The problem of choosing the best combination of educational and psychological tests for use in identifying students with learning disabilities is discussed within a cost-efficiency framework. An efficiency index for estimating the classification accuracy of tests, easily determined from local data samples and base-rate information, is presented as a key component of the cost-effectiveness (CE) model. A review of the literature on cost-effectiveness analysis suggests the use of expert judgment in addition to a strictly quantitative CE ratio. The use of the efficiency index, the judgmental approach, and the CE ratio is demonstrated with a numerical example.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Bible, T.D.Decision-making in public education: A production process approach for evaluating and planning school resource allocation. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California, Davis, 1976.
2.
Brumet, M.E.Bayesian inferential processes in educational evaluation. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, April 1976.
3.
Clawson, A.The Bender Visual Motor Gestalt Test for Children. Los Angeles: Western Psychological Services, 1962.
4.
Dawes, R.M.A note on base rates and psychometric efficiency. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 1962, 26, 422–424.
5.
English, J.M. (Ed.). Cost-effectiveness: The economic evaluation of engineered systems. New York: Wiley, 1968.
6.
Fisher, G.H.Cost considerations in systems analysis. New York: American Elsevier, 1971.
7.
Jones, W.P., & Newman, F.L.Bayesian techniques for test selection. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 1971, 31, 851–856.
8.
Kaufman, A.S.Intelligent testing with the WISC-R. New York: Wiley, 1979.
9.
Kazanowski, A.D.Cost-effectiveness fallacies and misconceptions revisited. In J.M. English (Ed.), Cost-effectiveness. The economic evaluation of engineered systems. New York: Wiley, 1968.
Larsson, B.Efficiency of some Bayesian decision procedures. Malmo, Sweden: Department of Educational and Psychological Research, School of Education, January 1970.
12.
Levin, H.M.Cost-effectiveness. Beverely Hills, Ca.: Sage Publications, Inc., 1983.
13.
Levin, H.M.Cost analysis. In N.L. Smith (Ed.), New techniques for evaluation. Beverly Hills, Ca.: Sage Publications, Inc., 1981.
14.
Meehl, P.E., & Rosen, A.Antecedent probability and the efficiency of psychometric signs, patterns, or cutting scores. Psychological Bulletin, 1955, 52, 194–216.
15.
Prest, A.R., & Turvey, R.Cost-benefit analysis: A survey. The Economic Journal, 1965, 75, 683–735.
16.
Roid, G.H.Cost-effectiveness analysis in mental health policy research. American Psychologist, 1982, 37, 94–95.
17.
Roid, G.H., Brodsky, G., & Bigelow, D.A. Combining cost and effectiveness data in mental health program evaluation. Report for NIMH contract OP-79-0053. Salem: Oregon Mental Health Division, 1980. (Available from G. Brodsky, Program Analysis Section, 2575 Bittern St. N.E., Salem, Oregon 97310.)
18.
Rorer, L.G., & Dawes, R.M.A base-rate bootstrap. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 1982, 50, 419–425.
19.
Smithies, A.The budgetary process in the United States. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1955.
20.
Temkin, S.Making sense of benefit-cost analysis and cost-effectiveness analysis. Improving Human Performance, 1974, 3, 39–48.
21.
Temkin, S., & Lewis, J.Guidelines for cost-effectiveness analysis. Cincinnati, Oh.: Cincinnati Public Schools, Program Evaluation Branch, 1979.
22.
Wechsler, D.Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children, Revised. New York: Psychological Corporation, 1974.
Wright, A.R., Padilla, C., Renneker, E.G., & Stearns, M.S.Local implementation of PL 94–142: Second year report of a longitudinal study. Menlo Park, Ca.: SRI International, October 1980.
