Characteristic-Based, Task-Based, and Results-Based: Three Value Systems for Assessing Professionally Produced Technical Communication Products

Technical Communication Quarterly Jan 2003

Characteristic-Based, Task-Based, and Results-Based: Three Value Systems for Assessing Professionally Produced Technical Communication Products

Saul Carliner

Abstract

Technical communicators have developed different methodologies for evaluating the effectiveness of their work (whether the information can be used by the intended audience), such as editing, usability testing, and determining the value-added. But, as vastly differing assessments of the same professionally produced technical communication products suggest, at least three broad value systems underlie the assessment practices: characteristic-based (assessing against a set of criteria), task-based (assessing users' observed ability to perform tasks), and results-based (assessing the contribution to the publisher, usually in financial terms). The systems do not overlap with one another; rather, they embody different values about what makes technical communication effective. The most complete form of assessment may involve multiple assessment approaches and triangulated results.

Journal: Technical Communication Quarterly
Published: 2003-01-01
DOI: 10.1207/s15427625tcq1201_6
Open Access: Closed
Topics: technical communication

Citation Context

Cited by in this index (1)

Yu (2008)

Contextualize Technical Writing Assessment to Better Prepare Students for Workp…

Journal of Technical Writing and Communication

Cites in this index (1)

Spilka (2000)

The issue of quality in professional documentation: How can academia make more …

Technical Communication Quarterly

Also cites 3 works outside this index ↓

Deutsch, W. "Teaching Machines, Programming, Computers, and Instructional Technology: the Roots of Performanc…

↗
Lincoln, Yvonna S., and Egon G. Guba. Naturalistic Inquiry. Newbury Park: Sage, 1985.

↗
Wedman J. (1993)

10.1111/j.1937-8327.1993.tb00583.x

Performance Improvement Quarterly ↗

CrossRef global citation count: 7 View in citation network →