Qualitative evaluation of decisions in an argumentative manner - A general discussion in a unified setting
نویسنده
چکیده
The paper intends to provide a unified discussion of different types of decision processes (decision under uncertainty, multiple-criteria decision, case-based decision, rule-based decision) from an argumentation point of view. This means here that in the evaluation of a decision, we carefully distinguish what positively contributes to its evaluation and what negatively contributes to it. The discussion favors a qualitative evaluation setting, which uses a bivariate scale for assessing the values of consequences. The nature of arguments changes with the type of decision, as well as how their strength can be assessed. However, a preliminary view of how balancing pros and cons for ranking decisions is proposed. Some illustrative examples are provided.
منابع مشابه
Use of Cost-Effectiveness Data in Priority Setting Decisions: Experiences from the National Guidelines for Heart Diseases in Sweden
Background The inclusion of cost-effectiveness data, as a basis for priority setting rankings, is a distinguishing feature in the formulation of the Swedish national guidelines. Guidelines are generated with the direct intent to influence health policy and support decisions about the efficient allocation of scarce healthcare resources. Certain medical conditions may be given higher priority ran...
متن کاملIncorporating Cost-Effectiveness Data in a Fair Process for Priority Setting Efforts; Comment on “Use of Cost-Effectiveness Data in Priority Setting Decisions: Experiences from the National Guidelines for Heart Diseases in Sweden”
Cost-effectiveness data is useful for use in priority setting decisions in order to improve the efficiency of resources used. This paper thereby responds to Eckard et al. which addressed the use of cost-effectiveness data in the actual prioritization decisions in the Swedish national clinical guidelines for heart diseases. Based on a set of experiences on the use of economic evaluation in prior...
متن کاملSetting Healthcare Priorities at the Macro and Meso Levels: A Framework for Evaluation
Background Priority setting in healthcare is a key determinant of health system performance. However, there is no widely accepted priority setting evaluation framework. We reviewed literature with the aim of developing and proposing a framework for the evaluation of macro and meso level healthcare priority setting practices. Methods We systematically searched Econlit, PubMed, CINAHL, and EBSC...
متن کاملConstruction of Evaluative Meanings by Kurdish-Speaking Learners of English: A Comparison of High- and Low-Graded Argumentative Essays
Academic writing ability is an important goal that learners of English as a Second Language (ESL) or English as a Foreign Language (EFL) try to attain. While ESL students’ academic writings have been widely explored, owing to few studies investigating appraisal resources in EFL students’ argumentative writing, the gap still exists about EFL students’ academic writing. This study aimed to see ho...
متن کاملA bipolar argumentation-based decision framework
The paper emphasizes the bipolar nature of the evaluation of decision results by making an explicit distinction between prioritized goals to be pursued, and prioritized rejections that are stumbling blocks to be avoided. This is the basis for an argumentative framework for decision. Each decision is supported by arguments emphasizing its positive consequences in terms of goals satisfied, or rej...
متن کامل