Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Data Envelopment Analysis pp 367–438Cite as

Applications of Data Envelopment Analysis in Education

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

Part of the book series: International Series in Operations Research & Management Science ((ISOR,volume 238))

Abstract

Non-parametric methods for efficiency evaluation were designed to analyse industries comprising multi-input multi-output producers and lacking data on market prices. Education is a typical example. In this chapter, we review applications of DEA in secondary and tertiary education, focusing on the opportunities that this offers for benchmarking at institutional level. At secondary level, we investigate also the disaggregation of efficiency measures into pupil-level and school-level effects. For higher education, while many analyses concern overall institutional efficiency, we examine also studies that take a more disaggregated approach, centred either around the performance of specific functional areas or that of individual employees.

Part of this research has been co-financed by the European Union (European Social Fund ESF) and Greek national funds through the Operational Program “Education and Lifelong Learning” of the National Strategic Reference Framework (NSRF) – Research Funding Program: THALES. Investing in Knowledge Society through the European Social Fund. The views expressed in this chapter are those of the authors and no representation is made that they are shared by any funding body.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   139.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   179.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   249.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Clearly qualitative studies are of utmost importance in education, but we address here only quantitative studies.

  2. 2.

    Note that parametric frontier models have also been widely used in the educational context, but these will not be detailed in this chapter (examples of pupil-level studies through stochastic frontier models can be seen amongst others in Cordero-Ferrera et al. (2011), Deutsch et al. (2013), Perelman and Santín (2011) or Crespo-Cebada et al. (2014)).

  3. 3.

    In education settings, where the variables used in the analysis are grades obtained in national exams, it is unlikely that many changes happen from year to year, except if the syllabus of the course changes. Therefore, when a reasonable number of time períods is included in constructing a meta-frontier it is unlikely that new time periods will imply big changes in that frontier.

  4. 4.

    This follows earlier work by, for example, Athanassopoulos and Shale (1997) and Johnes (1998, 1999).

  5. 5.

    Following Thanassoulis (1999), the outliers have super-efficiencies (Andersen and Petersen 1993) in excess of 100 % and there is at least a 10 percentage point gap between the super-efficiencies of the outliers and the other observations.

  6. 6.

    The t statistics should be treated with caution. They are high because the regression fits a line through a scatterplot that comprises observations that lie perfectly on piecewise linear segments.

  7. 7.

    The index developed by Malmquist (1953) was adapted for use in a DEA context by several researchers in the 1990s. See, for example, Førsund (1993) and Färe and Grosskopf (1996a).

  8. 8.

    We should note, however, that, when the panel is broken into several sub-periods and models estimated on each sub-period separately, the magnitude of some parameters varies widely across sub-periods suggesting that the results should be treated with caution. Moreover, the latent classes determined by the data are puzzling: one might expect a priori that each class would comprise HEIs with common characteristics (perhaps with research intensive institutions, and other institutions in another). But this is not the case, and the common factor relating the HEIs in a group is not obvious.

  9. 9.

    Earlier studies using DEA to estimate output distance functions for higher education include Athanassopoulos and Shale (1997), Flegg et al. (2004) and Johnes (2006a). The last is noteworthy for its pioneering application of statistical tests for comparing nested DEA models (Pastor et al. 2002) and for testing for differences in production frontiers of distinct groups of DMUs (Charnes et al. 1981).

  10. 10.

    Data were obtained from the Higher Education Statistics Agency (HESA).

  11. 11.

    The productivity of institutions on the frontier in Italy slipped back over this time period , but the gain in efficiency of other institutions more than compensated for this, yielding an average efficiency increase across the country of a little under 10 %.

  12. 12.

    Since available data show that more senior academic staff have more, better and highly valued (cited) publications, department or university rankings based on uniform labour input will favour units with greater concentration at higher academic ranks.

  13. 13.

    A priori the quality of a publication is independent of the number of collaborators and thus we have to adjust publications counts by both factors.

  14. 14.

    Hagen (2014) also provided the corresponding formula for harmonic counting in fields like medicine where senior authorship is usually assigned to the first and last collaborator, who are respectively the leader of the specific research and the leader of the entire research group.

  15. 15.

    For example, for a two-author paper, the first author receives 2/3 and the second 1/3 of credit. For a paper where three authors are involved, the first author receives 6/11, the second 3/11 and the third 2/11 of credit.

  16. 16.

    There is also a disagreement on whether the choice of counting method affects more papers or citations counts. Lin et al. (2013) found that it impacts citation counts more than paper counts while Abramo et al. (2013b) reached the opposite conclusion.

  17. 17.

    Right-hand skewness implies that most papers are relatively little cited and there are only few papers with many citations, and that the vast majority of papers is published in relatively low impact journals.

  18. 18.

    Abramo et al. (2012a, b) also provided empirical evidence indicating that rankings of individual researchers obtained under different scaling factors (i.e., average, median, cited papers average, cited papers median) do not show significant discrepancies.

  19. 19.

    The other two research productivity evaluation methods, namely peer review and bibliometrics, rely respectively on a priori weights reflecting experts or stakeholders opinions or use equal weights and appropriate normalizations/standardization to obtain comparable metrics.

  20. 20.

    More on the radial DEA models with a single constant input can be found in Lovell and Pastor (1999), Caporaletti et al. (1999) and Liu et al. (2011). Notice also that unitary input DEA models are equivalent to DEA models without explicit inputs.

  21. 21.

    By consistency here we mean that the resulting aggregate measure has exactly the same intuitive interpretation as the individual efficiency scores.

  22. 22.

    Another advantage of common weights is that they can be applied to calculate performance indices for DMUs not in the sample (Kao and Hung 2007).

  23. 23.

    A productivity index is multiplicatively complete if it can be written in a ratio form of input/output indices that are non-negative, non-decreasing, linearly homogenous scalar functions (O’Donnell 2012).

  24. 24.

    This section is based on De Witte and Hudrlikova (2013).

  25. 25.

    This section is based on De Witte and Rogge (2010).

  26. 26.

    For completeness, we mention that BoD alternatively allows for a ‘worst-case’ perspective in which entities receive their worst set of weights, hence, high (low) weights on performance indicators on which they perform relative weak (strong) (Zhou et al. 2007).

  27. 27.

    See Kuosmanen (2002) for a more comprehensive discussion.

  28. 28.

    This section is based on De Witte and Rogge (2011).

References

  • Abramo G, D’Angelo CA (2014) How do you define and measure research productivity? Scientometrics 102(2):1129–1144

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Abramo G, D’Angelo CA, Di Costa F (2010a) Citations versus journal impact factor as proxy of quality: could the latter ever be preferable? Scientometrics 84(3):821–833

    Google Scholar 

  • Abramo G, D’Angelo CA, Solazzi M (2010b) National research assessment exercises: a measure of the distortion of performance rankings when labor input is treated as uniform. Scientometrics 84(3):605–619

    Google Scholar 

  • Abramo G, Cicero T, D’Angelo CA (2012a) How important is the choice of scaling factor in standardizing citations? J Informetr 6(4):645–654

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Abramo G, Cicero T, D’Angelo CA (2012b) A sensitivity analysis of researchers’ productivity rankings to the time of citation observation. J Informetr 6(2):192–201

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Abramo G, D’Angelo CA, Cicero T (2012c) What is the appropriate length of the publication period over which to assess research performance? Scientometrics 93(3):1005–1017

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Abramo G, Cicero T, D'Angelo CA (2013a) Individual research performance: a proposal for comparing apples and oranges. J Informetr 7(2):528–539

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Abramo G, D’Angelo CA, Rosati F (2013b) The importance of accounting for the number of co-authors and their order when assessing research performance at the individual level in the life sciences. J Informetr 7(1):198–208

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Abramo G, D’Angelo CA, Di Costa F (2014) Variability of research performance across disciplines within universities in non-competitive higher education systems. Scientometrics 98(2):777–795

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Agasisti T, Johnes G (2009) Beyond frontiers: comparing the efficiency of higher education decision-making units across more than one country. Educ Econ 17(1):59–79

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Agasisti T, Ieva F, Paganoni AM (2014) Heterogeneity, school effects and achievement gaps across Italian regions: further evidence from statistical modeling. MOX report number 07/2014. http://mox.polimi.it/it/progetti/pubblicazioni/quaderni/07-2014.pdf. Dipartimento di Matematica “F. Brioschi”, Politecnico di Milano, Via Bonardi 9 – 20133 Milano

  • Aigner D, Lovell CAK, Schmidt P (1977) Formulation and estimation of stochastic frontier production models. J Econometrics 6:21–37

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Andersen P, Petersen NC (1993) A procedure for ranking efficient units in data envelopment analysis. Manag Sci 39(10):1261–1264

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arnold VL, Bardhan IR, Cooper WW, Kumbhakar SC (1996) New uses of DEA and statistical regressions for efficiency evaluation – with an illustrative application to public secondary schools in Texas. Ann Oper Res 66(4):255–277

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Athanassopoulos A, Shale EA (1997) Assessing the comparative efficiency of higher education institutions in the UK by means of data envelopment analysis. Educ Econ 5(2):117–135

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ballou D, Sanders WL, Wright P (2004) Controlling for student background in value-added assessment of teachers. J Educ Behav Stat 29(1):37–65

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Banker RD, Morey RC (1986) The use of categorical variables in data envelopment analysis. Manag Sci 32(12):1613–1627

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Banker RD, Janakiraman S, Natarajan R (2004) Analysis of trends in technical and allocative efficiency: an application to Texas public school districts. Eur J Oper Res 154(2):477–491

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baumol WJ, Panzar JC, Willig RD (1982) Contestable markets and the theory of industry structure. Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Bessent AM, Bessent EW (1980) Determining the comparative efficiency of schools through data envelopment analysis. Educ Adm Q 16(2):57–75

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bogetoft P, Nielsen K (2005) Internet based benchmarking. Group Decis Negot 14(3):195–215

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bradley S, Johnes G, Millington J (2001) The effect of competition on the efficiency of secondary schools in England. Eur J Oper Res 135(3):545–568

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burney NA, Johnes J, Al-Enezi M, Al-Musallam M (2013) The efficiency of public schools: the case of Kuwait. Educ Econ 21(4):360–379

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Camanho AS, Dyson RG (2006) Data envelopment analysis and Malmquist indices for measuring group performance. J Prod Anal 26:35–49

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Caporaletti LE, Dulá JH, Womer NK (1999) Performance evaluation based on multiple attributes with nonparametric frontiers. Omega 27(6):637–645

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Casu B, Thanassoulis E (2006) Evaluating cost efficiency in central administrative services in UK universities. Omega 34(5):417–426

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Casu B, Shaw D, Thanassoulis E (2005) Using a group support system to aid input-output identification in DEA. J Oper Res Soc 56(12):1363–1372

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cazals C, Florens J-P, Simar L (2002) Nonparametric frontier estimation: a robust approach. J Econometrics 106(1):1–25

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Centra JA, Gaubatz NB (2000) Is there gender bias in student evaluations of teaching. J High Educ 71(1):17–33

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Charnes A, Cooper WW, Rhodes E (1978) Measuring the efficiency of decision making units. Eur J Oper Res 2(4):429–444

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Charnes A, Cooper WW, Rhodes E (1981) Evaluating program and managerial efficiency: an application of data envelopment analysis to program follow through. Manag Sci 27(6):668–697

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cherchye L, Kuosmanen T (2006) Benchmarking sustainable development: a synthetic meta-index approach. In: McGillivray M, Clarke M (eds) Perspectives on human development. United Nations University Press, Tokyo

    Google Scholar 

  • Cherchye L, Moesen W, Rogge N, Van Puyenbroeck T (2007) An introduction to ‘benefit of the doubt’ composite indicators. Soc Indic Res 82(1):111–145

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cherchye L, De Witte K, Ooghe E, Nicaise I (2010) Efficiency and equity in private and public education: a nonparametric comparison. Eur J Oper Res 202(2):563–573

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chetty R, Friedman JN, Rockoff JE (2014) Measuring the impacts of teachers I: evaluating bias in teacher value-added estimates. Am Econ Rev 104(9):2593–2632

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coleman Report (1966) The concept of equality of educational opportunity. Johns Hopkins University/US Department of Health, Education & Welfare, Office of Education, Baltimore/Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Cordero-Ferrera JM, Crespo-Cebada E, Pedraja-Chaparro F, Santín-González D (2011) Exploring educational efficiency divergences across Spanish regions in PISA 2006. Rev Econ Apl 19(3):117–145

    Google Scholar 

  • Cordero-Ferrera JM, Santín D, Sicilia G (2013) Dealing with the endogeneity problem in data envelopment analysis. MPRA 4:74–75

    Google Scholar 

  • Costa JM, Horta IM, Guimarães N, Nóvoa MH, Cunha JFe, Sousa R (2007) icBench: a benchmarking tool for Portuguese construction industry companies. Int J Hous Sci Appl 31(1):33–41

    Google Scholar 

  • Crespo-Cebada E, Pedraja-Chaparro F, Santín D (2014) Does school ownership matter? An unbiased efficiency comparison for regions of Spain. J Prod Anal 41(1):153–172

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Daraio C, Simar L (2005) Introducing environmental variables in nonparametric frontier models: a probabilistic approach. J Prod Anal 24(1):93–121

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Daraio C, Simar L (2007a) Advanced robust and nonparametric methods in efficiency analysis: methodology and applications. Springer, Dordrecht

    Google Scholar 

  • Daraio C, Simar L (2007b) Conditional nonparametric frontier models for convex and nonconvex technologies: a unifying approach. J Prod Anal 28(1):13–32

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Witte K, Hudrlikova L (2013) What about excellence in teaching? A benevolent ranking of universities. Scientometrics 96(1):337–364

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Witte K, Kortelainen M (2013) What explains the performance of students in a heterogeneous environment? Conditional efficiency estimation with continuous and discrete environmental variables. Appl Econ 45(17):2401–2412

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Witte, K. and López-Torres, L. (2015). Efficiency in Education. A review of literature and a way forward. Documents de treball d’economia de l’empresa – Working paper series Universitat Autonoma de Barcelona. 15/01, pp. 40. Journal of Operational Research Society. In press

    Google Scholar 

  • De Witte K, Marques RC (2009) Capturing the environment, a metafrontier approach to the drinking water sector. Int Trans Oper Res 16(2):257–271

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Witte K, Marques RC (2010) Influential observations in frontier models, a robust non-oriented approach to the water sector. Ann Oper Res 181(1):377–392

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Witte K, Rogge N (2010) To publish or not to publish? On the aggregation and drivers of research performance. Scientometrics 85(3):657–680

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Witte K, Rogge N (2011) Accounting for exogenous influences in performance evaluations of teachers. Econ Educ Rev 30(4):641–653

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Witte K, Van Klaveren C (2014) How are teachers teaching? A nonparametric approach. Educ Econ 22(1):3–23

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Witte K, Thanassoulis E, Simpson G, Battisti G, Charlesworth-May A (2010) Assessing pupil and school performance by non-parametric and parametric techniques. J Oper Res Soc 61(8):1224–1237

    Google Scholar 

  • De Witte K, Rogge N, Cherchye L, Van Puyenbroeck T (2013a) Accounting for economies of scope in performance evaluations of university professors. J Oper Res Soc 64(11):1595–1606

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Witte K, Rogge N, Cherchye L, Van Puyenbroeck T (2013b) Economies of scope in research and teaching: a non-parametric investigation. Omega 41(2):305–314

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deutsch J, Dumas A, Silber J (2013) Estimating an educational production function for five countries of Latin America on the basis of the PISA data. Econ Educ Rev 36:245–262

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Emrouznejad A, De Witte K (2010) COOPER-framework: a unified process for non-parametric projects. Eur J Oper Res 207(3):1573–1586

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Färe R (1991) Measuring Farrell efficiency for a firm with intermediate inputs. Acad Econ Pap 19(2):329–340

    Google Scholar 

  • Färe R, Grosskopf S (1996a) Intertemporal production frontiers: with dynamic DEA. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Färe R, Grosskopf S (1996b) Productivity and intermediate products: a frontier approach. Econ Lett 50(1):65–70

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Färe R, Karagiannis G (2013) The denominator rule for share-weighting aggregation. Mimeo

    Google Scholar 

  • Färe R, Karagiannis G (2014) A postscript on aggregate Farrell efficiencies. Eur J Oper Res 233(3):784–786

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Färe R, Zelenyuk V (2003) On aggregate Farrell efficiencies. Eur J Oper Res 146(3):615–620

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Färe R, Grosskopf S, Weber WL (1989) Measuring school district performance. Public Finance Q 17(4):409–428

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Farrell M (1957) The measurement of productive efficiency. J R Stat Soc Ser A 120(3):253–281

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Feldman KA (1977) Consistency and variability among college students in rating their teachers and courses: a review and analysis. Res High Educ 6(3):223–274

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Flegg T, Allen D, Field K, Thurlow TW (2004) Measuring the efficiency of British universities: a multi-period data envelopment analysis. Educ Econ 12(3):231–249

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Førsund FR (1993) Productivity growth in Norwegian ferries. In: Fried HO, Schmidt SS (eds) The measurement of productive efficiency: techniques and applications. Oxford University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Fukuyama H, Weber WL (2002) Evaluating public school district performance via DEA gain functions. J Oper Res Soc 53(9):992–1003

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Golany B, Storbeck JE (1999) A data envelopment analysis of the operational efficiency of bank branches. Interfaces 29(3):14–26

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goldstein H (1987) Multilevel models in educational and social research. Charles Griffin, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldstein H, Huiqi P, Rath T, Hill N (2000) The use of value added information in judging school performance. Institute of Education, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Gray J, Jesson D, Jones B (1986) The search for a fairer way of comparing schools’ examination results. Res Pap Educ 1(2):91–122

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greene W (2005) Reconsidering heterogeneity in panel data estimators of the stochastic frontier model. J Econometrics 126:269–303

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grosskopf S, Hayes KJ, Taylor LL, Weber WL (1997) Budget-constrained frontier measures of fiscal quality and efficiency in schooling. Rev Econ Stat 79:116–124

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grosskopf S, Hayes KJ, Taylor LL, Weber WL (1999) Anticipating the consequences of school reform: a new use of DEA. Manag Sci 45(4):608–620

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haegeland T (2006) School performance indicators in Norway: a background report for the OECD project on the development of value-added models in education systems. OECD, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • Haelermans C, De Witte K (2012) The role of innovations in secondary school performance – evidence from a conditional efficiency model. Eur J Oper Res 223(2):541–549

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hagen NT (2014) Counting and comparing publication output with and without equalizing and inflationary bias. J Informetr 8(2):310–317

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hanushek EA (1979) Conceptual and empirical issues in the estimation of educational production functions. J Hum Resour 14(3):351–388

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hanushek EA (1986) The economics of schooling: production and efficiency in public schools. J Econ Lit 24(3):1141–1177

    Google Scholar 

  • Hanushek EA, Link S, Woessmann L (2013) Does school autonomy make sense everywhere? Panel estimates from PISA. J Dev Econ 104:212–232

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ibensoft Aps (2013) Interactive benchmarking: state-of-the-art in performance evaluation. From http://www.ibensoft.com/

  • Johnes G (1998) The costs of multi-product organisations and the heuristic evaluation of industrial structure. Socioecon Plann Sci 32(3):199–209

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnes G (1999) The management of universities: Scottish Economic Society/Royal Bank of Scotland annual lecture. Scott J Polit Econ 46:502–522

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnes J (2006a) Data envelopment analysis and its application to the measurement of efficiency in higher education. Econ Educ Rev 25(3):273–288

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnes J (2006b) Measuring efficiency: a comparison of multilevel modelling and data envelopment analysis in the context of higher education. Bull Econ Res 58(2):75–104

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnes J (2006c) Measuring teaching efficiency in higher education: an application of data envelopment analysis to economics graduates from UK universities 1993. Eur J Oper Res 174:443–456

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnes J (2008) Efficiency and productivity change in the English higher education sector from 1996/97 to 2004/05. Manch Sch 76(6):653–674

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnes G (2013) Efficiency in higher education institutions revisited: a network approach. Econ Bull 33(4):2698–2706

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnes J (2014) Efficiency and mergers in English higher education 1996/97 to 2008/9: parametric and non-parametric estimation of the multi-input multi-output distance function. Manch Sch 82(4):465–487

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnes J (2015) Operational research in education. Eur J Oper Res 243(3):683–696

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnes G, Johnes J (2009) Higher education institutions’ costs and efficiency: taking the decomposition a further step. Econ Educ Rev 28(1):107–113

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnes J, Johnes G (2013) Efficiency in the higher education sector: a technical exploration. Department for Business Innovation and Skills, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnes G, Johnes J, Thanassoulis E, Lenton P, Emrouznejad A (2005) An exploratory analysis of the cost structure of higher education in England. Department for Education and Skills, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnes G, Johnes J, Thanassoulis E (2008) An analysis of costs in institutions of higher education in England. Stud High Educ 33(5):527–549

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnes J, Izzeldin M, Pappas V (2014) A comparison of performance of Islamic and conventional banks 2004-2009. J Econ Behav Organ 103:S93–S107

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson AL, McGinnis L (2011) Performance measurement in the warehousing industry. IIE Trans 43(3):220–230

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kao C, Hung H-T (2003) Ranking university libraries with a posteriori weights. Libri 53:282–289

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kao C, Hung H-T (2005) Data envelopment analysis with common weights: the compromise solution approach. J Oper Res Soc 56(10):1196–1203

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kao C, Hung H-T (2007) Management performance: an empirical study of the manufacturing companies in Taiwan. Omega 35(2):152–160

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kao C, Wu W-Y, Hsieh W-J, Wang T-Y, Lin C, Chen L-H (2008) Measuring the national competitiveness of Southeast Asian countries. Eur J Oper Res 187(2):613–628

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Karagiannis G (2016) On Aggregate Composite Indicators, J Oper Res Soc (forthcoming)

    Google Scholar 

  • Karagiannis G (2015) On structural and average technical efficiency. J Prod Anal 43(3):259–267

    Google Scholar 

  • Karagiannis G, Lovell CAK (2016) Productivity measurement in radial Dea models with multiple constant inputs. Eur J Oper Res (fothcoming)

    Google Scholar 

  • Karagiannis G, Paleologou SM (2014) Towards a composite public sector performance indicator. Asia-Pacific productivity conference, Brisbane, 8–11 Jul 2014

    Google Scholar 

  • Karagiannis G, Paschalidou G (2014) Assessing effectiveness of research activity at the faculty and department level: a comparison of alternative models. Efficiency in education workshop, The Work Foundation, 19–20 Sept 2014

    Google Scholar 

  • Kirjavainen T, Loikkanen HA (1998) Efficiency differences of Finnish senior secondary schools: an application of DEA and Tobit analysis. Econ Educ Rev 17(4):377–394

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuosmanen T (2002) Modeling blank entries in data envelopment analysis. EconWPA working paper at WUSTL No. 0210001

    Google Scholar 

  • Lazarsfeld PF, Henry NW (1968) Latent structure analysis. Houghton Mifflin, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Lin C-S, Huang M-H, Chen D-Z (2013) The influences of counting methods on university rankings based on paper count and citation count. J Informetr 7(3):611–621

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liu WB, Zhang DQ, Meng W, Li XX, Xu F (2011) A study of DEA models without explicit inputs. Omega 39(5):472–480

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lovell CAK, Pastor JT (1999) Radial DEA models without inputs or without outputs. Eur J Oper Res 118(1):46–51

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Malmquist S (1953) Index numbers and indifference surfaces. Trab Estat 4:209–242

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mancebón M-J, Calero J, Choi Á, Ximénez-de-Embún DP (2012) The efficiency of public and publicly subsidized high schools in Spain: evidence from PISA-2006. J Oper Res Soc 63:1516–1533

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marsh HW (1987) Students’ evaluations of university teaching: research findings, methodological issues, and directions for further research. Int J Educ Res 11:253–288

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marsh HW (2007) Students’ evaluations of university teaching: dimensionality, reliability, validity, potential biases and usefulness. In: Perry RP, SMart JC (eds) The scholarship of teaching and learning in higher education: an evidence-based perspective. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 319–383

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Marsh HW, Roche L (1997) Making students’ evaluations of teaching effectiveness effective: the critical issues of validity, bias, and utility. Am Psychol 52(11):1187–1197

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marsh HW, Roche L (2000) Effects of grading leniency and low workload on students’ evaluations of teaching, popular myth, bias, validity, or innocent bystanders? J Educ Psychol 92(1):202–228

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mayston DJ (2003) Measuring and managing educational performance. J Oper Res Soc 54(7):679–691

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meyer RH (1997) Value-added indicators of school performance: a primer. Econ Educ Rev 16(3):283–301

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mizala A, Romaguera P, Farren D (2002) The technical efficiency of schools in Chile. Appl Econ 34(12):1533–1552

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Muñiz M (2002) Separating managerial inefficiency and external conditions in data envelopment analysis. Eur J Oper Res 143:625–643

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ng WL (2007) A simple classifier for multiple criteria ABC analysis. Eur J Oper Res 177(1):344–353

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ng WL (2008) An efficient and simple model for multiple criteria supplier selection problem. Eur J Oper Res 186(3):1059–1067

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Donnell C (2012) An aggregate quantity framework for measuring and decomposing productivity and profitability change. J Prod Anal 38(3):255–272

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • OECD (2008) Measuring improvements in learning outcomes: best practices to assess the value-added of schools. OECD Publishing, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • Oliveira MA, Santos C (2005) Assessing school efficiency in Portugal using FDH and bootstrapping. Appl Econ 37:957–968

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oral M, Oukil A, Malouin J-L, Kettani O (2014) The appreciative democratic voice of DEA: a case of faculty academic performance evaluation. Socioecon Plann Sci 48(1):20–28

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Orea L, Kumbhakar SC (2004) Efficiency measurement using a latent class stochastic frontier model. Empir Econ 29(1):169–183

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pastor JT, Ruiz JL, Sirvent I (2002) A statistical test for nested radial DEA models. Oper Res 50(4):728–735

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Perelman S, Santín D (2011) Measuring educational efficiency at student level with parametric stochastic distance functions: an application to Spanish PISA results. Educ Econ 19(1):29–49

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Portela MCAS, Camanho AS (2007) Performance assessment of Portuguese secondary schools. Working papers de Economia number 07/2007. https://ideas.repec.org/p/cap/wpaper/072007.html, Faculdade de Economia e Gestão, Universidade Católica Portuguesa (Porto)

  • Portela MCAS, Camanho AS (2010) Analysis of complementary methodologies for the estimation of school value added. J Oper Res Soc 61(7):1122–1132

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Portela MCAS, Thanassoulis E (2001) Decomposing school and school-type efficiency. Eur J Oper Res 132(2):357–373

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Portela MCAS, Camanho AS, Borges DN (2011) BESP – benchmarking of Portuguese secondary schools. Benchmarking 18(2):240–260

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Portela MCAS, Camanho AS, Borges D (2012) Performance assessment of secondary schools: the snapshot of a country taken by DEA. J Oper Res Soc 63(8):1098–1115

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Portela MCAS, Camanho AS, Keshvari A (2013) Assessing the evolution of school performance and value-added: trends over four years. J Prod Anal 39(1):1–14

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Raudenbush S, Bryk AS (1986) Hierarchical models for studying school effects. Sociol Educ 59(1):1–17

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ray A (2006) School value added measures in England: a paper for the OECD project on the development of value-added models in education systems. Department for Education and Skills, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Ray A, Evans H, McCormack T (2009) The use of national value-added models for school improvement in English schools. Rev Educ 348:47–66

    Google Scholar 

  • Ruggiero J (1998) Non-discretionary inputs in data envelopment analysis. Eur J Oper Res 111(3):461–469

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ruggiero J (1999) Non-parametric analysis of educational costs. Eur J Oper Res 119:605–612

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ruggiero J (2004) Performance evaluation in education: modeling educational production. In: Cooper WW, Seiford LM, Zhu J (eds) Handbook on data envelopment analysis. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston

    Google Scholar 

  • Sammons P, Nuttall D, Cuttance P (1993) Differential school effectiveness: results from a reanalysis of the Inner London Education Authority’s junior school project data. Br Educ Res J 19(4):381–405

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sanders WL, Saxton AM, Horn SP (1997) The Tennessee value-added assessment system: a quantitative, outcomes-based approach to educational assessment. In: Millman J (ed) Grading teachers, grading schools: is student achievement a valid evaluation measure? Corwin Press, Inc. (Sage Publications), Thousand Oaks

    Google Scholar 

  • Santín D, Sicilia G (2014) The teacher effect: an efficiency analysis from a natural experiment in Spanish primary schools. Efficiency in education workshop, The Work Foundation, 19–20 Sept 2014

    Google Scholar 

  • Simpson G (2005) Programmatic efficiency comparisons between unequally sized groups of DMUs in DEA. J Oper Res Soc 56(12):1431–1438

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thanassoulis E (1996) A data envelopment analysis approach to clustering operating units for resource allocation purposes. Omega 24(4):463–476

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thanassoulis E (1999) Setting achievement targets for school children. Educ Econ 7(2):101–119

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thanassoulis E (2001) Introduction to the theory and application of data envelopment analysis: a foundation text with integrated software. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Thanassoulis E, Portela MCAS (2002) School outcomes: sharing the responsibility between pupil and school. Educ Econ 10(2):183

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thanassoulis E, Portela MCAS, Despić O (2008) DEA – the mathematical programming approach to efficiency analysis. In: Fried HO, Lovell CAK, Schmidt SS (eds) The measurement of productive efficiency and productivity growth. Oxford University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Thanassoulis E, Kortelainen M, Johnes G, Johnes J (2011) Costs and efficiency of higher education institutions in England: a DEA analysis. J Oper Res Soc 62(7):1282–1297

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thieme C, Prior D, Tortosa-Ausina E (2013) A multilevel decomposition of school performance using robust nonparametric frontier techniques. Econ Educ Rev 32:104–121

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tone K, Tsutsui M (2009) Network DEA: a slacks-based measure approach. Eur J Oper Res Soc 197:243–252

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tsionas EG (2002) Stochastic frontier models with random coefficients. J Appl Econ 17:127–147

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Vught FA, Westerheijden DF (2010) Multidimensional ranking: a new transparency tool for higher education and research. Center for Higher Education Policy Studies (CHEPS), University of Twente, Enschede

    Google Scholar 

  • Wang Y-M, Luo Y, Lan Y-X (2011) Common weights for fully ranking decision making units by regression analysis. Expert Syst Appl 38(8):9122–9128

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhou P, Ang BW, Poh KL (2007) A mathematical programming approach to constructing composite indicators. Ecol Econ 62:291–297

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Aston Business School, Aston University, Birmingham, UK

    Emmanuel Thanassoulis

  2. Leuven Economics of Education Research, Faculty of Economics and Business, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium

    Kristof De Witte

  3. Top Institute for Evidence Based Education Research, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands

    Kristof De Witte

  4. Huddersfield University Business School, University of Huddersfield, Huddersfield, UK

    Jill Johnes

  5. Lancaster University Management School, Lancaster University, Lancaster, UK

    Geraint Johnes

  6. Department of Economics, University of Macedonia, Thessaloniki, Greece

    Giannis Karagiannis

  7. Católica Porto Business School, Porto, Portugal

    Conceição S. Portela

Authors
  1. Emmanuel Thanassoulis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Kristof De Witte
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jill Johnes
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Geraint Johnes
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Giannis Karagiannis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Conceição S. Portela
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Emmanuel Thanassoulis .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. School of Business, Worcester Polytechnic Institute, Worcester, Massachusetts, USA

    Joe Zhu

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2016 Springer Science+Business Media New York

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Thanassoulis, E., De Witte, K., Johnes, J., Johnes, G., Karagiannis, G., Portela, C.S. (2016). Applications of Data Envelopment Analysis in Education. In: Zhu, J. (eds) Data Envelopment Analysis. International Series in Operations Research & Management Science, vol 238. Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4899-7684-0_12

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation