The utility of the procedures special educators apply in making decisions about the identification of handicapped individuals has not been thoroughly studied. The necessity of evaluating the utility aspect of decision making is particularly important in times of both budgetary belt-tightening and legislation calling for the expansion of services to the handicapped. This paper examines the utility of diagnostic decision making from the perspective of receiver operating curve analysis. A procedure for determining the expected utility of a decision strategy is illustrated. It is suggested that the evaluation of the utility of diagnostic decision making will enhance the productivity of special educators.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Anastasi, A.Psychological testing (4th ed.). New York: Macmillan, 1976.
2.
Buchwald, A. M. Values and the use of tests. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 1965, 29, 49-54.
3.
Corazzini, A.The decision to invest in vocational education. Journal of Human Resources, 1968, 3, 82-120.
4.
Cronbach, L.J., & Gleser, G.C.Psychological tests and personnel decisions. Urbana : University of Illinois Press, 1965.
5.
George, W. C. The talent-search concept: An identification strategy for the intellectually gifted. The Journal of Special Education, 1979, 13, 221-237.
6.
Girshick, M. A. An elementary survey of statistical decision theory. Review of Educational Research, 1954, 24, 448-466.
7.
Harber, J. R. Assessing the quality of decision making in special education. The Journal of Special Education, 1981, 15, 77-90.
8.
Ingelfinger, F.J.Decision in medicine. New England Journal of Medicine , 1975, 293, 254-255.
9.
Kassirer, J. P. The principles of clinical decision making: An introduction to decision analysis. The Yale Journal of Biology and Medicine, 1976, 49, 149-164.
10.
Levin, H. M. A cost-effective analysis of teacher selection. Journal of Human Resources, 1970, 5, 24-33.
11.
Levin, H.M.Cost-effectiveness analysis in evaluation research. In M. Guttentag & E. L. Struening (Eds.), Handbook of evaluation research (Vol. 2). Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage Publications , 1975.
12.
Logan, D.R.Diagnosis: Current and changing considerations. In R. D. Kneedler & S. G. Tarver (Eds.), Changing perspectives in special education . Columbus, Ohio: Merrill, 1977.
13.
Meehl, P. E., & Rosen, A.Antecedent probability and the efficiency of psychometric signs, patterns or cutting scores. Psychological Bulletin, 1955, 52, 194-216.
14.
Metz, C. E. Basic Principles of ROC analysis. Seminars in Nuclear Medicine, 1978, 8, 283-298.
15.
National Advisory Committee on the Handicapped.The unfinished revolution: Education for the handicapped, 1976 Annual Report . Washington, D.C.: U.S. Office of Education, 1976.
16.
Ransohoff, D. F., & Feinstein, A.R.Is decision analysis useful in clinical medicine? The Yale Journal of Biology and Medicine, 1976, 49, 165-168.
17.
Ribich, T.Education and poverty. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution, 1968.
18.
Taylor, H. C., & Russell, J.T.The relationship of validity coefficients to the practical effectiveness of tests in selection. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1939, 23, 565-578.
19.
Ullman, D. G., & Kausch, D.F.Early identification of developmental strengths and weaknesses in preschool children. Exceptional Children , 1979, 46, 8-13.
20.
U.S. Office of Education. Education of handicapped children.Implementation of Part B of the Education of the Handicapped Act. Federal Register, 1977, 42, 42497.
21.
Wiggins, J.S.Personality and prediction: Principles of personality assessment. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley, 1973.
22.
Jamison, D.Fletcher, D.Suppes , P.& Atkinson, R.Cost and performance of computer-assisted instruction for education of disadvantaged children.Paper presented at the National Bureau of Economic Research Conference on Education as an Industry, Chicago, July 1971.
