Planning-identification score

To evaluate the conjunction of planning and identification knowledge, SPS asks the student to identify first the situation that corresponds to the primary question asked in a problem and then to recognize the (unstated) secondary question and its associated situation. The exercise that assesses their understanding requires two menu choices of the student, one for the overall situation and one for the embedded, or secondary, one. Each item thus contributes 0-2 points, one for the correct primary question and one for the correct secondary question. The planning-identification score is the total number of correct identifications made on all items in this exercise. 

In contrast, S3 looks relatively strong. Her initial identification score is low, but she was quite successful on the identifications combined with planning, suggesting that she has overcome by herself any identification difficulties. We might want to keep in mind that S3 was somewhat weak on the planning-elaboration exercises and watch her future development in this area. Most likely, we would suggest that she continue on with new instructional material. 

According to Mussen et al. (2007), there are three key phases in the MCDA process problem identification and structuring, model building and use, and development of action plan. These phases are specified through the seven-step approach (Mussen et al. 2007). Steps 1-5 of MCDA are similar to those in the BRA frameworks discussed in Section 15.4. Therefore, MCDA is sometimes called a quantitative benefit-risk framework (IMI-PROTECT 2013). However, the MCDA process further stipulates the calculation of the weighted scores at each level and calculation of the overall weighted BR scores to facilitate a benefit-risk decision at step 6. MCDA also emphasizes sensitivity analysis to assess the impact of weights and other assumptions in the data at step 7. 

---