Talk:Assessment: Difference between revisions
mNo edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 21: | Line 21: | ||
{{defend|#1: |Using '''assessment product''' and '''endpoints''' is a bit confusing. what do you mean by this? '''results of the indicator variables'''?, '''results of the assessment'''? (whatever this is), '''health endpoints'''? Is the assessment product the assessment as a whole (i.e. net of variables at a certain stage in time) or the results of certain indicators?|--[[User:Alexandra Kuhn|Alexandra Kuhn]] 12:17, 14 May 2008 (EEST)}} | {{defend|#1: |Using '''assessment product''' and '''endpoints''' is a bit confusing. what do you mean by this? '''results of the indicator variables'''?, '''results of the assessment'''? (whatever this is), '''health endpoints'''? Is the assessment product the assessment as a whole (i.e. net of variables at a certain stage in time) or the results of certain indicators?|--[[User:Alexandra Kuhn|Alexandra Kuhn]] 12:17, 14 May 2008 (EEST)}} | ||
:{{comment|#2: |Assessment product is now defined. The word endpoint is no longer used. Result is the attribute for variables and assessments. The result of an assessment is a compilation of the results of all indicators and analyses in the assessment. |--[[User:Jouni|Jouni]] 23:16, 14 May 2008 (EEST)}} | :{{comment|#2: |Assessment product is now defined. The word endpoint is no longer used. Result is the attribute for variables and assessments. The result of an assessment is a compilation of the results of all indicators and analyses in the assessment. |--[[User:Jouni|Jouni]] 23:16, 14 May 2008 (EEST)}} | ||
:{{comment|#(number): |Much better! So is the '''assessment product''' the same as the '''result of the assessment''' as you define it in your comment? If yes, we should add that definition in brackets to the first item of the article page.|--[[User:Alexandra Kuhn|Alexandra Kuhn]] 07:45, 16 May 2008 (EEST)}} | |||
}} | }} | ||
Revision as of 04:45, 16 May 2008
| Fact discussion: . |
|---|
| Opening statement:
Closing statement: Resolution not yet found. (A closing statement, when resolved, should be updated to the main page.) |
| Argumentation:
←--#1:: . Although the causal diagram can be derived from the variables themselves and as such does not add any new content, it should nevertheless be listed here. Because it depicts the assessment and many people understand a graphic better than a set of abstract descriptions. Also, one sees if the variables one is creating fit together. I would even say, the normal way to scope an assessment is starting with the causal diagram (after the purpose and boundaries). --Alexandra Kuhn 11:18, 29 March 2008 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence)
|
| Fact discussion: . |
|---|
| Opening statement:
Closing statement: Resolution not yet found. (A closing statement, when resolved, should be updated to the main page.) |
| Argumentation:
←--#1:: . The assessment structure is more general than only for risk assessment. Rename it therefore in assessment (or maybe open assessment). --Alexandra Kuhn 11:18, 29 March 2008 (EET), --Jouni 22:42, 31 March 2008 (EEST) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence)
|
| Fact discussion: . |
|---|
| Opening statement:
Closing statement: Resolution not yet found. (A closing statement, when resolved, should be updated to the main page.) |
| Argumentation:
←--#1:: . Using assessment product and endpoints is a bit confusing. what do you mean by this? results of the indicator variables?, results of the assessment? (whatever this is), health endpoints? Is the assessment product the assessment as a whole (i.e. net of variables at a certain stage in time) or the results of certain indicators? --Alexandra Kuhn 12:17, 14 May 2008 (EEST) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence)
|