Three different approaches to metaevaluation are described and shown to have been applied to the study of Project Follow Through. These approaches include evaluation of primary evaluations, integrative meta-analysis in which results from several primary evaluations are combined, and secondary analysis involving the independent reanalysis of the raw data from a primary evaluation. These approaches are discussed in terms of the roles of the participants in the national evaluation of Project Follow Through and subsequent to the national evaluation. The metaevaluation models are contrasted with respect to three dimensions: (1) whether the metaevaluation is performed parallel or subsequent to the primary evaluation; (2) whether or not the raw evaluation data are reanalyzed by the metaevaluator; and (3) whether a single or a multiple data set is used. The key premise of metaevaluation is that evaluations should be subject to critical review in order to provide a balanced perspective for decision makers. (Author/CTM)