,

A FRAMEWORK FOR EVALUATING

NEEDS ASSESSMENT MODELS

A paper submitted to theInstructional Design and DevelopmentProgram in Partial Fulfillment of thePreliminary Examination Proceduresfor the degree of Doctor of Philosophy

Margarida Ferreira da Costa Southard

The Florida State University

May, 1974

ABSTRACT

When educational systems have to decide on which

critical areas the resources should he concentrated, a

needs assessment study is useful. An adequate assessment.

of educational needs thus provides a solid foundation for

planning and development.

This paper discusses the theoretical aspects im-

plied in the concept of "ne.e ds assessment" and attempts

to establish the components of a need assessment model.

A Component Check-List is developed as a tool for analys­

ing models of needs assessment. Nine models are analyzed

and the paper concludes with a review of those models.

3

Introduction

The basic role of systems analysis is to provide

careful technical and predictive advice to the decision

makers. One area where the systems approach can provide

powerful analytical tools is that of educational planning.

More and more, educators and administrators are using systems

analysis techniques to decide "what is to be done."

The system approach is nothing new. It is what we

have called in the past "the scientific method. II It is a

logical, step-by-step approach to problem solving. What is

new is the number of techniques used in this approach. When

using the systems approach. planning starts with the identi­

fication of needs. By documenting the needs (needs assess­

ment), selecting the best alternative to meet the identified

need (system analysis) and determining how a prograc will be

implemented (system synthesis), the systems analysis process

is completed.

Kaufman (1972) discusses the relation between educa­

tional planning, systems analysis, needs assessment, eec. He

points out that the tools for educational planning include

needs assessment and systems analysis. The first will help•

us to see where we are now and where we should be going. The

latter will identify the requirements for whatever action is

indicated.

4

The purpose of this paper is not to elaborate on sys­

tems theory but rather to identify and describe the compon­

ents of a needs assessment model and to elaborate a framework

for analysing models of needs assessment.

Part one of this paper will be concerned with the

·components of a needs assessment model and their interrela­

tionship.

Part ~o will summarize and review nine models of

needs assessment. Part three will analyze these models ac­

cording to a set of criteria distinguishing complete models

from sub-components. A component check-list is elaborated

to analyze the models.

The search of literature covered not only the usual

sources such as ERIC documents, research journals, disserta­

tion abstracts, but also relies heavily on the official

documents of the State Department of Education. Mare than

half of the State Departments considerably aides this study

by sending documents and materials.

5

Part One: Components of a Needs Assessment Model

Specific needs assessment requirements, prior to be­

ginning a renewal program, were laid down in the Elementary

and Secondary Education Act of 1965.

liThe State Plan shall identify the critical educa­

tional needs of the various geographic areas and

population group within the state, and shall des­

cribe the process by which such needs were identi­

fied. The process shall be based upon the use of

objective criteria and measurements and shall 1n­

clude··procedures for collecting. analyzing and

validating relevant data and translating such data

into determinations of critical education needs."

Section 118.8. U.S.

Office of Educatio~

regulations for ESEA

Title III Programs

The requirement to prepare a state plan to meet iden­

tified needs was eiven to State Departments of Education in

1968 when the responsibility for administering Title III at

the state level was transferred from the U. S. Office of

Education to the states.

The emphasis on "needs assessment ll has continued,

resulting models and procedures for needs assessment vary

from simple to complex. Often. but not always, they are

part of an accountability plan.

,I!•,

•

6

Both needs assessment and accountability. but partie

larly accountability. seem to be a response to a mood of

discouragement with educational enterprise in this country.

Despite the educational innovations in this decade, westi11

face the same problems. Inequality in education, like ine­

quality in income, has changed very little.

The basic idea of determining needs and planning

according to needs, is not new in education. Someone has

always specified needs, at least implicitly, in the process

of constructing a curriculum and producing or selecting

materials. Needs assessment has typically been the responsi

bility of teachers and educators. Now the idea is to give t

the general public and parents a more important role in spec

fying needs.

For purposes of this paper, a need will be defined a

a perceived discrepancy between "what is" and "what should

be." This definition is supported by authors such as Kaufm2

(1969), Sweigert (1969), Woodbury (1970), EasCnond (1971), 2

Kuuskraa (1971).

Applying this definition of need to the educational

context, one might say that an educational need is the situ~

~ion which occurs when student performance is below that whi

is specified in an educational objective. Needs assessment

is the procedure one uses to identify such discrepancies

between perforrr.ance and objectives.

The basic operating devices used by systems analyst~

are models. They are not theories; they are ways of thinkli

7

or patterns for research that when carried out, may lead to

the development of theory. Before starting to elaborate on

the components of a needs assessment model, it is advantage­

ous to identify the characteristics of a model.

Helmer (1966) identifies three major purposes for a

model: a) to select certain elements as being relevant to.

the problem under consideration; b) to make explicit certain.

functional relationships among those elements, and c) to

formulate hypothesis regarding the nature of their relation-

ship.

Beck and Monroe (1969) state that "a scientific

model can be defined as an abstraction of some real system

that can be used for purposes of prediction and control."

According to the authors mentioned above, the princi-

pal characteristics of a model can be said to be: isomorphism;

generality; represent variables and their relationship; in-

elude important aspects of the real system and exclude the

unimportant ones; can be represented in graphical, physical

or symbolic form, can serve as a prediction and control device.

As a result of this conception, this author suggests

the following characteristics for a model of needs assessment:

1. the entire process of needs assessment should be des-

cribed in an orderly series of steps to be taken.

2. the steps should represent the real situation and are

based on assurnpti0ns related to the relationsh~ps

between variables.

8

3. the input represented by the goals of the educational

system should focus on the learner in the school en­

vironment. It incorporates cognitive, affective and

psychomotor data interacting with the social system.

4. the process of determining needs should take into

account the groups in the community and their degree

of consensus.

5. the output generated by the application of the model

or the list of ranked needs, is the source for gener­

ating specific objectives to be implemented and should

be selected according to a set of criteria.

6. needs assessment models, are, in general, a component

of an accountability model, evaluation model, or plan­

ning model. They do not exist by themselves but as a

means to an end.

The author's conception of a needs assessment model

is based upon the above characteristics~ The input, process

and output components and their subcoreponents are graphically

represented in Figure 1.

Input Component of a Needs Asses.smcnt. r·!odel

The input component of a needs assEssment model is

represented by two elements:

• 1. Identification of Goals and Obj ectivcs (v.;hat should

be the outcomes?). This step is sometimes referred

to as goal analysis Q{agcr 1972).

9

2. Assessment of extent the goals and objectives are

being attained (what are the outcomes?). This step

may be called a Status Study.

Identification of Goals and Objectives

The first component of any needs assessment study,

no matter what level of study will be conducted, is the goals

identification. It is considered to be the necessary point

of departure since the question of the effectiveness of cur­

rent educational programs and of the desirability of curricular

improvements can only be solved in relation to established

goals. (See Figure 1).

According to Browlee (1971), the=e are at least three

levels where a needs assessment study can be conducted within

a school system: district level, pro£ram level, course level.

He mentions that the real difference between district, program

or course level remains in the definition of goals. At state

and district level, for ex~ple, goals of education are often

expressed in general terms. Program level objectives are more

precise, and the expectations are in terms of general levels

of achievement. At the course level, the instructional learn­

ing objectives are precise behavioral objectives. Thus, the

difference in needs assessment, at different levels, is rep­

resented largely by the dcg~ec of specificity of goals and

objectives. The basic structure of needs assessment would

remain the same. A procedure for syste~atically developing

goals from the state level to t~e cl~ssroom level has been

Figure l--Basic Componenes of a Needs Assessment Model10

I INPUTIDENTIFY GOALS1.0

,

..

Select 1. 1.2 1.3 1.4~ariab1es efine goa s ~ank goals Det. desired

. 1e~1 of-

\ ASSESS ATTAINMENT OF GOALS INPUT

r

I2. ~1'

2.2 Apply 2.3 ~ol1ect ad~:4inst . onduII st.I lif re1iab. , ins~r. ata on att.

ltd va xcii t'y· I of toa " !

l3.0 PROCESSIDENTIFICATION OF DISCREPANCIES

.

.

.

3.1is k 3.2 3.3

ollect fact J;onduct dis cr. State the(nd values nalysis need

elect

4.0 IPRIORITIZE NEED~ OUTPUT

•

11

described by Terry D. Cornell (1971).

Procedures for identifying educational goals of a

school system may be developed in two different situations.

When a school or county has a list of goals, the problem will

be to analyze and review that list to see if it still expresses

the desired outcomes of the educational system.

The other case is when a list of goals has to be gen­

erated. In this case. CWo procedures can be used. Structured

procedures which include the use of previously formulated goals

by another school or another county, and non-structured pro­

cedures, which involves the identification of goals by educators

and laymen, without using a previous list of goals.

No matter what procedure will be used, the identifica­

tion of goals--the first component--is broken down in 4 sub­

components: variables to be assessed; definition of goals;

ranking of goals; and determination of the desired level of

performance.

Figure 2 shows how these sub-components relate to each

other.

Decision on variables to be assessed. In order to de­

fine the desired outcomes of our schools and assess the degree

these outcomes have been attained, one needs to decide what

variables should be included in the study. This decision is

extremely important. The variables one decides to use influ­

ence the definition of goals and objectives and consequently,

the whole study.

12

Figure 2--Component l--Identification of Goals

--;[7-:;-10

.1.5.301rganl.ze an..,summarize da.ta

I

__I~-:-;r 1.5,2~Establish cr1-teria tor rankIieg

1. 5.1cecide who... ",. TOnk

ul rlola lExisting list No existing list

1.2 [ IDevelop new1. 2a

Revise list list

.1.3

Decide on variables

.

1.4Define goals

-

Decide wli.::·! 1. 4. 2 1.4.3 !onsule sourc es et consensus!win define of oals amon", ",roups I

1.5Rank goals

.

•

1.6Establ~~~ level of

•

13

The input variables, i.e .• goals and objectives, .

should focus on learners' behavioral changes. This means

that the prime focus for an assessment of needs should be

the learning objectives toward which students are expected

to work.

One should not assume that this means only one type

of measurement. This approach emphasizes the analysis of

the affective, cognitive, and psychomotor domains, but does

not put aside the other input variables of family, society.

school, etc.

Other variables that do not involve students directly

should also be considered. Teacher needs and program needs

that influence the attai~ent of goals by the students also

need to be taken into account.

Authors differ in their comments when discussing

learner variables and institutional variables. Sweigert

(197la) points out that every type of activity in the edu­

cational system which does not involve students directly,

may be considered supportive in nature. He contends that

the institutional needs should only be considered to the ex­

tent that they are related to student needs.

This issue is very complex, and it is difficult to

discriminate among institutional variables, student variables,

etc. One of the best attempts to classify variables is

Hammond I s three dimensional structure. (See Figure 3). His

structure of "cube" facilitates the examination of the inter­

action of variables from each of the three dimensions

14

(instructional, institutional, behavioral). Hammond (1973)

describes those variables as factors to be considered in

the evaluation of a given program. The matrix may be used

as an important tool in the definition and selection of

variables in needs assessment studies.

Definition of goals. The decision of wh~t goals and object­

ives should be taught ranks as one of the most critical

problems in education today. This is perhaps one of the

most difficult tasks, for it is tempting to either install

one's own set of values or to depend on an incomplete set

of outcomes.

Figure 3--Hammond's StrJcture of Variables AffectingEducational Programs

;-,!.

---'-./ /'

1, •.. ,, •• ~-,<

"/,- ,"./ ./ ..-

,-- +~~- -,>- ,

. -.'- - ..

-

- Co<!I(nI<>g

,'\':1,-1

""•" r ..d".. '!

""'

•

15

At the school or at the county level, personnel will

have to' select goals already defined, elaborate a new ten-

tative list, or revise someone's work. In any event. the

complexity is about the same.

The decision about variables to be assessed will help

to limit the areas of assessment (cognitive, affective, teacher

needs, etc.). At this point, it must be decided if the em-

phasis will be on goals which direct the student to fit into

our society or on goals to improve our society. In fact, it,

1s important to capture the current and future status of

society. This will provide learners with skills, abilities,

and attitudes to improve and change society and not just to

maintain the status quo.

The definition of goals presents three of the most

difficult problems inherent in needs assessment. First, who

determines or makes the value judgments of what leerner out-

come behaviors are desired? Second, what sources can determ-

ine these objectis? And third, how do we go about effectively

getting a consensus on these goals?

Initially, a decision must be made as to who or what

groups have legitimate input during the process of goal defi­

nition. Researchers, such as Kaufman (1969), Sweigert (1969),

and others agree that it is of vital import~nce to include

all the educational partners (students, pare~ts, community

representatives, teachers, etc.) in this determination and

to involve them in ~hc decision process from the beginning

16

and not at a later time when they are forced to react.

Should the judgment of a group of experts and a

sample of public opinion be of equal importance in this defi­

nition of goals? This is, of·course, another critical

question. On describing the approach used by the Elementary

School Evaluation KIT (University of California), Klein

(1971) comments that the task of constructing educational

goals and objectives involves arguments. frustrations, etc.,

when trying to elaborate these goals in cooperation with

parents. teachers, and other groups. He suggests a somewhat

different approach. The first step of this approach is to

have a team of experts construct a set of goals and then

achieve community. student and teacher'involvement by having

these groups participate in the selection of goals. By using

this procedure one has to be sure that the groups involved

are a representative sample of the target population to insure

the legit~acy of this process. This procedure also speeds up

the construction process by eliminating many arguments among

groups.

The way one approaches the questions in a question­

naire to select goals is very important. Many needs assess­

ment instruments fail to recognize that different views of

"what should be" can exist. A mathematical goal, for instance,

can be seen in terms of certain functions a person has to per­

form according to his age or grade. Another view assumes

that what is important is the functions a person would have

17

to perform when in a professional activity. Another view is

to find out if the respondents are satisfied or dissastisfied

with the programs the school is conducting. Probably the

best method would be a combination of all the above ideas

and would depend on the characteristics of the groups surveyed.

Another important point to consider is the sources of

these goals: where do we go in order t~ generate some goals

statements? (See Figure 2; sub-component 1.4.2.) These

sources are: the student himself, experts, public opinion.

research findings, legal documents and philosophy of educa­

tion. Among those, most important is the philosophy of edu­

cation. A society will state a set of goals according to

values it has.

Kaufman (1972) recommends that, in the process' of

involving different groups in the definition of goals, a

formal determination of each group's values be undertaken.

Of course those groups will differ in their perception of

desired values, but techniques can be used to help them to

arrive at a consensus about goals.

Other sources for goals can be found in legal docu­

ments. The Oklahoma State Department of Education in its

needs assessment model established sources such as: laws.

~les. regulations. guidelines, etc. In the majority of

developing countries. these would be among the most import­

ant sources. In those countries, federal and state

government playa major role in the definition of educational

goals and laws.

18

Eastmond (1971) suggests that desired outcomes can

also be identified by conducting a concerns conference. He

points out that in any community there exists problems that

may be seen as emerging educational needs of those individu­

als who made up the community_ A concerns conference is

organized in an a~tempt to identify those problems that are

arising and are likely to be considered ~eeds.

The third aspect to be considered on the definition

of goals is the problem of getting consensus on goals (see

figure 2--sub-component 1.4.3).

The criteria for selecting goals that are adopted by

a group of teachers are different from the ones used by a

group of parents and both groups' decisions differ sometimes

from the way a group of community representatives perceive

goals and needs.

Sweigert (1971), with his ESCO model (Educators,

Students, Consumers), has developed some techniques to de­

termine the degree of consensus on selection of goals and

objectives. He compares responses of these three gro~ps on

the perceived importance of specific objectives, and comes

out with eight types of discrepancies in perception of those

goals.

Another method that seems to be increasingly used for

goal setting and prediction of future events, has been termed

the Delphi technique (Helmer, 1966). Basically, the Delphi

Technique eliminates group and open debate activities .. It

seeks to induce opi~ion convergence among a group of

•

19

respondencs through a sequence of questionnaires. The res­

ponses of the questionnaires are fed back to the group in a

controlled fashion until a final product is attained. This

product is a list of goals on which group consensus has been

attained.

Ranking of goals. Once one has a list of goals the next

step is to rank those goals (see Figure 2). Ranking the

goals is important for two reasons. First, it is not always

feasible for a county or school district to have funds to

assess the attainment of every goal. A priority has to be

established. Second, the relative importance of each goal

is one parameter for ultimately prioritizing needs.

It is possible that goals can be ranked at the same

time they are being identified. No matter when the ranking

of goals takes place, certain steps have to be taken into

consideration:

1. Who should rank?

2. Criteria for ranking.

3. Procedures for summarizing the data.

The decision about who should rank follows the same

pattern for deciding who should define them. The particular

groups chosen, of course, will be a function of the numbers

of raters involved, the scope of the needs assessment study,

·the political context in which the study is conducted. re­

sources available, facilities. etc. In the majority of needs

assessment models, a sample of different groups of people is

•

20

determined and they are asked to rank goals through a ques­

tionnaire.

The criterion usually considered is the level of im­

portance of the goal. In general, respondents are asked to

rank a goal on a five-point scale ranging from most important

to least important.

The Instructional Task Project developed by the New­

port-Mesa School District (1973) used an interesting approach

for ranking goals. Respondents were asked to think haw im­

portant a goal was in terms of the characteristics students

should have as a result of their schooling. by the time they

leave the school. The criterion of feasibility or practicality

of implementation is not taken into account at this phase. One

is interested in finding out llwhat should be" in order to iden­

tify educational needs. The problems of program implementation

pertain to another phase.

Once the ratings are gathered from all the people in­

volved in the goal selection, the organization and summary of

the data will take place. Through the analysis of these data,

the school is in a pOSition to idencify goals for which the

school should assume responsibility.

Determine the desired level of performance. The fourth sub­

component involves the establishment of a standard for each

goal. Not only goals have to be selected but desired levels

of attainment must also be determined (see Figure 2).

These desired levels can be the minimum acceptable,

a median or average, or an ideal or excellent standard.

•

21

Without such criteria there is no way of knowing whether or

not the objectives have been attained.

Kaufman (1972) recommends that after identifying the

expected outcomes, they should-be stated in measurable terms

or some "indicators" be stated. If it is not possible to

state all the goals in behavioral terms, at least the criteria

of attainment should be established.

Assess to what extent the goals andObjectives were being actuined.-­status Study

The second input component in a model of needs assess­

ment concentrates on the status of the students in relation to

the general goals. This assumes that the goals selected can

be measured. (See Figure 2.)

This component includes the identification of measures.

tests, or criteria by which values may be obtained for each

general goal. These values describe "what are the outcomes II

and will later document needs. If for a given goal, reliable

information has already been collected, the process is greatly

simplified and one need not collect the data again.

When conducting needs assessment one should collect

as much information as possible to assess the attainment of

goals. These data can be found in research findings, papers

and reports issued by various federa!, state and local agen-

cies, statistical reports. evaluation reports, etc.

Evaluation reports are a very important source for

documenting achievement of goals. Through a testing program,

22

annual school report, etc., one can verify the level of stu­

dent performance.

In the majority of needs assessment studies, cogni­

tive goals are measured through an achievement testing

program. Tests and questionnaires are used to gather evalu­

ation data because they are the most efficient means for doing

so. Two of the more common approaches to assessment are cri­

terion referenced and norm referenced tests. Normreferenced

tests are more often used than criterion referenced tests in

the studies of needs assessment. There are several standard­

ized tests on the market and it is only necessary to select

the instrument most .appropriate for measuring specific goals.

At the same time. we notice a tendency in all the studies of

needs assessment to start to work with criterion referenced

tests.

To minimize the difficulty of selecting tests, the

Center for the Study of Evaluation at the University of Cali­

fornia conducted a review of existing tests to identify and

rank those most appropriate, effective and useful in assess­

ing certain students' goals.

The four basic criteria, reported by Hoepfner (1971),

used in this analysis were:

1. How well the test measures the educational goal?

2. To what extent is the test appropriate for the student

3. To what degree can the test easily be utilized in the

school?

23

4. Is the test sufficiently reliable and refined in

measurement?

The first criterion deals with validity, the second

with appropriateness, the third with administrative applica­

tion and the last major criterion is concerned with reliability.

It seems that these are good criteria to use in the selection

of tests.

Test data is generally more reliable and valid than

other assessment techniques such as interviews. Nonetheless,

the evaluator should not limit himself to tests and records

but should be open and willing to collect other kinds of per­

tinent information.

A needs assessment conducted by the State of Alabama

used interviews and small discussion groups to obtain the

perception of teachers regarding desired student behavior,

mainly the ones related with the affective domain. What is

important is to obtain evidence to support the opinion exprasse

by the groups.

The State of Colorado used questionnaires, opionnaires,

and on-site visitation of schools. After visitation, the

schools were rated with regard to how well they were accom­

plishing the eight broad goals of education established by

the state.

Process Corlponent: cf a Need~ Assess~ent Model-­ldcntific;;tion of D:.screpaI1cies

The identification of discrepancies between attainment

and goals is the third major component of a needs assessment

24

study. It is concerned with the comparison between current

and desired states of affairs. P~y measurable difference

between these ~o states will be considered a discrepancy.

A discrepancy, when documented and expressed becomes

an identified need. This third component involves three

major tasks, (See Figure 1.)

1. Identification of discrepancies

2. Validation of the discrepancy

3. Statement of the need

In the majority of studies, a committee is appointed

for conducting the discrepancy analysis. In the needs assess­

ment conducted by the State of Idaho (1973), for example, this

committee was chosen to be representative of various interests

involved in education and included representation from the

community, superintendency, classified staff, federal programs,

etc. The size of the group was purposely kept small to allow

for full participation and to facilitate meeting together.

In the process of identifying the gaps comes the prob­

lem of validating the discrepancies. Eastmond (1971) points

out that the discrepancies or concerns identified by a com-

mittee have to be tested for validity. In other words, to

see if the expressed concerns are in fact genuine needs. It•

is important t~ verify if the need is a central one and not

just a symptom or a solution. For Edstmond, a concern is

validated when relevant facts that support the concern are

contrasted with the value statements or goals related to the

concern.

25

In identifying needs, documentation in the form of

empirical data is encouraged. Results from tests and sur­

veys can point out comparisons among school districts or

states. These data will help the committee to determine the

importance of need based on the extent of discrepancy.

Finally, it is not only important to identify gaps

but to keep track of the absence of gaps, for this is one

effective way for identifying successful programs.

The way one will state the need is the other task

involved in this third component. Sweigert (1969), Eascmond

(1971) hold that a needs statement is like any other perform­

ance objective and should exhibit the following characteris­

tics:

1. Focus on learner needs

2. Identify target groups of students (who they are? How

many are involved? and where are they l~oated?)

3. Criteria: Some criteria for judging when the need

will be met

4. Time: Target data when the need must be satisfied

5. Criticality of the need: In order to set priorities,

it is necessary to have some index of the importance

of each need.

The problem of criticality is central to the priori­

tizing of needs, which is the fourth major component of needs

assessment.

•

26

Output Component of a Needs AssessmentModel--Prioritizing Needs

After needs have been determined, they may be ordered

and selected according to a set of criteria. Setting priori­

ties on the list of needs is important because first, there

never seems to be enough money and time for meeting all the

identified needs and second, not all the needs are critical.

Some are more urgent than others. The fourth component will

include decisions on three major tasks: (see Figure 1).

1. What will be the criteria to rank the needs?

2. Who will prioritize the needs?

3. How to arrive at a consensus about criticality of a

need?

The question of criteria for prioritizing needs is a

major one in needs assessment studies. Authors differ in the

establishment of those criteria.

Kaufman (1972) holds that the major criterion for

ranking needs is cost. He proposes that priorities be set

on the basis of two simultaneous questions: "What does it

cost to meet this need?" and "What does it cost to ignore this

need?"

Sweigert (1969) prefers to consider the criticality

of a need as related to: a) the magnitude of disagreement

among the three groups (Educators, Students, Cunsumers) in

the perception of that need; b) the number of students dir­

ectly affected by a disagreement; c) the importance of a given

learning objective to the concerns of appropriate consumers;

27

d) the importance of the consumer's concerns to society at

large. He contends that the first three factors may be ob­

tained from an analysis of data, and the fourth may be obtain­

ed from the judgment of a panel of experts.

Eastmond (1971) points out that criticality of a need

is shown by an index of importance. This must come from

values placed on eliminating the need or ~t least reducing

it. Another criterion expressed by Eascmond is to choose a

need that is most crucial and that should be solved first for

logical and strategic reasons.

Kuuskraa (1971) mentions that priorities should be

based on the priority set on the goals, the degree of effi­

ciency in meeting the goal. the probability of achieving

success if the need is implemented.

One can use anyone of these criteria, or a combi­

nation of them. The imp~rtant point is to have some index

of relevance of each need, and a systematic process to arrive

at it.

The same group can rank the needs and their answers

then be compared to determine consensus. Complete concensus

Is never attained, and someone has to make a decision as to

how much agreement is necessary. Sweigert's model, as was

mentioned before, presents an important tool for identifying

areas of concern.

Once the needs are ranked, the decision makers will

be able to decide which ones are to be implemented first.

28

Then the needs statements can be used to develop objectives

for the programs. If it contains the characteristics men­

tioned in page 25, a need statement can be considered to be

the specific behavioral objective.

The validated needs must be in a format that makes

them immediately useful in long-range planning efforts of

local district and/or the State Educational Agency.

Part Two: Models of Needs Assessment

A review of the literature revealed that a number of

different models have been developed and are being implemented

by the States. Those models generally contain the same steps,

but differ in their level of specificity and clarity of appli­

cation.

In the following pages, nine models are briefly sum­

marized. In generaly, they are rather similar and differ

primarily in the way they establish procedures and go into

detail on each step. Table 1 presents the list of the

nine models.

The Eastmond r!odel (Proj ect Next Step)

Developed by the Worldwide Education and Research

Institute, Salt Lake City, this model has been implemented

by several states and agencies such as the State of Idaho,

Florida, Utah, and the Fresno Unified School District, Fresno,

California, etc. (Eastmond, 1971 b).

29

TABLE 1

NEEDS ASSESSMENT MODELS

MODELS

Kaufman

Eastmond

EPIC/TUCSON

Vello Kuuskraa

Ray Sweigert

National Assessment of

Educational Progress

U.C.L.A.--CSE

Batelle Needs Assessment

Survey

Oklahoma State Department

PLACE OF APPLICATION

Temple City Unified School Dis­

trict--California

Colorado, Odaho, Utah, Fresno

(California), etc.

Arizona

Project Trend

Project ESCO--North Bay Center-­

California

All the Stetes

California

Columbus--Ohio

Oklahoma

The activities called for by this mo~el are shown

in Figure 4. The model specifies each step in detail and

it includes a m~nual of procedures and several booklets. Its

Figure 4.--Plan-Activity Diagram for ConductingA Needs Assessment.

30

•

rCondu::tNeedsAt'SC~:;1T1 ::nt

1.0I\PI'nil;[~

QualilyI\~.:.llr-

,---,10.0

CJ;lsslf~'

CUI:l,.·'~CIt ;.

14.0

rubllshSwtc:mcl1 ~

orCrlr.lcal

I Need:l

1

31

strongest point is the way it validates a need. It starts

with the determination of concerns or problems. This task

can be done through surveys, concerns conferences, etc. An

example of a concern will be: "School discipline is inade­

quate. II This concern would be supported by data about

student discipline (facts) and beliefs (values) about what

should be adequate discipline. An analysis is conducted on

the documented concerns and a statement of need is elaborated.

This need is said to be validated because it was documented

by facts and checked against values.

An important factor in this model is that it is the

only model that provides for a philosophy of education. The

value statements can serve as the bases for an operational

philosophy.

The model also provides a good set of criteria to

prioritize needs such as accuracy, reliability, validity,

feasibility, etc.

The Sweigert Model (ESCO)

This model was presented in a document, "The First

Step in Educational Problem Solving" (1959) and is responsi­

ble for many improvements in Needs Assessment. The model,

which was field tested in four counties of San Francisco,

has several assumptions. The two most important are:

There are three principal reference groups whose per

ceptions of given learning objectives are critical in

determining the extent to which the objectives are

32

functional for a given school system. These three ref­

erence groups are: educators, students, and consumers

of the educational product.

When the members of these three reference groups who are

directly involved with a given learning objective, tend

to agree on its importance, then that learning objective

is functioning well for the school system.

Based on these assumptions, Sweigert created a system

to arrive at a consensus on educational needs. The model is

designed to discover areas of disagreement among those groups.

Areas of disagreement are C'onsidred to be "signals" that

there are problems requiring solutions. Behind this approach

is the assumption that disagreement between groups of persons

is a symptom that can be used to diagnose a need.

Sweigert defines eight types of discrepancies by

using a classification system coded with pluses (+) and

minuses (-). The possible patterns of disagreement or dis­

crepancy in perception of an objective are presented in Table

2. Looking at his table it is seen that Type I and VIII rep­

resent an agreement among the three £roups. Each group

agrees upon the relevance or irrelevance of the objective.

Types II and III represent the most common situations.

In Type II, the objective is irrelevant for the student but

the consumer aoc the school agree on it. In Type III the

consumer and the student agree that objective is irrelevant,

but the school perceives the objective as important.

33

TABLE 2

A 'CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM FOR SYMPTOMS OF EDUCATIONAL

NEED IN TERMS OF TYPES OF DISCREPANCY IN PERCEPTION

BETWEEN REFERENCE GROUPS

ReferenceGroup

E

S

C

I

+

+

+

II

+

+

III

+

IV

+

+

v

+

VI

+

+

VII

+

VIII

Note.--From Ray Sweigert' 5 paper "The First Step in Education­al Problem Solving--A Systematic Assessment of StudentBenefits." Paper presented at the PLEDGE Conference,California. State Department of Education, October,1969.

Type IV represents the situation where the consumer

is the only one to disagree with the objective.

In Type V. the school and the consumer agree on the

irrelevance of the objective and the student expresses a

desire to have it in the curriculum. In Type VI, the stu-

dent's perception of relevance is verified by the consumer

and the objective should be instituted in the system.

Type VII in Sweigert's opinion represents an educ~­

tional need. The need is perceived by a consumer or an expert,

• but not perceived hy either the student or the educational

system. It may be necessary to make the educational Syste:ffi

aware of the need and have it considered as a possible learn-

ing objective.

34

The author mentions that this type of analysis deals

with perceptions of relevance. A similar table may be con­

structed with reference to attainability and unattainability

for any given learning objective.

The Kaufman Model

In Kaufman's view. Needs Assessment is a sub-compon­

ent of the systems approach process model. Figure 5 shows

in a flow chart the steps of an educational systems analysis.

The definition of "needs as a discrepancy in terms of

products or outcomes is oCen attributed to Kaufman. He

created a theoretical framework for needs assessment that was

then specified and implemented by other authors. His model.

however, could be more specific and operational in some of

its steps.

The author suggests the following tasks when planning

and implementing a needs assess~ent.

1. Decide to plan.

2. Identify problem symptoms or obtain a request for a

needs assessment from the educational agency.

3. Identify the domain for planning.

4. Identify possible needs assessment tools and proced-

ures and select the best one.

5. Determine the existing conditions for all the partners.

6. Determine required conditions.

7. Reconcile any discrepancies among the partners' view­

points.

35

EDUCATIONAL SYSTEMPLANNING (ProblemIdentification)

Revise as

EDUCATIONAL SYSTEM SYNTHESIS

(Problem Resolution)required

<

5.0Det. Perf.Effective

-- -..,...

4.0Implement

---,--{

T-----T-----j-·-.... ..lr

2.0 I j3.0Det. Sol. iSelect SoRqrmnts. and ~Strat.

Sol. '(from alt.Altern.I

1.0Identifyproblem(fromneeds)

II

"II-,1

I1

I_J

- --1III

II

- -I

~:2erfotl!lunction -nalysis .

. 3erform

- Task I"<-Analysis

2.4Perform Ik-- IlethodsMe.::ns~lysis--

I '"2-..,..1-----,

!:;rf~rmnl.SSl.onr - .Analysis

11

III11

IIII--

IIII1- _

. Figure 5--Kaufrnan' 5 Hodel

36

8. Place priorities among the discrepancies and select.

9. Make sure that the needs assessment is a continuing

process.

Oklahoma State Department Model

The model used by the Oklahoma State Department of

Education has some elements of Kaufman's model. It is a step

by step operation clearly detailed. For the people that

created the model, needs assessment is looked upon as an

element of educational accountability.

The model (Figure 6) depicts the elements necessary

for needs assessment. It is designed to be used at a state

level. but the districts could adapt it to their local needs.

An innovation of this model is the establishment of

Need Indicators. These indicators are obtained fro~ the

mdssion requirement and the needs expressions.

The sources of mission require~ents (general goals)

come from laws, policies, guidelines at a top administrative

level. The needs expressions come from the community. It is

a way for letting the co~ittee in charge of the assessment

know what the various groups in the community want. In this

model the "what should be" is composed of the mission require­

ments and needs expression.·

The model also presents a list of sources where the

evidence of student status can be found. The problem of con­

sensus among groups is not emphasized and it is one of the

weakest parts of the model.

Oklahoma State Department of EducationEducational NEEDS ASSESSMENT

I

6'"...g.a~

'":;iti?'0

~

irt

a'"'"~"rt~.

a

"

'"

."~.

'""~ro

EvaluationInformation.

SpecificNeeds

andPriorities

B

cAdditionalInformation.::.:::.::.:==-

Evidenceof

Status

A

AnalyzingData

ResearchInfonnation.. I

GeneralNeed

Indicators

Designing,Instrument

B

NeedsExpressions

SuperOrdinate

Goals.E

Mission...............fying .. IRequires

I , ments

Assigning

Identifying

Support

and

Planning

Assessment.

Generating

Responsibility

Analyzing"'... ~:_.

AdministeringInstruments

c

w

"

38

The Vello Kuuskraa Model

This model was originated as part of Project TREND

and is intended to be used within a local school system.

Its primary effort is directed to assess the edu­

cational and developmental needs of disadvantaged children.

Seven major tasks are described in detail, in carry-

ing the model. They are,

1. Agree on the basic policy decisions

2. Describe the approach

3. Develop the methodology

4. Conduct the assessment

5. Analyze the outcomes

6. Select priority goals and objectives

7. Translate data for program planning

The model suggests a list of goals in the areas of

cognitive, affective, physical domain and environmental

support that could be of value for local agencies. Also,

questionnaires in those areas are presented as general

guides for conducting neecs assessment.

The specific steps necessary to define and state a

need, however, are not stated in this model.

U.S.L.A.--CSE Mndel

The Needs Assessment model ceveloped by the Center

for the Study of Evaluation is one of the five phases of

planning and evaluation activities. These phases are:

1. Needs Assessment

· 39

2. Program Planning

3. Implementation Evaluation

4. Progress Evaluation

5. Outcome Evaluation

Figure 7 shows the steps followed in a Needs Assess­

ment phase.

In this model, needs assessment findings are used in

detenmining which areas should be attacked. The other phases

involve the planning and evaluation of the program adopted

to meet the problems identified in the needs assessment.

The Center's model is influenced by other evaluation

theorists such as Stufflebeam (1971) and Provus (1969). Based

on its model, the Center created the Elementary School Evalu­

ation KIT to be used by elementary schools. The Center has

developed 106 goals to help the school select the areas

they wish to assess. Unfortunately the KIT was not made

available for further examination.

The National ~sse5~rient of Educational Pro~ress

NAEP is an annual national survey of the knowledge,

skills, understanding and attitudes of certain groups of

students. The two major purposes of the National Assessment

are:

1. To make available comprehensive data on the educa­

tional attainments of students.

2. To measure any growth or decline which takes place

in selected aspects of the educational attainment

Determ. the contextfactors influencingthe method. scope. Determine pro- State poten- Determine rela- Select goals Determine methodand focus of the • cedures for L.- tial goals • tive imp. of

~of major im-

L.-for measuring

N. A. starting goals and/or obj. goals 1. e .• portance perfoI'Qlance on '-and/or obj. construct the goals

value system

rDetermine performance Assess perfor- Detemine the Specify proce- Compute the Report tostandards on selected mance on selec-- discr. between

f.-dure for det. relative

I-the deci-

goals 1- ted goals desired and reI. prior. prior. for sianactual levels for eliminating elim. the makerof performance the obs. diser. discr.

Phase II ECISIOProgram SelectPlanning goal areasto

atta

'"....'"~m...II

C•n•,.,•>•IInen

'"'"mmp.~

>~

~

m~

~m~<1"

&m....

...o

41

of students in certain subject areas.

The Education Commission of the States (ECS) is in

charge of the Assessment.

The NAEP is not a needs assessment model. The basic

distinction found is that in the NAEP, someone or some group

had already assumed that certain goals are desired. They

also assumed some standards as, that a child in the second

month of his third year in school should score at the 3.2.

grade level or be able to perform a certain task.

Such assessment is deficient in identifying needs

related to local or geographical areas.

Many states have used the goals and exercises devel­

oped by NAEP to conduct their needs assessment studies. These

studies present, as an outcome, a list of needs that probably

will not represent the real problems of the community, for

NAEP intends to assess and not to define the critical needs.

The EPIC/TUCSON Mocel

The model outlined by the EPIC Evaluation Center is

evaluation oriented but it lacks the specific steps necessary

to conduct a needs assessoent. Its strongest point is the

definition of variables. These variables are classified in

instructional, institutional, and behavioral dimensions,

according to Hammond's structure.

The model is more concerned with the statement of

goals and objectives. This part is w~ll elaborated and

shows how an objective can be written at the various levels

of specificity. (Cornell, 1971)

•

42

Batelle Needs Assessment Model

The Batelle Needs Assessment Model is not a model;

it is a survey. Its primary purpose is to communicate to

the decision-maker(s) the need, as perceived by the various

groups in the educational community.

To accomplish this task, a Lickert type scale was

developed for determining and documenting a measurable dif­

ference between IIwhat exists lt and "what should be." Each

item in the scale would be responded to twice. Once, in

terms of whether it exists within the system, and again to

determine if it is desired.

Respondents would utilize a five point scale ranging

from HDoes not Exi3t ll to IIA High Degree of Existence ll for

the actual situation. For the desired state, the questions

range from "Should not Exist" to "Should Exist."

The discrepancy bet'tveen these two stages receives

an index. The larger the index the larger the discrepancy.

The Batelle Needs Survey can be utilized as a component of

a needs assessment model.

Part Three: Analysis of Needs Assess~ent Model

A component check-list was constructed to analyze

models of needs assessment. This list was developed based

upon the considerations made in Part One of this paper.

Table 3 presents the component Check-list, using a

dichotomous scale format. If the answer "yes" is checked,

it means the model contains the component and has elaborated

•

TABLE 3

A COMPONENT CHECK-LIST FOR NEEDS ASSESSMENT MODELS

'"'"z

~l;l u

0 I

'" '" ,u §il " ·

!~ ~ '" H ..: '"~ ~ f:;J · ::l.... ....,

~U '" '" · '"H '" ~

u !:1'" j'" '" :::> '" 0,COMPONENTS YESI NO YES NO YES NO YES NO YES NO YES NO YES NO YES NO YES NO

,

1, IDENTIFICATION OFGOALS *1.1 Does the model con-

tain a procedure todetcnline which :;roups~ill be in charge ofidentifying goals? 2 2 2 2 2 x 2 x 2

1.2 Does the model col-lect d~ta from thecommunity, cduc.1.tors andlearners with rcgnrd tothe importance of goals? 2 x 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

1.3 Does the model listsources of goals?(value theory, experts,etc.) x x 1 1 x 1 1 1 1, .0­

W

* important factor

•

TABLE 3--Continued

~. z

~!;; u

0 I

'" '",

u § " · !~~

(IJ H « j0 ::>~ ·- ~ ~

....u '" '" · '"~.H '" ~

u !;J~ <:i . ·> "" ::> '" 0

COMPONENTS YES1NO IYES' NO YE~ NO YES NO YES NO YES NO YES NO YES NO YES NO

1.4 Does the model con-tain a system to deter-mine consensus on goalsand objectives? * 2 x x x 2 2 x x x

1.5 Does the model in-clude provisions to de-fine goals in bch~vioral

terms? (indicators) .;: 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 x x

1. 6 Does the modelprescnt criteria to rankgoals? " 2 x x x 2 x 2 x 2

1. 7 Does the model pre-sent a procedure on whowill rank the goals? 1 x 1 x 1 x 1 1 1

1.8 Does the model pro-vide for having stand-ards established foreach goal? " 2 2 . 2 , 2 x x 2 x X, , , ,

* fnlOortant factor

..,...,.

~ -

TABLE 3--Continued

'"~ ~tl u,

'" '",

u~ " ·

~~

::> '" .... <~... 0

~ ~ ·..... li ....~

u '" '" · '"~

....~ ~ '" !;:e; ~ ~ ::> '" 0

, , ,COMPONENTS YEs! NO YES NO YES'NO YE NO YES NO YES NO YES' NO YES NO YES NO,

2, 0 ASSESSlf~NT OFOBJECTIVES

2.1 Does the model in-clude a procedure tochoose tests and instru-ments according to theirgoals? * x x 2 2 2 2 2 x 22.2 Does the Model pre- Isent the sources whereevidence of stuuentstatus can be found? x x 1 1 1 1 1 x 1

2.3 Does the model in-clude provisions toassure reliability ofdata? * 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

2.4 Does the model 10- I I Ielude provisions for a

Idata sample from which , ! IIvalidity can be de- ,I I

,I 1 ,

,. .. ,.. .... i n ..~? * 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 ' 2, 2".

'"

TABLE 3--Continued

'"IIIZ

~~

u0 IIII '" IU

~ " ·~

~~

III H < ~~ ~ ~ ·.... ,.., ,..,

~u '" · i:lH 3 ~III

;2 '" . . · <'" :> '" ;:> '" 0

IYES' NO YESINO

, ,COMPONENTS YES NO YES NO YES NO YES NO YES NO YES NO YES NO

2.5 Does the assessmentinclude other additionalinformation besides stu-dent achievemcllt1 x 1 1 1 1 x 1 x 1

2.6 Docs the model 10-cluJe provic;iol1s to havethe instruments, whichare dcsi~neu to collectdata, pre-tested? 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

2.7 Does the model in-clude procectures to or-ganize and su~narize

the date on assessment? x x 1 1 x 1 1 1 1

3.0 IDENTIFICATION OFDISCREPANCIES

* important factor"'"

TABLE 3--Cont1nued

'"til'" ~

l;J tJ0 ,til '"

,i!!tJ §! tJ ·

~~

til H ..; '"~ ~ ~ · ....

~~ .... ....tJ (/) ... · '"

~H (/)

~(/) !;!... ..; . . ·

'" "' :> '" '" '" 0

YEsl NOI

YES! NO YES1 NO YES1 NO,

C011PONENTS YES- NO YES NO YES NO YES' NO YES NO

3.1 Does the model in-clude provisions aboutwho will conduct thediscre?ancy analysis? 1 x 1 1 1 x x x 1

3.2 Does the model in-clude provisions to testthe discrepancies forvalidity? * 2 x 2 2 2 x x x 2

3.3 Do~s the model docu-ment needs in quantifi-able terr:1s? )': 2 x 2 2 2 x 2 x 2

3.4 Does the model pro-vide for a statement ofneeds that includes:type of need, targetgroup. criteria, time,etc? * 2 x 2 2 2 x x x x.

-

* important factor '"...

TABLE 3--Continued

'"IIIZ

~!;l u

0 IIII '" I

~U '" '" ·

~~ Z III H ..:

~....~

~~ ·..... ~ ....

~u "" III ". · '"~

H 3 ~III !;(

"" . . ·'" :> '" ~ "' 0

COMPONENTS YES NO YES NO YES NO YES NO YES NO YES NO YES NO YES NO YES NO

3.5 Does the reodel gener-ate statc~cnts of needsthat rr.nke them immediate-ly useful in developingobjectives? 1 x 1 1 1 x x x 1

3.6 Does the statC!nJcnt ofneed contain the criti-cality of the need? 1 x 1 1 1 x x x x

4.0 PRIORITIZI~G NEEDS4.1 Does the model pro-vide for specific cri- *

2ceria to prioritze needs? 2 x 2 2 2 x 2 x

4.2 Does the model col-lect infornation from *the community, educatorsand students with regard .to criticality of needs? 2 . x 2 x 2 x x x 2

* important factor~

TABLE 3--Continued

'"'"z

~~

u0 I

'" '" I

Iu @ " ·~ i'l '" H < '"~

::>~ · ::l~

~....

u '" '" ~~H '" ~ '" !;l'" ;:i . ·'" :> '" ::> '" 0

COMPONENTS YESI NO YES! NO YES NO YES NO YES NO YES NO YES NO YES NO YES NO

4.3 Does the model pro-vide for a procedure toobtain a consensus on *the priorities of needs? 2 x x x 2 x x x x

4.4 Docs the w.odcl con-sider the list of needsas one step in a long-range process? 1 1 1 1 1 x 1 1 1

5.0 ADDITIONAL INFOlu~-

TION5.1 Does the model dif-ferentiate betweenlearner and institution-al variables? " 2 2 2 2 2 x 2 x 2

5.2 Does the model centerlon learner behavioralchanGes? * 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 x 2

* important factor~

'"

TABLE 3--Continued

'"'"Z

~ ~u

0 ,'" '"

,u

~C> ..: ~

~1:: '" H

~0

~ ~ ·~

~...,

~u '" 0. ·§ H '" ~ '" ~

~. ·"" ::> "' 0

IYES1 NO YES

1NO YE~ YES1 NOCOMPONE:<lTS IvES NO YES NO YES NO YES NO NO YES NO

5.3 Is "educational need"defined as the gap bee-\."een the current statusof the learner and the *desired learner outco:ne? 2 2 2 2 2 x 2 x 2

5.4 Docs the model pre-sent a step by step pro-cess clearly cxpl.:lincdthat could be followedby a school? .* x x 2 x x x x x 2

5.5 Does the model mnkeclear that the assess-ment of critical needsis a cyclical process? 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

5.6 Does the model clear-ly define roles and res-ponsibilities? x x 1 1 x 1 x x 1

5.7 Does the model pro-vide for a list of values x x 1 x x x 1 x x

Total , 41 20 45 38 43 20 35 12 38'"o

51

on it. The answer "no" means that the component was not

mentioned or whether mentioned was not explained.

The affirmative answer can have a value of 1 or 2

according to the degree of importance of the component. The

author's opinion is that some components of a needs assess­

ment model are more important than others. These factors,

if not implemented, can jeopardize the implementation of the

outcomes of the model. They represent crucial decisions

that have to be made in conducting a needs assessment.

the selection of components in the check-list was

based upon the related literature, reports from the studies

conducted by state departments of education, and the author's

own judgment. This judgment was the result of asking the

question: "What would happen in a needs assessment study if

this component would not be implemented? Would the desired

output of the model still be attained? Sometimes the answers

to those questions would not really affect the identification

of the discrepancies between performance and objectives.

These components will improve the study, if implemented, but

they are not so crucial for the develo?ment of the model.

Consequently, a value of 1 was assigned to the less important

components and a value of 2 to the ones that included highly

relevant components.

Nine models were analyzed and each model was assigned

a final weighted score from 0 to 51 points (see Tables 3 and

4). The models were also analyzed assuming that all the

•

52

components have the same degree of importance. A final un­

weighted score was given ranging from a to 32 points (see

Table 4).

The author points out "that the assignment of weights

in the component check-list is a tentative one. Other weight

systems can be developed and it is suggested that the reader

assign his own weights and rescore the models for specific

applications. An interesting study would be to find out

what is the most valid weight.

A criterion was established to determine tne level

of completeness of a model. If a model receives less than

35 or 22, respectively, weighted and unweighted scores, it

was considered incomplete. The above values correspond to

707. of the components.

Table 4 shows the results of this analysis. By ex­

amining the results, it can be seen that the rank order of

the models is almost the same, using unweighted or weighted

scores. The latter, however, makes better differentiation

among the models.

Several other models such as Schuck's Newport-Mesa

Unified School District; Stufflebea~'s Model; Houston Needs

Assessment System; RUPS--Research Utilization Planning Model

(Oregon); SPEGS--School Planning Evaluation and Communication

System; Elementary School Evaluation KIT; were also reviewed

but there was insufficient information to make an analysis of

those models.

53

TABLE 4

RESULTS OF THE ANALYSIS OF THE MODELS

Total Total

ModelsWl!ighted Unweighted

Value Rank Value Rank

. Eastmond 45 1 29 1

Sweigert 43 2 26 2.5

Kaufman 41 3 24 4.5

Oklahoma StateDepartment 38 4.5 26 2.5

Vella Kuuskraa 38 4.5 24 4.5

U.C.L.A.--CSE 35 6 22 6

N.A.E.P. 20 7.5 13 .' ' .. 7EPEPIC/TUCSON 20 7.5 12 8

Batelle NeedsAssessment 12 9 8 9

Summary

This paper has attempted to identify and describe the

components of a needs assess~ent model. A component check-

list was developed as a tool for analysing. such models. It

contains the principal factors that a needs assessment ~odel

should have.

The list was used for analysing nine models. The sel­

ection of models was based upon available information. The

models were scored using weighted and unweightcd scales.

Both scales revealed the s~nc three models to be incomplete.

•

54

According to Table 3 the N.A.E.P., the EPIC/TUCSON,

and the Batelle models scored lower than the criterion es­

tablished for completeness (less than 707. of the components).

This result means that the models are deficient in some of

the principal components in a needs assessment study.

The Batelle model is a survey. Definition of goals,

establishment of consensus, criticality of needs in terms of

discrepancy, etc. were not considered in the model.

The N.A.E.P. is a model for assessment. It does not

identify and, consequently, does not prioritize needs.

The EPIC/TUCSON model is said to be an evaluation

model. It uses some of the main components of a needs

assessment model, but not all of them.

The Component Check List also helps one to describe

the strongest part of each model. Probably, the model that

has been developed well enough to be applied, is the Eastmond

model. It contains clearly specif:~~ steps and shows how to

develop each one. The model can be applied at a state or

local level.

Sweieert's and Kaufman's models are the ones that,

from a theoretical point of view, offer more contributions.

Kaufman introduces the concept of needs as a discrepancy and

emphasizes the importance of a needs assessment study as the

first step in the whole systems analysis. Sweigert devises

a system to obtain consensus among groups. The characteris­

tics of a needs statement is also attributable to him.

55

The author suggests that other models of needs assess­

ment be analyzed, using the check list, and that each reader

create his own weight system.

•

56

REFERENCES

Alabama State Department of Education. Design for developing

a program of school improvement. Montgomery: 1973.

Arizona State Department of Education. Educational needs

assessment program for Arizona. Tucson: EPIC Diver­

sified Systems Corporation. 1971.

Batelle Memorial Institute. Batelle Community College needs

assessment. Columbus: 1973.

Bech, I. H" & Monroe, B. Some dimensions of simulation.

Educational Technology, 1969, 9(10). 45-49.

Browlee, R. L. Needs assessment: A position paper. Mont­

erey: Department of Program and Services CTB;

McGraw-Hill, 1971.

Colorado Department of Education. Materials and procedures

for assessing learner needs in Colorado. Denver:

1973.

Cornell, D. T. A systematic approach to needs assessment.

In E. W. Roberson (ED), Educational accountability

through evaluation. New Jersey: Educational Tech­

nology Publications, 1971.

Eastmond, J. N. Converting educational needs into goals

and objectives. Salt Lake City: Worldwide Education

and Research Institute, 1971, (a) .

Eastmond, J. N. Needs as~es~ment. A manual of procedures

for educ~tors. Salt Lake City: Worldwide Education

and Research Institute, 1971, (b).

57

Eastmond, J. N. Needs assessment source book. Salt Lake City:

Worldwide Education and Research Institute, 1971, (c).

Eastmond, J. N. The use of tests and measurements in edu­

cational needs assessment. Salt Lake City: World­

wide Education and Research Institute, 1971, (d).

Educational Commission of the States. National assess~ent

of educational progress. Denver: 1973.

Fine, T. W. Implementing a needs assessment program. Edu­

cational Technology. 1969, 9(2), 30-33.

Hammond, R. L. Evaluation at the local level. In B. R.

Worthen & E. M. Sanders. Educational evaluation:

Theory and practice. Worthington. Ohio: Charles A.

Jones Publishing Company, 1973.

Helmer, O. Social technology. New York, Basic Books, 1966.

Hoepfner, R. Selecting tests to assess needs. In Procedures

for needs assessment evaluation: A symposium. Center

for the Study of Evaluation--U.C.L.A. Report No. 67,

May 1971.

Idaho State Department of Education. Critical educational

needs in the State of Idaho. Salt Lake City: World­

wide Education and Research Institute, 1973.

Kansas State Department of Education. ~~at are the critical

educational needs of Kansas: a surr~ary report of

Project SEEK, Topeka: 1970.

Kaufman, R. A. A system approach to education: Derivation

and definition. Audio Visual Communication Review,

Winter, 1968.

, .

58

Kaufman, R. A. Determining educational needs: An overview.

ERIC Document 39631. October, 1969,

Kaufman, R. A. Educational system planning. Englewood Cliffs.

New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 1972.

Klein, S. P., et al. Procedure for needs assessment evalua­

tion: A symposium. Center for the Study of

Evaluation, U.C.L.A. Report No. 67, May, 1971.

Kuuskraa, V. A. Needs assessment. Washington, D.C.: Thompson

Levin & Associates, Inc., 1971.

Mager, R. F. Goal analysis. Belmont. California: Fearon

Publishers, 1972.

Melton. R. G. Needs assessment co~cn sense in education.

Sarasota: National Cluster Coordination Center, 1973.

Michigan State Department of Education. Michigan education~l

assessment program. Lansing: 1972.

Minesota State Department of Education. Minesota educational

assessment. St. Paul: 1973.

Mississippi State Department of Education. General educational

needs assessment. Jackson: 1972.

Missouri State Department of Education. Educational objectives

for the Stflte of rissouri. Jefferson City: 1973.

Nevada State Department of Education. Needs asses~mcnt guide­

lines. Carson City: 1973.

Newport ~1csa Unified School District. Instructional tasks

E!£J cct summary report. Newport Beach: 1973.

59

Oklahoma State Department of Education. Needs assessment.

Oklahoma City, 1973.

Oregon State Department of Education. Assessment of Oregon's

educational needs. Salem: 1973.

Pennsylvania State Department of Education. Educational

quality assessment. Harrisburg: 1970.

Provus, M. Evaluation of ongoin~ programs in the public

school systern. In Ralph W. Tyler (Ed.), Educational

evaluation: New roles, new means. Chicago: Univer­

sity of Chicago Press, National Society for the Study

of Education, 1969.

Stufflebeam, D. L. Educational evaluation & Decision Making.

Bloomington: Indiana, Phi Delta Kappa National Study

Committee on Evaluation, F. E. Peacock Publishers,

Inc., 1971.

Sweigert, R. L. The first step in educational oroblem solv­

ing: A syst~~atic assess~cnt of student benefit.

California: State Department of Education. Pledge

Conference, October, 1969.

Sweigert, R. L. Assessing educational needs to achieve rele­

vancy. Educat5.on, 1971, 91(4), 315-317, (a).

Sweigert, R. L. Ass~ssing stucc~t needs using the ESCO model.

Paper presented at the meeting of AERA. New York

City: February, 1971, (b).

Texas Department of Education. Asscss~cnt of selected educa­

tional needs. Austin: 1971.

60

Woodbury, 'c. A. & others. Research reodel for state educa­

tional needs assessment. Paper presented at the

meeting of AERA, 1970. ERIC Documenc No. 42263.

Yowa Department of Public Insturction. Iowa Title III needs

assessment report to U.S .. O.E. Des Moines: 1972.