A multiple-indicator and multiple-design approach for evaluating the quality of basic skills programs in reading, writing, and mathematics that has been implemented within a statewide system of higher education in the southeastern United States was assessed. Several of the evaluation methodologies are compared in order to determine whether results are mutually supportive or contradictory and whether they are suggestive of interchangeability or complementarity as regards indicators and evaluative designs. Data are derived from a project designed to evaluate the effectiveness of developmental studies programs at a regional university and community colleges. Attention is focused upon a program in remedial mathematics at the regional, public university. The multiple-indicator and multiple-design strategy utilized both short-range and long-range post-program measures. The results of applying the following three designs are considered: single-group pretest-posttest comparison, the remediated-exempted comparison, and the cross-program comparison. Findings indicate that the application of the single-group pretest-posttest comparison suggested program effectiveness. While the findings were less clear, program effectiveness was also generally supported by the remediated-exempted comparison. Implementation of the cross-program comparison provided negative data regarding program performance on both short-range and long-range postprogram measures; however, this finding is qualified. It is suggested that the choice of the evaluative design is likely to have a greater effect upon the results of the evaluation than the choice of either the postprogram measure or the grouping statistic. (SW)