Journal of Industrial Convergence (산업융합연구)

DAEHAN Society of Industrial Management (대한산업경영학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

A Meta-evaluative Study of the Evaluation System for Projects Delegated by the National Health Promotion Fund: Focusing on the Differences in Recognition between Evaluators and Evaluatees

국민건강증진기금 민간보조사업 평가에 대한 메타평가: 평가자와 피평가자 간 인식 차이를 중심으로

  • Su-Yoen Park (Division of Health Policy and Management, Korea University) ;
  • Man-Kyu Choi (Division of Health Policy and Management, Korea University)
  • 박수연 (고려대학교 보건정책관리학부) ;
  • 최만규 (고려대학교 보건정책관리학부)
  • Received : 2024.09.27
  • Accepted : 2024.10.20
  • Published : 2024.10.28
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

This study applied a meta-evaluation approach to examine the performance evaluation system for privately-contracted projects by the National Health Promotion Fund, focusing on the discrepancies in perceptions between evaluators and evaluatees. Using a systems approach, five evaluation elements were analyzed: environment, input, process, outcomes, and utilization. T-tests revealed significant differences in perceptions between evaluators and evaluatees across all five evaluation factors. These differences were particularly pronounced (p<.001) for the following factors: environment(specifically, its appropriateness), input, and utilization(specifically, the performance improvement). To bridge this gap in mutual understanding, it is necessary to provide sufficient explanations of evaluation criteria and procedures, along with reliable feedback on the results. This study informs improvements to the evaluation system, enhancing project performance.

본 연구는 '국민건강증진기금 민간보조사업 성과평가' 제도의 점검을 목적으로 메타평가 방법을 적용하였으며, 이를 분석할 때 평가자와 피평가자의 인식 차이를 중심으로 접근하였다. 체제론적 접근방법에 따라 도출한 평가환경, 평가투입, 평가과정, 평가결과, 평가활용 등 5개 평가요소에 대한 조사를 실시하고, t검정을 활용하여 평가자와 피평가자 간의 인식 차이를 분석하였다. 분석 결과, 평가자와 피평가자 간 인식은 5개 평가요소 모두에서 유의미한 차이를 보였다. 특히 평가환경의 적절성, 평가투입 및 그 하위요소, 평가활용의 성과향상 요소는 그 차이가 매우 유의한 것으로 나타나(p<.001), 제도 운영 상 조정이 필요함을 시사한다. 이러한 상호 이해의 격차 해소를 위해 평가기준이나 절차에 대한 충분한 설명을 비롯하여 결과에 대한 충실한 피드백 제공, 또한 이해의 차이를 해소하는 의견교류의 장이 필요할 것으로 보인다. 본 연구는 표본 크기가 다소 제한적으로(n=79) 결과의 일반화에 다소 한계가 있으나, 현재 사업을 수행 중인 현업 담당자와 해당 제도 및 사업 평가에 직접 참여한 전문가를 대상으로 표집하여 대표성을 확보하고자 노력하였다. 본 연구는 해당 제도의 운영 개선 방향을 제안하고 이를 통해 향후 성과 개선을 도모한다는 점에서 의의가 있다.

Keywords

References

  1. H. C. Kang. (2024). The 2024 Outlook for Health Care Policy. Korea Institute for Health and Social Affair. DOI : 10.23062/2024.01.2
  2. Ministry of Health and Welfare. (2004). Intensive investment for strong support for the vulnerable and solid medical reform implementation. [Press release]. https://www.mohw.go.kr/board.es?mid=a10503010100&bid=0027&act=view&list_no=1482883 &tag=&nPage=1 (Retrieved September 27, 2024)
  3. Ministry of Health and Welfare. (2024). Summary of budget and fund operation plan of the Ministry of Health and Welfare for 2024. https://www.mohw.go.kr/board.es?mid=a10403000000&bid=0010&act=view&list_no=1480297&tag=&nPage=1 (Retrieved September 27, 2024)
  4. Korea Health Promotion Institute. (n.d.). Performance evaluation of private subsidy project. https://www.khepi.or.kr/ace/menu.es?mid=a30 101000000 (Retrieved September 27, 2024)
  5. Office for Government Policy Coordination. (n.d.). Government performance evaluation system. https://www.evaluation.go.kr/web/page.do?menu_id=25 (Retrieved September 27, 2024)
  6. H. S. Hwang & M. S. Cho. (2017). A Study on Government Performance Evaluation System and Its Effectiveness (2016-10). The Korea Institute of Public Administration.
  7. E. S. Savas. (1982). Privatizing the public sector: How to shrink government. Chatham House Publishers.
  8. A. N. Kluger & A. DeNisi. (1996). The effects of feedback interventions on performance: A historical review, a meta-analysis, and a preliminary feedback intervention theory. Psychological Bulletin, 119(2), 254-284. DOI : 10.1037/0033-2909.119.2.254
  9. S. Y. Lee, J. M. Lee, Y. K Jung & C. S. Cheung. (2018). A study on the improvement of evaluation system of national infrastructure system using meta-evaluation. Journal of the Korean Society of Disaster Information, 14(2), 203-210. DOI : 10.15683/kosdi.2018.06.30.203
  10. Rho, Y. J. (2005). The impedimental factors to policy evaluation utilization in the Korean government. Korean Journal of Public Administration, 43(4), 245-275.
  11. M. Scriven. (1967). The methodology of evaluation. Monograph of the American Educational Research Association on Curriculum Evaluation, 1, 39-83. Rand McNally & Company.
  12. D. L. Stufflebeam (1983). Metaevaluation: Concepts, standards, and uses. Evaluation Practice, 4(1), 17-36.
  13. R. Larson & D. Berliner. (1983). A review of meta-evaluation studies. Educational Researcher, 12(1), 14-17.
  14. H. D. Hong. (2002). The Meta-evaluation of National R&D Programs: An Empirical Investigation, 14(4), 867-892.
  15. M. K. Hwang, W. J. Yoo, D. W. Chung & J. B. Moon. (2009). The Design of Model for Analysis Efficiency of the National R&D Program Evaluation System by applying Meta Evaluation. Asia-Pacific Journal of Business Venturing and Entrepreneurship, 4(4), 1-25. DOI : 10.16972/APJBVE.4.4.200912.1
  16. S. J. Yoon, & T. J. Cho. (2017). Meta-Evaluation to the Self-Evaluation in ODA Programs. The Korean Association for Governance, 24(2), 27-60. DOI : 10.17089/KGR.2017.24.2.002
  17. S. Y. Lee, J. M. Lee, Y. K. Jung & C. S. Cheung. (2018). A study on the improvement of evaluation system of national infrastructure system using meta-evaluation. Journal of The Korean Society of Disaster Information, 14(2), 203-210. DOI : 10.15683/KOSDI.2018.06.30.203
  18. J. H. Jin & K. Cho. (2020). Meta-assessment study on local government program assessment rating tool: Focusing on the evaluation results of 2016-2019. Journal of Governmental Studies, 15(2), 35-63. DOI : 10.15683/kosdi.2018.06.30.203
  19. C. G. Kwack & H. S. Park (2021). Formative metaevaluation on the management evaluation indicator system of the public institutions. The Journal of Social Science, 28(4), 89-112. DOI : 10.46415/jss.2021.09.28.4.89
  20. S. Y. Choi, D. S. Lee, D. Y. Hong & M. J. Park. (2019). Policy alternatives for comprehensive evaluation of central government contracting out (2019-01). The Korea Institute of Public Administration.
  21. C. G. Yi. (2009). Empirical Analysis of Evaluation System for Public Research Institutes: Focused on Differences of the Perception among Participants. Journal of Korea Technology Innovation Society, 12(1), 36-69.
  22. T. A. Schwandt. (2002). Evaluation practice reconsidered. Peter Lang Publishing.
  23. W. J. Lee. (2017). A study on the improvement of evaluation system for rural development projects: From the perspective of meta-evaluation. Doctoral dissertation. Yeungnam University, Gyeongsan.
  24. S. J. Yoon, & J. S. Kim. (2017). An Analysis on Korea's Government Performance Evaluation System Using Semantic Network Analysis. Korean Public Personnel Administration Review, 16(4), 57-82.
  25. H. C. Choi, Y. D. Kim & C. H. Yoon. (2023). A Study on Appraisers and Appraisees' Awareness for Management Evaluation Indicators and System Improvement of Regional Public Corporation. The Journal of Korean Policy Studies, 23(1), 229-258, DOI : 10.46330/jkps.2023.3.23.1.229