| Abstract: | Smith (1981), asserting that not all evaluative studies require the same degree of evidence for decision-making, suggests a legal paradigm for determining how much certainty is necessary for informed decision-making. Specifically, he argues for the use of three levels of certainty, i.e., suggestive, preponderant, or conclusive evidence, modeled after the legal standards of proof. Unfortunately, such an approach is untenable for several reasons. Smith's suggestion that decision-makers adopt legal terminology, for example, is really a recommendation of form rather than substance and, furthermore, his analogy from the law to the evaluation context is based upon a misunderstanding of the trial process. These and other problems with Smith's suggestions are discussed. |
