Table 1.

Research results, similarities, differences, and weaknesses from previous studies.

Research	Results	Similarities	Differences	Weaknesses
Prihaswati et al. (2017)	Prihaswati et al.'s research showed the use of the CSE-UCLA model which focuses on three components included: system assessment, program planning, and program implementation to evaluate a program.	The similarity of Prihaswati et al.'s research with this research lies in the system assessment component that explains the existence of the program, which has the same basic principle as the description component in the DIVAYANA model. The program planning component that explains the input of resources needed in implementing a program also has the same basic principle as the input component in the DIVAYANA model.	Research by Prihaswati et al. does not show an evaluation component that is equipped with a process of calculating the determination of priority recommendations like that of the DIVAYANA evaluation model, namely the nominate component.	Prihaswati et al.'s research had not shown yet the calculation process of determining priority recommendations to facilitate decision making in providing alternative improvements to the evaluated program.
Gondikit (2018)	Research conducted by Gondikit showed that there were description matrix and judgment matrix used to evaluate programs.	The similarity of Gondikit's research with this research lies in the description matrix that explains the existence of the program evaluated, and the judgment matrix which explains the evaluation success standards as a reference to facilitate decision making. That description matrix function is represented in the DIVAYANA model's description component, while the judgment matrix function is also represented in the verification component of the DIVAYANA model which also shows the evaluation success standards.	Gondikit's research has not a component that is used to calculate the priority determination of recommendations such as that of the DIVAYANA model.	Gondikit's research had not shown yet priority recommendations from the highest to the lowest levels that facilitate decision making to optimize the program being evaluated.
Agustina and Mukhtaruddin (2019)	Their research showed the existence of the CIPP evaluation component consisting of context, input, process, and product.	The similarity of Agustina and Mukhtaruddin's research with this research lies in the context, input, process, and product components which have the same function as the description, input, action, and actualization components in the DIVAYANA model.	Agustina and Mukhtaruddin's research does not have verification, yack, analysis, and nominate components like the DIVAYANA model.	Agustina and Mukhtaruddin's research had not shown yet a process to determine priority recommendations that make it easier for stakeholders to make the best decision.
Harjanti et al. (2019)	Research conducted by Harjanti et al. showed a responsive model that focused on the response of the audience to a program.	The similarity of Harjanti et al.'s research with this research is the attention to audience response which is needed also in the actualization component in the DIVAYANA model to measure the impact of implementing the priority recommendations given by evaluators.	Research by Harjanti et al. does not show the specific components that the responsive model has in conducting the evaluation, while the DIVAYANA model shows all the components used in conducting the evaluation.	Harjanti et al.'s research had not shown yet evaluation components that were specifically used to determine priority recommendations for the improvements to the program being evaluated.