Understanding the “what should be condition” in needs assessment data
In needs assessment (N/A), the calculation of discrepancies is based on the assumption the “what should be” condition is a reasonable representation of respondent perceptions. That assumption may be erroneous and requires a closer inspection. This paper examines the use of importance scores in NA and some of the problems that can arise when they are used as a proxy to measure the “what should be” condition. A review of the literature and ways of dealing with importance scores are presented, followed by a discussion of the problems and issues that can arise. Some solution strategies are offered along with recommendations for practice and research. The paper provides guidance for others interested in improving needs assessment procedures.
If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Fisher, Robert J, 1993. " Social Desirability Bias and the Validity of Indirect Questioning," Journal of Consumer Research, University of Chicago Press, vol. 20(2), pages 303-15, September.
- Lee, Yi-Fang & Altschuld, James W. & White, Jeffry L., 2007. "Problems in needs assessment data: Discrepancy analysis," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 30(3), pages 258-266, August.
- Lee, Yi-Fang & Altschuld, James W. & White, Jeffry L., 2007. "Effects of multiple stakeholders in identifying and interpreting perceived needs," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 30(1), pages 1-9, February.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:epplan:v:35:y:2012:i:1:p:124-132. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Zhang, Lei)
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.