This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Henry, G. T. Articles by McMillan, J. H. Search for Related Content PubMed Articles by Henry, G. T. Articles by McMillan, J. H. Social Bookmarking                   What's this?

Performance Data

Three Comparison Methods

Georgia State University

James H. McMillan

Virginia Commonwealth University

Performance data need a context to meaningfully interpret the data. One method of providing contextfor an individual unit's performance is to compare it with other similar units. This study compares three methods for selecting similar units: cluster groupings, index groups, and benchmark groups. Each of the three methods is evaluated on a number of criteria, primarily the minimization of within-group variance. Benchmark groups are the best at reducing the variation within the selected groups, and they resist attempts to "label" the groupings. Cluster groups are a close second to benchmarks in the minimization of variability within groups and are considerably easier to compute and administer. However, clustering allows labeling that could stigmatize the groups and threshold effects that might influence judgments about performance. Index groups, while simple, do not perform well on any of the other criteria.

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				S. A. Harkreader and G. T. Henry Using Performance Measurement Systems for Assessing the Merit and Worth of Reforms American Journal of Evaluation, June 1, 2000; 21(2): 151 - 170. [Abstract] [PDF]