Good evaluation requires that evaluation efforts themselves be evaluated. Many things can and often do go wrong in evaluation work. Accordingly, it is necessary to check evaluations for problems such as bias, technical error, administrative difficulties, and misuse. Such checks are needed both to improve ongoing evaluation activities and to assess the merits of completed evaluation efforts. The aim of this paper is to present both a logical structure and methodological suggestions for evaluating evaluation. This paper is based on work performed in the Ohio State University Evaluation Center between 1963 and 1973. That work provided many occasions for addressing meta-evaluation issues, including developing evaluation systems and assessing the work of such systems, designing and conducting evaluation studies, training graduate students and practitioners to conduct evaluation work, and critiquing many evaluation designs and reports. These experiences and the attendant problems are the basis for this paper. Part I of this paper discusses the need to develop a technology for evaluating evaluation; describes eleven meta-evaluation criteria; and delineates six classes of problems that plague evaluation efforts. Part II presents a definition, eight premises, and a logical structure for meta-evaluation work. Part III describes how the structure might be used through describing and illustrating five meta-evaluation designs. (Contains 8 figures.)