Evaluation as a Field

  • Charles P. Friedman
  • Jeremy C. Wyatt
Part of the Computers and Medicine book series (C+M)


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.


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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Rossi PH, Freeman HE: Evaluation: A Systematic Approach. Newbury Park, CA: Sage, 1989.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    House ER: Evaluating with Validity. Beverly Hills: Sage, 1980.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Guba EG, Lincoln YS: Effective Evaluation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1981.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Blum BI: Clinical Information Systems. New York: Springer-Verlag, 1986.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Rogers EM, Shoemaker FF: Communication of Innovations. New York: Free Press, 1971.Google Scholar
  6. 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. 7.
    Anderson JG, Aydin CE, Jay SJ (eds): Computers in Health Care: Research and Evaluation. Newbury Park, CA: Sage, 1995.Google Scholar
  8. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 13.
    Turing AM: Computing machinery and intelligence. Mind Q Rev Psychol Philos 1950;59:433–460.Google Scholar
  14. 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. 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. 16.
    Scriven M: Goal free evaluation. In: House ER (ed) School Evaluation. Berkeley, CA: McCutchan, 1973.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Smith R: Using a mock trial to make a difficult clinical decision. BMJ 1992;305:284–287.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Eisner EW: The Enlightened Eye: Qualitative Inquiry and the Enhancement of Educational Practice. New York: Macmillan, 1991.Google Scholar
  19. 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. 20.
    Hamilton D, MacDonald B, King C, Jenkins D, Parlett M (eds): Beyond the Numbers Game. Berkeley, CA: McCutchan, 1977.Google Scholar
  21. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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

Authors and Affiliations

  • Charles P. Friedman
    • 1
    • 2
  • Jeremy C. Wyatt
    • 3
  1. 1.University of North CarolinaPittsburghUSA
  2. 2.Center for Biomedical InformaticsUniversity of PittsburghPittsburghUSA
  3. 3.Imperial Cancer Research FundLondonUK

Personalised recommendations