Encyclopedia of Quality of Life and Well-Being Research

2014 Edition
| Editors: Alex C. Michalos

Multidimensional Outcome Measure

  • David Kriz
  • Andrés Steffanowski
  • Werner W. Wittmann
Reference work entry
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-0753-5_1872
How to cite

Synonyms

 Multiple act criterion

Definition

A multidimensional outcome measure integrates multiple (one-dimensional) outcome measures by means of aggregation. Multidimensional outcome measures are often used in program evaluation, where it is important to account for different perspectives (e.g., by different stakeholder groups) during the planning and implementation of a study, as well as the collection and analysis of data and the interpretation and evaluation of results.

Description

Assessing outcomes of an intervention or a program needs fair and sound criteria. Today’s programs are often complex, encompass multiple objectives, and try to satisfy the demands of different stakeholder groups. What are the best outcome criteria for them? It is immediately evident that the narrow focus on only the one best outcome measure as a gold standard is not sufficient and contraindicated. Yet, what is necessary and sufficient to be accepted? Firstly, they must survive and pass the standards of...

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  2. Brunswik, E. (1956). Perception and the representative design of psychological experiments. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  3. Campbell, D. T., & Fiske, D. W. (1959). Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait multimethod matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 56, 81–105.Google Scholar
  4. Cooksey, R. (1996). The methodology of social judgment theory. Journal of Thinking and Reasoning, 2(2/3), 141–174.Google Scholar
  5. Drummond, M. F., Sculpher, M. J., Torrance, G. W., O’Brien, B., & Stoddart, G. L. (2004). Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Edwards, W., Guttentag, M., & Snapper, K. (1975). A decision-theoretic approach to evaluation research. In E. L. Struening & M. Guttentag (Eds.), Handbook of evaluation research (pp. 139–181). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  7. Epstein, S. (1979). The stability of behavior: I. On predicting most of the people much of the time. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37(7), 1097–1126. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.37.7.1097.Google Scholar
  8. Epstein, S. (1980). The stability of behavior: II. Implications for psychological research. American Psychologist, 35(9), 790–806. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.35.9.790.Google Scholar
  9. Field, A. P., & Gillett, R. (2010). How to do a meta-analysis. British Journal of Mathematical & Statistical Psychology, 63(3), 665–694. doi:10.1348/000711010X502733.Google Scholar
  10. Figuera, J., Greco, S., & Ehrogott, M. (2005). Multiple criteria decision analysis: State of the art surveys (International series in operations research & management science, Vol. 78). Boston: Springer. doi:10.1007/b100605.Google Scholar
  11. Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior: An introduction to theory and research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  12. Strupp, H. H. (1996). The tripartite model and the consumer reports study. American Psychologist, 51, 1017–1024.Google Scholar
  13. Strupp, H. H., & Hadley, S. W. (1977). The tripartite model of mental health and therapeutic outcomes. With special reference to negative effects in psychotherapy. American Psychologist, 32, 187–196.Google Scholar
  14. Trochim, W. (1989). An introduction to concept mapping for planning and evaluation. Evaluation and Program Planning, 12, 1–16.Google Scholar
  15. Wittmann, W. W. (1985). Evaluationsforschung (evaluation research). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  16. Wittmann, W. W. (1988). Multivariate reliability theory: Principles of symmetry and successful validation strategies. In J. R. Nesselroade & R. B. Cattell (Eds.), Handbook of multivariate experimental psychology (pp. 505–560). New York: Plenum Press.Google Scholar
  17. Wittmann, W. W. (1990). Brunswik-Symmetrie und die Konzeption der Fünf-Datenboxen. (Brunswik symmetry and the five-data-box-conception). Zeitschrift für Pädagogische Psychologie, 4, 241–251.Google Scholar
  18. Wittmann, W. W. (2002). Brunswik-Symmetrie: Ein Schlüsselkonzept für erfolgreiche psychologische Forschung (Brunswik-Symmetry: Key approach to successful psychological research). In M. Myrtek (Ed.), Die Person im biologischen und sozialen Kontext (Person in biological and social context) (pp. 163–186). Göttingen, Germany: Hogrefe.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • David Kriz
    • 1
  • Andrés Steffanowski
    • 1
  • Werner W. Wittmann
    • 1
  1. 1.Otto-Selz-Institute of the University of MannheimMannheimGermany