This article describes the approach used in a needs assessment study to produce a meaningful
ranking of identified problem areas in terms of the severity of the problem in the city of Duluth,
Minnesota. The approach is based primarily on an analysis of the similarities and differences,
as well as anticipated biases, in household perceptions, key informant perceptions, and household-
reported incidence.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
COMPASS: Guide to assessing and addressing community problems. 1987. Alexandria, VA: United Way of America.
2.
Deaux, E., and J.W. Callaghan.1984. Estimating statewide health-risk behavior: A comparison of telephone and key informant survey approaches. Evaluation Review8:467-92.
3.
—. 1985. Key informant versus self-report estimates of health-risk behavior. Evaluation Review9:365-68.
4.
Kauffman, R., and F.W. English.1979. Needs assessment concepts and application . Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.
5.
Lavrakas, P.1987. Telephone survey methods: Sampling selection, and supervision . Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
6.
Marti-Costa, S., and I. Serrono-Garcia .1983. Needs assessment and community development: An ideological perspective. Prevention in Human Services3:75-83.
7.
McKillip, J.1987. Need analysis tools for human services and education . Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
8.
Neuber, K.1980. Needs assessment: A model for community planning . Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
9.
Overstreet, R.E., and I. Rootman.1985. Are key informant estimates of health-risk behavior really more valid than self-report estimates? Evaluation Review9:361-64.
10.
Snow, R.E., J.E. Prather, and J.D. Hutchinson .1986. Program evaluation using a follow-up telephone survey: The effects of a prior letter. Evaluation Review10:85-94.
