The document discusses the SCREAM values that should be considered for any program evaluation. SCREAM is an acronym that stands for Strengths, Culture, Resources, Ethics, Agreement, and Multiple systems. For each value, key aspects are described. Strengths refer to behaviors and beliefs that help groups function optimally. Culture indicates a group's level of connectedness. Resources include time, materials, and budget for evaluation. Ethics provide boundaries for operations. Agreement ensures stakeholders feel the process is fair. Multiple systems considers how evaluation impacts different interconnected systems. Considering all the SCREAM values comprehensively guides evaluators in their work.

1. 1 original post with 2 scholarly citations (300 words), 2 peer
replies
“The textbook author has identified five SCREAM values that
should be part of every evaluation, discuss them.”
The textbook author has identified five SCREAM values that
should be part of every evaluation, discuss them.
Peer reply needed for discussion 1
Brun outlined the acronym SCREAM to help stakeholders
prioritize the key values which should guide evaluation
decisions. SCREAM represents the following value sets:
strengths, culture, resources, ethics, agreement, and multiple
systems. These value sets are important to apply as work is
done on exploratory, descriptive, and explanatory evaluation
systems (Brun, p57, 2016).
It is important to focus on values as they guide our decision
making on an individual, organizational, and other relevant
levels. “Values are deeply held views that act as guiding
principles for individuals and organizations. When they are
declared and followed, they are the basis of trust. When they are
left unstated, they are inferred from observable behavior.”
(Pendleton and King, 2002). Specifically, when considering
evaluation, decision-makers should consider the following
regarding the SCREAM value sets:
Strengths – these are behaviors and beliefs that help individuals
and groups reach their optimal level of social functioning. From
an evaluation standpoint, strengths can be included in many

2. different types of evaluation systems and is a known
measurement category. Strengths can demonstrate where we
expect programs to show productive returns against program
investment. StrengthsFinders 2.0 is an interesting tool from the
Gallup Organization that’s widely used as a way to understand
individual and group level strengths which could contribute to
shared values.
Culture – Culture is an important component of evaluation as it
indicates a level of connectedness within a group that might be
included for evaluation. It can be based upon many different
demographic or even psychographic characteristics. It is
important for evaluators to understand their own cultural
perspective prior to measuring another group, mainly to be
conscious of any potential bias.
Resources – are the time, materials, training, budget and other
key factors in place to complete the evaluation process.
Resources provide the means to complete the evaluation task(s)
appropriately. Without proper resources, I would argue that the
entire system falls apart. In fact, one of the biggest challenges I
have seen organizations face is the lack of a clear ability to
appropriate resources efficiently.
Ethics – Obviously we need evaluation systems to occur within
an ethical framework that is known among stakeholders. Ethics
provide boundaries of operations, and evaluation processes can
help keep the system on track vs ethical standards. Without
ethical norms and shared values, the system may lack face
validity.
Agreement – Are key stakeholders aligned and agreed to the
assessment process? Lack of agreement can stop an evaluation
process cold. Stakeholder agreement ensures that all parties
feel the evaluation system is fair and will produce meaningful
insight.

3. Multiple Systems - Within any evaluation multiple systems will
be impacted, and failure to measure across system domains will
miss key learning opportunities. Evaluation processes should
consider the interplay between systems.
When evaluators can consider all the value domains above, they
will have a comprehensive set of principles to move forward
with during any program review.
References
Brun, C. F. (2016).
A Practical Guide to Evaluation
. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Pendleton, D., & King, J. (2002). Values and leadership.
BMJ,
325
(7376), 1352–1355.
Peer reply need for discussion 2
During this week’s lesson, we discuss the scope of evaluation
and the scream values. Our textbook author Carl Brun calls
SCREAM
values, a somewhat labored, but useful, acronym for measuring
strengths, respecting cultures, working within the limits of
resources, following professional codes of ethics, reaching
agreement with stakeholders about decisions, and measuring
change across multiple systems (Brun, 2001).

4. Strengths- Employers evaluate the strengths of employees when
making decisions for promotions, pay raises and participation
on special projects. Exhibiting the strengths an employer values
can help workers advance in their careers. Any workers seeking
a new position should highlight activities that illustrate the
strengths, such as leading a group or work on team projects. As
much information you can distribute to your employer to
identify your strengths the better.
Cultures- Today’s workplaces bring together people of different
ages, ethnicities, education, income levels, and physical
abilities. It is no wonder we often encounter difficulties when
sharing ideas, working on group projects or communicating
effectively with our co-workers. When diversity is not
acknowledged and valued, it can breed resentment, low morale
and draw separations between employees. Employers and
employees working together to support and show respect for
differences will lay the groundwork for encouraging creative
ideas, building cohesive teams and fostering the values and
experiences of a diverse workforce. You can’t implement
diversity until you appreciate it!
Resources- It is important to develop an estimate of the
resources that are available for evaluation and what will be
required to do the evaluation well. The resources needed for an
evaluation include: existing data, funding to engage an external
evaluator or evaluation team or pay for specific tasks to be
undertaken and for materials and travel, and time, expertise and
willingness to be involved of staff, partners, technical experts
and the wider community, whether as part of the evaluation
team, the evaluation governance processes and/or key
informants and data sources.
Ethics- Promoting ethical practices in assessment is considered
a very important goal of the organizations involved in

5. assessment. Codes are intended to increase the awareness of
ethical
practice among their memberships and to promote ethical uses
of assessment in various contexts: teaching, counseling,
evaluation, research, among others (AERA, 1992).
Agreement- this is when an employee for example submits an
idea to his or her boss then promises to evaluate it. After the
evaluation, the boss will either enter into an agreement to
exploit the idea or promise not to use or disclose the idea.
Multiple – The multiples approach is also referred to as the
“multiples analysis” or “valuation multiples.” In order to build
a multiple, your organizations that are similar to each other
need to be identified first, and each of their market values
evaluated.
In closing, I will conclude that
Scream
Values are the basis for defining what aspects of the evaluation
should be considered in a particular context. They are
something, which is in principle or quality intrinsically valuable
or desirable. So in evaluation, factual premises describe
performance, while value premises can be thought of as the
qualities that, when converted to standards, determine the
degree to which the performance was good or bad, worthwhile
or worthless, and significant or insignificant (Brun, 2001).
Value premises can be validated using commonsense or based
on such things as the severity of needs, resource efficiency,
legal requirements, professional requirements, and so on.
Resources:
Brun, C.,& Rapp, R. C. (2001). Strengths-Based Case
Management: Individuals' Perspectives of Strengths and the

6. Case Manager Relationship.
Social Work, 46
(3), 278-288.
https://corescholar.libraries.wright.edu/cme/2
American Educational Research Association (1992).
Ethical standards
of the American Educational Research Association
. Washington,
DC: Author.