The assessment of the teacher performance is a subject of criticism due to the lack of a well-establish methodology. This study develops an overall score to measure the dimensions that encompass the academic activities. To that end, a Benefit-of-the-doubt model is proposed. The advantage of this technique is the flexibility in the weights, so that the model selects for each teacher the most favourable set of weights. Furthermore, the paper proposes the barycentric coordinate system as a method to classify the teachers in clusters depending on their contribution to the dimensions. A specific pie chart has been proposed as an efficient way to report the contribution of the teachers to the dimensions and the overall teacher performance.
AllenR.AthanassopoulosA.DysonR. G.ThanassoulisE. (1997). Weights restrictions and value judgements in Data Envelopment Analysis: Evolution, development and future directions. Annals of Operations Research, 73(0), 13–34.
2.
ArnesonR. J. (1990). Primary goods reconsidered. Noûs, 24(3), 429–454.
3.
AvitalM.CollopyF. (2001). Assessing research performance: Implications for selection and motivation. Sprouts: Working Papers on Information Environments, 1(3): 40–61.
4.
BakerV. L. (2017). Faculty members’ scholarly learning across institutional types. ASHE Higher Education Report, 43(2), 9–138.
5.
Bana e CostaC.OliveiraM. (2011). A multicriteria decision analysis model for faculty evaluation. Omega - The International Journal of Management Science, 40(4), 424–436.
6.
BasM. C. (2014). Estrategias metodológicas para la construcción de indicadores compuestos en la gestión universitaria (Doctoral dissertation). Faculty of Statistics and Operational Research Applied and Quality, Universitat Politècnica de València.
7.
BasM. C.TarantolaS.CarotJ. M.ConchadoA. (2017). Sensitivity analysis: A necessary ingredient for measuring the quality of a teaching activity index. Social Indicators Research, 131(3), 931–946.
8.
BeasleyJ. E. (1995). Determining teaching and research efficiencies. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 46(4), 441–452.
9.
BlackburnR. T.LawrenceJ. H. (1995). Faculty at work: Motivation, expectation, satisfaction. The Johns Hopkins University Press.
10.
BoyerE. L. (1990). Scholarship reconsidered: Priorities of the professoriate. Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.
11.
BozemanB.GaughanM. (2011). Job satisfaction among university faculty: Individual, work, and institutional determinants. The Journal of Higher Education, 82(2), 154–186.
12.
CampbellC. M.O’MearaK. (2013). Faculty agency: Departmental contexts that matter in faculty careers. Research in Higher Education, 55(1), 49–74.
13.
CanoJ. J.CarotJ. M.Fernández-PradaM. A.FarguetaF. (2009). An evaluation model of the teaching activity of academic staff. In Proceedings of I conference quality of teaching in higher education. Turkey.
14.
CharnesA.CooperW.RhodesE. (1978). Measuring the efficiency of decision making units. European Journal of Operational Research, 2(6), 429–444.
15.
CherchyeL.MoesenW.RoggeN.Van PuyenbroeckT. (2007). An introduction to ‘Benefit of the Doubt’ composite indicators. Social Indicators Research, 82(1), 111–145.
16.
CherchyeL.MoesenW.RoggeN.Van PuyenbroeckT.SaisanaM.SaltelliA.LiskaR.TarantolaS. (2008). Creating composite indicators with DEA and robustness analysis: the case of the Technology Achievement Index. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 59, 239–251.
17.
De WitteK.RoggeN. (2011). Accounting for exogenous influence in performance evaluations of teachers. Economics of Education Review, 30(4), 641–653.
18.
De WitteK.RoggeN.CherchyeL.PuyenbroeckT. (2013). Economies of scope in research and teaching: A non-parametric investigation. Omega, 41(2), 305–314.
19.
El-MahgaryS.LahdelmaR. (1995). Data envelopment analysis: Visualizing the results. European Journal of Operational Research, 83(3), 700–710.
20.
EmeryC. R.KramerT. R.TianR. G. (2003). Return to academic standards: A critique of student evaluation of teaching effectiveness. Quality Assurance in Education, 11(1), 37–46.
21.
FleurbaeyM. (1992). Social choice and the indexing dilemma. Social Choice Welfare, 29(4), 633–648.
22.
GiménezV.MartínezJ. L. (2006). Cost efficiency in the university: A departmental evaluation model. Economics of Education Review, 25(5), 543–553.
23.
GonzalesL. D.TeroskyA. L. (2016). From the faculty perspective: Defining, earning, and maintaining legitimacy across academia. Teachers College Record, 118(7), 1–44.
24.
JohnesG.JohnesJ. (2009). Higher education institutions’cost and efficiency: Taking the decomposition a further step. Economics of Education Review, 28(1), 107–113.
25.
MarshH.W.RocheL. (1994). The use of students’ evaluation of university teaching to improve teaching effectiveness. Australian Department of Employment, Education, and Training.
26.
MelynW.MoesenW. (1991). Towards a synthetic indicator of macroeconomic performance: unequal weighting when limited information is available (Public Economic Research Paper 17). Center for Economic Studies.
27.
NardoM.SaisanaM.SaltelliA.TarantolaS. (2005). Tools for composite indicators building (European Commission, report EUR 21682 EN (EUR collection)). Joint Research Centre.
28.
NeumannA.TeroskyA. L. (2007). To give and to receive: Recently tenured professors’ experiences of service in major research universities. The Journal of Higher Education, 78(3), 282–310.
29.
O’MearaK.RiveraM.KuvaevaA.CorriganK. (2017). Faculty learning matters: organizational conditions and contexts that shape faculty learning. Innovative Higher Education, 42(4), 355–376.
30.
O’MearaK.TeroskyA.L.NeumannA. (2008). Faculty careers and work lives: A professional growth perspective. ASHE Higher Education Report, 34(3), 1–221.
31.
PinaV.TorresL. (1995). Evaluación del rendimiento de los departamentos de contabilidad de las universidades españolas. Hacienda Pública Española, 135(-), 183–190.
32.
PritchardR. D.WatsonM. D.KellyK.PaquinA. R. (1998). Helping teachers teach well: A new system for measuring and improving teaching effectiveness in higher education. The New Lexington Press.
33.
RamónN.RuizJ. L.SirventI. (2010). Using Data Envelopment Analysis to assess effectiveness of the process at the university with performance indicators of quality. International Journal of Operations and Quantitative Management, 16(4), 87–103.
34.
RawlsJ. (1999). A theory of justice. Oxford University Press.
35.
RoggeN. (2011a) Granting teachers the “benefit of the doubt” in performance evaluations. International Journal of Educational Management, 25, 590–614.
36.
RoggeN. (2011b). Evaluating teaching and research performances: a non-parametric ‘Benefit of the Doubt’ approach (Doctoral dissertation). Faculty of Bussiness and Economics, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven.
37.
RollY.CookW. D.GolanyB. (1991). Controlling factors weights in Data Envelopment Analysis. IIE Transactions, 23(1), 2–9.
38.
RollY.GolanyB. (1993). Alternate methods of treating factor weights in DEA. Omega, 21(1), 99–109.
39.
SaltelliA. (2007) Composite Indicators between analysis and advocacy. Social Indicators Research, 81, 65–77.
40.
SharpeA. (2004). Literature review of frameworks for macro-indicators (CSLS research report 2004-03). Centre for the Study of Living Standards.
41.
SchusterJ. H.FinkelsteinM. J. (2006). The American faculty: The restructuring of academic work and careers. Johns Hopkins University Press.
42.
ThanassoulisE.AllenR. (1998). Simulating weights restrictions in Data Envelopment Analysis by means of unobserved DMUs. Management Science, 44(4), 586–594.
43.
ThanassoulisE.PortelaM. C.AllenR. (2004). Incorporating value judgments in DEA. In CooperW.SeifordL.ZhuJ. (Eds.), Handbook on data envelopment analysis (pp. 99–138). Kluwer Academic Publishers.
44.
ThompsonR.LangemeierL.LeeC.-T.LeeE.ThrallR. (1990). The role of multiplier bounds in efficiency analysis with application to Kansas farming. Journal of Econometrics, 46(1–2), 93–108.
45.
TomkinsC.GreenR. (1988). An experiment in the use of data envelopment analysis for evaluating the efficiency of UK university departments of accounting. Financial Accountability and Management, 4(2), 147–164.
WinslowS. (2010). Gender inequality and time allocations among academic faculty. Gender and Society, 24(6), 769–793.
49.
WongY.-H. B.BeasleyJ. E. (1990). Restricting weight flexibility in data envelopment analysis. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 41(9): 829–835.
