DECISION-THEORETIC APPROACH TO THE EVALUATION OF COMMUNITY MENTAL HEALTH CENTERS (FROM TRENDS IN MENTAL HEALTH EVALUATION, 1976, BY ELIZABETH MARKSON AND DAVID ALLEN)

• NCJ Number: 51882
• Author(s): D ALLEN
• Date Published: 1976
• Length: 14 pages
• Corporate Author: D C Heath and Co
• Publication Format: Document
• Publication Type: Program/Project Evaluation
• Language: English
• Country: United States of America

Annotation

AN EVALUATION PARADIGM, BASED ON DECISION AND THEORY, IS PRESENTED THAT MAKES IT POSSIBLE TO USE CITIZEN PARTICIPATION AND THE PEER REVIEW PROCESS IN COMMUNITY MENTAL HEALTH CENTER (CMHC) EVALUATION.

Abstract

THE CMHC CONCEPT IS ADVANTAGEOUS BECAUSE THE CENTERS ARE COMMUNITY-BASED AND COMMUNITY-ORIENTED PROGRAMS. CMHC PLANNERS HAVE DEALT WITH PEER REVIEW ASPECTS OF SERVICE PLANNING AND EVALUATION. A USEFUL EVALUATION PARADIGM MUST SEPARATE THE SPECIFICATION OF GOALS FROM THE TECHNICAL PLANNING AND EVALUATION OF PROGRAMS. AN APPROPRIATE PARADIGM FOR CMHC'S MUST ALSO MEET THE FOLLOWING REQUIREMENTS: MULTIPLE MEASUREMENT, DATA INCLUSIVENESS, RELATING CMHC PROGRAMS TO CATCHMENT DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS AND NEEDS, AND CONTINUOUS FEEDBACK. THE SIMPLE MULTIATTRIBUTE UTILITY (MAUT) PROCEDURE IS ORIENTED TOWARD EASY COMMUNICATION AND USE IN ENVIRONMENTS WHERE TIME IS LIMITED AND THERE ARE MULTIPLE DECISIONMAKERS. IT IS A METHOD THAT IS PSYCHOLOGICALLY MEANINGFUL TO DECISIONMAKERS WHO ARE REQUIRED TO RENDER INTUITIVELY REASONABLE JUDGMENTS. THE ESSENCE OF ANY MULTIATTRIBUTE UTILITY MEASUREMENT IS THAT EACH OUTCOME TO BE EVALUATED IS LOCATED ON DIMENSIONS OF VALUE BY A PROCEDURE THAT MAY CONSIST OF EXPERIMENTATION, NATURALISTIC OBSERVATION, JUDGMENT, OR SOME COMBINATION OF THESE. THE MAUT PARADIGM CONSISTS OF 10 STEPS: (1) IDENTIFY THE PERSON OR ORGANIZATION WHOSE UTILITIES ARE TO BE MAXIMIZED; (2) IDENTIFY THE ISSUE OR ISSUES (DECISIONS) TO WHICH UTILITIES ARE RELEVANT; (3) DELINEATE PROGRAMS TO BE EVALUATED; (4) ASCERTAIN RELEVANT DIMENSIONS OF VALUE; (5) RANK DIMENSIONS IN ORDER OF IMPORTANCE; (6) RATE DIMENSIONS IN TERMS OF IMPORTANCE WHILE PRESERVING RATIOS; (7) SUM IMPORTANCE WEIGHTS, DIVIDE BY THE SUM, AND MULTIPLY BY 100; (8) MEASURE THE LOCATION OF EACH ENTITY BEING EVALUATED ON ALL DIMENSIONS; (9) CALCULATE UTILITIES FOR EACH ENTITY; AND (10) DECIDE IF A SINGLE ACT OR A SUBSET IS TO BE CHOSEN. CONSIDERATION IS GIVEN TO INTERPERSONAL AND INTERGROUP DISAGREEMENTS, RATING AND RANKING DIMENSIONS OF VALUE IN FACE-TO-FACE GROUPS, THE INTEGRATION OF PLANNING AND EVALUATION, AND THE USE OF BAYESIAN TOOLS IN EVALUATION UPDATING. AN ILLUSTRATION OF THE MAUT PARADIGM'S APPLICATION IS PRESENTED. TABLES AND REFERENCES ARE INCLUDED.