Talk:Assessment

How to read discussions

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) ⇤--#2:: . Given its variables, the causal diagram itself does not contain additional information. Therefore, the diagram should not be an attribute or subattribute. However, it can be used as a subtitle so that the Definition divides into the Causal diagram which contains decision variables, indicators, and other variables; and then the other parts of the definition are Analyses and Indices. In addition, it is recommended that the definition does contain the causal diagram used in the assessment. It is still not a sub-attribute, but rather a narrative description. --Jouni 22:42, 31 March 2008 (EEST) (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack) ----#3:: . Indeed, the causal diagram is only an alternative way of representing the contents of an assessment. --Mikko Pohjola 14:42, 15 May 2008 (EEST) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment) ----#(number):: . I did not say that it has new infiormation. I SAID it does not contain additional information. BUT still I think it is useful to have it there. --Alexandra Kuhn 17:27, 9 June 2008 (EEST) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)

How to read discussions

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)

How to read discussions

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) ----#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. --Jouni 23:16, 14 May 2008 (EEST) (type: truth; paradigms: science: 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. --Alexandra Kuhn 07:45, 16 May 2008 (EEST) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)

How to read discussions

Fact discussion: .
Opening statement: Closing statement: Resolution not yet found. (A closing statement, when resolved, should be updated to the main page.)
Argumentation: ←--#1:: . If we consider appraisal as incorporation of value judgments within the assessment, the means by which this is done should be explicated in the definition. --Mikko Pohjola 13:41, 9 February 2009 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence)