Evaluation Methods in Medical Informatics pp 17-39 | Cite as
Evaluation as a Field
Chapter
Abstract
The previous chapter should have succeeded in convincing the reader that evaluation in medical informatics, for all its potential benefits, is difficult in the real world. The informatics community can take some comfort in the fact that it is not alone. Evaluation is difficult in any field of endeavor. Fortunately, many good minds—representing an array of philosophical orientations, methodological perspectives, and domains of application—have explored ways to address these difficulties. Many of the resulting approaches to evaluation have met with substantial success. The resulting range of solutions, the field of evaluation itself, is the focus of this chapter.
Keywords
Information Resource Medical Informatics Evaluation Contract Subjectivist Approach Evaluation Team
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
- 1.Rossi PH, Freeman HE: Evaluation: A Systematic Approach. Newbury Park, CA: Sage, 1989.Google Scholar
- 2.House ER: Evaluating with Validity. Beverly Hills: Sage, 1980.Google Scholar
- 3.Guba EG, Lincoln YS: Effective Evaluation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1981.Google Scholar
- 4.Blum BI: Clinical Information Systems. New York: Springer-Verlag, 1986.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 5.Rogers EM, Shoemaker FF: Communication of Innovations. New York: Free Press, 1971.Google Scholar
- 6.Forsythe DE, Buchanan BG: Broadening our approach to evaluating medical information systems. Symp Comput Applications Med Care 1992;16:8–12.Google Scholar
- 7.Anderson JG, Aydin CE, Jay SJ (eds): Computers in Health Care: Research and Evaluation. Newbury Park, CA: Sage, 1995.Google Scholar
- 8.Rothschild MA, Swett HA, Fisher PR, Weltin GG, Miller PL: Exploration of subjective vs. objective issues in the validation of computer-based critiquing advice. Comput Method Programs Biomed 1990;31:11–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 9.McDonald CJ, Hui SL, Smith DM, et al: Reminders to physicians from an introspective computer medical record: a two-year randomized trial. Ann Intern Med 1984;100:130–138.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- 10.Yu VL, Fagan LM, Wraith SM, et al: Antimicrobial selection by computer: a blinded evaluation by infectious disease experts. JAMA 1979;242:1279–1282.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 11.Hickam D, Shortliffe EH, Bischoff M, et al: The treatment advice of a computer-based cancer chemotherapy protocol advisor. Ann Intern Med 1985;103:928–936.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- 12.Johnston ME, Langton KB, Haynes RB, Matthieu D: A critical appraisal of research on the effects of computer-based decision support systems on clinician performance and patient outcomes. Ann Intern Med 1994;120:135–142.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- 13.Turing AM: Computing machinery and intelligence. Mind Q Rev Psychol Philos 1950;59:433–460.Google Scholar
- 14.Wyatt J: Lessons learned from the field trial of ACORN, an expert system to advise on chest pain. In: Barber B, Cao D, Qin D (eds) Proceedings of the Sixth World Conference on Medical Informatics, Singapore. Amsterdam: North Holland, 1989:111–115.Google Scholar
- 15.De Bliek R, Friedman CP, Speedie SM, Blaschke TF, France CL: Practitioner preferences and receptivity for patient-specific advice from therapeutic monitoring system. Symp Comput Applications Med Care 1988;12:225–228.Google Scholar
- 16.Scriven M: Goal free evaluation. In: House ER (ed) School Evaluation. Berkeley, CA: McCutchan, 1973.Google Scholar
- 17.Smith R: Using a mock trial to make a difficult clinical decision. BMJ 1992;305:284–287.Google Scholar
- 18.Eisner EW: The Enlightened Eye: Qualitative Inquiry and the Enhancement of Educational Practice. New York: Macmillan, 1991.Google Scholar
- 19.CPR Systems Evaluation Work Group: Draft CPR Project Evaluation Criteria, 1994 (available from the Computer-based Patient Record Institute, 919 N. Michigan Avenue, Chicago, IL 60611).Google Scholar
- 20.Hamilton D, MacDonald B, King C, Jenkins D, Parlett M (eds): Beyond the Numbers Game. Berkeley, CA: McCutchan, 1977.Google Scholar
- 21.Kaplan B, Duchon D: Combining qualitative and quantitative methods in information systems research: a case study. MIS Quarterly 1988;4:571–586.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 22.Fafchamps D, Young CY, Tang PC: Modelling work practices: input to the design of a physician’s workstation. Symp Comput Applications Med Care 1991;15:788–792.Google Scholar
- 23.Forsythe D: Using ethnography to build a working system: rethinking basic design assumptions. Symp Comput Applications Med Care 1992;16:505–509.Google Scholar
- 24.Speedie SM, Skarupa S, Oderda L, et al: MENTOR: continuously monitoring drug therapy with an expert system. MEDINFO 1986:237-239.Google Scholar
- 25.Musen MA, Carlson RW, Fagan LM, Deresinski SC, Shortliffe EH: T-Helper: automated support for community-based clinical research. Symp Comput Applications Med Care 1992;16:719–723.Google Scholar
- 26.Musen MA: Computer Support for Protocol-Directed Therapy. Final Report of AHCPR Grant HS06330, August 1995.Google Scholar
Copyright information
© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1997