Hawkins R P
Department of Psychology, West Virginia University, Morgantown 26506-6040.
J Appl Behav Anal. 1991 Summer;24(2):205-13. doi: 10.1901/jaba.1991.24-205.
It is argued that neither the term social nor the term validity is best to identify the processes used or the results obtained in questioning consumers about the goals set, procedures employed, or outcomes achieved in habilitative programming. The term consumer satisfaction acknowledges the fact that it is essentially a collection of consumer opinions. The underlying intent of the process might be called habilitative validation, a name that seems to better guide our validation efforts. More important, in carefully considering consumer satisfaction assessment, it becomes clear that not only does consumer satisfaction itself need to be validated, but also that more objective methods can be used for assessing habilitative validity. However, legitimate uses still remain for consumer satisfaction measurement, as long as we do not mistake it for strong evidence of the habilitative validity of our goals, procedures, or outcomes.
有人认为,无论是“社会”一词还是“有效性”一词,都不是用来确定在询问消费者关于康复计划中设定的目标、采用的程序或取得的成果时所使用的过程或所获得的结果的最佳词汇。“消费者满意度”一词承认了这样一个事实,即它本质上是消费者意见的集合。这个过程的潜在意图可能被称为康复验证,这个名称似乎能更好地指导我们的验证工作。更重要的是,在仔细考虑消费者满意度评估时,很明显不仅消费者满意度本身需要得到验证,而且可以使用更客观的方法来评估康复有效性。然而,只要我们不将消费者满意度测量误认为是我们目标、程序或成果的康复有效性的有力证据,那么它仍然有合理的用途。