This paper examines the practice of metaevaluation as indicated by the Metaevaluation standard of the Program Evaluation Standards, as the evaluation of a specific evaluation to inform stakeholders about the evaluation's strengths and weaknesses. The findings from an analysis of eighteen metaevaluations, including a description of the data sources and methods used to come to conclusions about the evaluation and the criteria of quality employed, are reported. A diverse set of practices were identified, ranging from the use of emergent criteria in a narrative review of information about an evaluation to the structured application of the Program Evaluation Standards using a checklist. The paper concludes that the evaluation field does not have a common understanding of metaevaluation practice. (Contains 2 tables and 3 footnotes.)