When participants with varied background and interests join in a collaborative activity,
their different viewpoints may make the evaluation of the activity more difficult. The
emphasis placed on different kinds of success may differ greatly among project partici
pants, causing them to disagree over the worth of components of the program, irrespective
of the technical merits of the evaluation of these components. Our experience as evalu
ators in a multidisciplinary biomedical research center indicates the need to augment
conventional evaluative techniques with ones that explicitly recognize the influence of
values on program evaluation.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Betaque, N.E. and G.A. Gorry (1971) "Automating judgmental decision-making for a serious medical condition." Management Sci. 17:B421-434.
2.
Dawes, R.M. and B. Corrigan (1974) "Linear models in decision making " Psych. Bull.81: 95-106.
3.
Edwards, W., M. Guttentag, and K. Snapper (1975) "A decision-theoretic approach to evaluation research ," pp. 139-181 in E. L. Strueing and M. Guttentag (eds.) Handbook of Evaluation Research. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
4.
Gorry, G.A., J.P. Kassirer, A. Essig, and W.B. Schwartz (1973) "Decision analysis as the basis for computer-aided management of acute renal failure." Amer. J. of Medicine55: 473-484.
5.
Guttentag, M. (1975) "Application of Edwards' multiattribute utilities to the evaluation of training," pp. 67-75 in M Guttentag, T. Kiresuk, M. Oglesby, and J Cahn (eds.) The Evaluation of Training in Mental Health. New York. Behavioral Publications.
6.
Krischer, J.P. (1976) "Utility structure of a medical decision-making problem." Operations Research24951-972.
7.
Patton, M.Q., P.S. Grimes, K.M. Guthrie, N.H. Grennan, B.D. French, and D.A. Blyth (1975) "In search of impact an analysis of the utilization of federal health evaluation research." University of Minnesota: Minnesota Center for Social Research.
