus’s Discrepancy Evaluation Model (DEM)

 What is the purpose of evaluation? He stated the purpose of evaluation is to

determine whether to improve, maintain or terminate a program (Gredler,
1996).
 His model is primarily a problem-solving set of procedures that seeks to
identify weaknesses (according to selected standards) and to take corrective
actions with termination as the last recourse
 With this model, the process of evaluation involves moving through stages
and content categories is such a way as to facilitate a comparison of program
performance with standards, while at the same time identifying standards to
be used for future comparisons.
 Provus’s Discrepancy Evaluation Model (DEM)
Provus Terminology Defined
The following definitions will be useful in understanding the
evaluation which follows:
Enabling Objectives
- intervening behaviors/tasks which students must complete as a
necessary basis for terminal outcomes.
Terminal Outcomes
- the behaviors the clients are expected to demonstrate upon
completion of the program
Design Criteria
- contains a comprehensive list of program elements (input, process,
output) that become the standard of performance in Stage 1.
 Provus’s Discrepancy Evaluation Model (DEM)
Manakala Journal of Extension: September/October 1998(pg10).
“The Provus Discrepancy Model provide a basis for evaluating
program. Provus considers discrepancies to be the essential clue in
program evaluation. Discrepancies point out differences that exist
between what program planners think is happening in the program
and what’s actually happening. Provus recommends that when
discrepancies occur, either program performance or program design
standards be changed “
Three important basic phrases in the Provus Model
Discrepancy: mean differences
Program performances : refers to as program implementation,
result, and/ or accomplishment
Program design standard: means objectives.
The Discrepancy Evaluation Model can be visualized as an on-going
cycle, as shown in Figure 1.
Provus’s Discrepancy Evaluation Model (DEM)
an ongoing cycle, as shown in Figure 1
PROVUS EXTENSION
Start here Translate Start here
into

Establish program = Specify program

design standards objectives

Plan evaluation using = Plan evaluation based

the discrepancy model On objectives

Collect information Collect information on

On performance
= program accomplishments

Identify differences between

Identify = program objectives and
discrepancies program accomplishments

Alter performance and/or

Alter the standard
= Modify programs

end end
here here
or or Figure 1: Discrepancy
Recycle to Recycle to Evaluation Model
 Provus’s Discrepancy Evaluation Model (DEM)

The Provus method identifies five specific stages of all programs.

 Program Definition Stage

 Program Installation Stage

 Program Process Stage

 Program Product Stage

 Cost-benefit Analysis (optional)

 Provus’s Discrepancy Evaluation Model (DEM)

Stage 1: Program Definition

Where the purpose of the evaluation is to assess the program
design by first defining the necessary inputs, processes, and
outputs, and then, by evaluating the comprehensiveness and
internal consistency of the design.
The focus of work is on defining goals, processes, or activities and
delineating necessary resources and participants to carry out the
activities and accomplish the goals
The evaluators job at this stage is to see that a complete set of
specifications produced and that they meet certain criteria
Evaluation Stage 1 asks the question, “ Is the program adequately
defined”?
 Provus’s Discrepancy Evaluation Model (DEM)
Stage 2: Program Installation
Where the purpose of the evaluation is to assess the degree of
program installation against Stage 1 program standards.
The intent is to make certain that the program has been installed
as it had been designed.
The evaluator performs a series of congruency tests to identify
any discrepancies between expected and actual installation of the
program or activity.
If discrepancies are found at this stage, Provus proposed either
changing the program definition, making adjustments in the
installation, or terminating the activity if it appears that further
development would be futile.
Stage 2 asks, “ Is the program installed as defined in Stage 1’?
 Provus’s Discrepancy Evaluation Model (DEM)

Stage 3: Program Process

Where the purpose of the evaluation is to assess the relationship
between the variables to be changed and the process used to
effect the change.
To focus on gathering data on the progress of participants to
determine whether their behaviors changed as expected.
If certain enabling objectives are not achieved, the activities
leading to those objectives are revised or redefined.
If the evaluator finds that enabling objectives are not being
achieved , another option is to terminate the program if it appears
that the discrepancy cannot be eliminated.
Stage 3 asks, “Are the resources and techniques being used
congruent with the goals of the program?
 Provus’s Discrepancy Evaluation Model (DEM)

Stage 4: Program Product

Where the purpose of the evaluation is to assess whether the
design of the program achieved its major objectives.
To determine whether the terminal objectives for the program
have been achieved.
Provus distinguished between immediate outcomes, or terminal
objectives, and long-term outcomes, or ultimate objectives.
He encouraged the evaluator to go beyond the traditional
emphasis on end-of-program performance and make follow-up
studies as part of evaluation.
Finally in Stage 4 the question is asked, “ Are the program
objectives achieved in the implementation’?
 Provus’s Discrepancy Evaluation Model (DEM)

Stage 5: Cost-benefit Analysis (optional)

Comparison of results with similar cost analysis of comparable

educational programs.
In recent times, with funds for education becoming scarcer, cost-
benefit analysis have become as essential part of almost all
educational evaluations.
 Provus’s Discrepancy Evaluation Model (DEM) - steps

To use the Discrepancy Evaluation Model, need to follow these steps.

Step 1: Decide which program to evaluate. This might be:

A. A new program just being developed for introduction.

B. An ongoing program that may appear to be running out of steam.
C. A program that seems to be working just fine, but appears to have switch
directions.
 Provus’s Discrepancy Evaluation Model (DEM) - steps

To use the Discrepancy Evaluation Model, need to follow these steps.

Step 2: Determine objectives for the targeted program

Questions to ask
A. Are written objectives already available?
B. As participants know it?
C. The advisory committee?
D. If there’s any confusion about program objectives, get them clarified before
proceeding. Involve several people and, if necessary, determine objective
now.
 Provus’s Discrepancy Evaluation Model (DEM) - steps
To use the Discrepancy Evaluation Model, need to follow these steps.

Step 3: Plan the evaluation:

Questions to ask
A. What information do you need to know whether and how well objectives
are being accomplished. Whatever information is needed must be possible
to collect , and reasonable in terms of work that collection entails.
B. How can you get at that, who can help? Specialists often help with
developing evaluation plans and usually have advice and experience to
share. Don’t try to reinvent the evaluation wheel all by yourself!.

Step 4: Follow through by implementing plans to collect information.

 Provus’s Discrepancy Evaluation Model (DEM) - steps
To use the Discrepancy Evaluation Model, need to follow these steps.

Step 5: Identify discrepancies between program objectives and program

accomplishments.

Questions to ask
A. Where do differences exist?
B. What have you learned about them – their causes, effect on program,
participants, other pertinent information?
 Provus’s Discrepancy Evaluation Model (DEM) - steps
To use the Discrepancy Evaluation Model, need to follow these steps.

Step 6: Plan what to do next .

At this point, the Discrepancy Evaluation Model says it’s time for remedial
planning. Either the basic program design standards or performance should be
revised so that objectives and accomplishments are consistent.
Question to ask
A. But which should change? Objectives or implementation?
 Provus’s Discrepancy Evaluation Model (DEM)
Use of the Provus Discrepancy Model

The Provus model is most effective under the following

circumstances:
1. When the type of evaluation desired is formal, and the
program is in the formative, rather than summative stages.
2. When evaluation is defined as continuous information
management addressing program improvement and
assessment, and where evaluation is a component of program
development.
3. Where the purpose of evaluation is to improve, maintain or
terminate a program.
 Provus’s Discrepancy Evaluation Model (DEM)
Use of the Provus Discrepancy Model

4. Where the key emphasis of evaluation is program definition

and program installation.
5. Where the roles of the evaluator are those of facilitator,
examiner of standards, observer of actual behaviors, and design
expert.
6. When at each stage of evaluation program performance is
compared with program objectives (standards) to determine
discrepancies.
 Provus’s Discrepancy Evaluation Model (DEM)
Use of the Provus Discrepancy Model

7. Where the program evaluation procedure is designed to

identify weaknesses and to make determinations about correction
or termination.
8. Where the theoretical construct is that all stages of programs
continuously provide feedback to each other.
9. Where the criteria for judging programs includes carefully
evaluating whether:
a. The program meets established program criteria
b. The actual course of action taken can be identified, and
c. A course of action can be taken to resolve all
discrepancies. (Gredler, 1996).
 Provus’s Discrepancy Evaluation Model (DEM)
CONCLUSION

Ralph Waldo Emerson once said that most of the shadows in life
are caused by our standing in our room sunshine.

Provus Discrepancy Evaluation Model can help us be in the best

way to focus more light on the many excellent features extension
programs already have.

Thanks for your attention!