,
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.
Top Related