Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Medical Journal of the Islamic Republic of Iran logoLink to Medical Journal of the Islamic Republic of Iran
. 2020 May 2;34:42. doi: 10.34171/mjiri.34.42

A review on inputs and outputs in determining the efficiency of universities of medical sciences by data envelopment analysis method

Mohammad M Mojahedian 1, Aeen Mohammadi 2, Mohammad Abdollahi 3, Abbas Kebriaeezadeh 4, Mohammad Sharifzadeh 5, Shadi Asadzandi 6, Shekoufeh Nikfar 4,*
PMCID: PMC7456438  PMID: 32884917

Abstract

Background: Increasing the number of students in universities, simultaneously limiting allocation of funds to them, and maintaining the highest efficiency level in education and research are of paramount importance. There are several methods to assess the efficiency of universities, and one of the most widely used of which is data envelopment analysis (DEA). The aim of this study was to determine the input and output criteria to evaluate the efficiency of universities of medical sciences through review-related articles using the DEA method.

Methods: The time limit for retrieving articles was considered from the beginning of the publication of the first paper in this field until the end of 2017. The data were retrieved from Web of Science, Scopus, Ovid, ProQuest, Science Direct, and PubMed using advanced searches. Inclusion criteria were as follow: relevancy of the articles to the purpose of the research, availability of the articles’ full-text, articles published to the end of 2017, and articles published in English.

Results: The most inputs used in the literature to determine university efficiency were number of academic staffs, budget and costs, number of students, number of nonacademic staffs, spaces, and equipment and student's entrance scores. Also, the most outputs used in the literature to determine university efficiency were number of graduates, publications, incomes, number of students, and student's scores.

Conclusion: This study showed that a large number of researchers have focused on measuring and comparing the efficiency of universities to improve efficiency, reduce costs, and manage the resources. Efficiency analysis by DEA allows the policymakers to define and develop policies and guidelines to improve their performances.

Keywords: Education, Efficiency, Data envelopment analysis, Inputs, Outputs

↑ What is “already known” in this topic:

By increasing the number of university students and limited funds allocated to universities, maintaining the efficiency of universities resources is necessary. Data envelopment analysis (DEA) method is one of the most widely used methods to evaluate efficiency of universities.

→ What this article adds:

To evaluate efficiency via DEA method, selecting outputs and inputs plays an important role. Results of this study determine most inputs and outputs that can be used to evaluate the efficiency of universities of medical sciences.

Introduction

Education is an important factor in human life and evidence suggests that it is directly related to the economic growth of a country (1, 2). Because of the social benefits of education, one of the ways to finance education cost has always been the public funding of countries. However, due to the high demand for public funding, optimum use of the public resources allocated to education is highly important. By increasing the number of university students and limited funds allocated to universities, maintaining the highest level of performance and using universities’ resources efficiently is of high importance. Therefore, understanding the efficiency of universities plays an important role in allocating funds to academic units. Also, one of the most important issues related to university management is determining the relative efficiency of units (3).

Generally, efficiency means using minimum resources to produce the highest output and product. More broadly, efficiency can be defined by doing the right things. Organizational efficiency should be continuously measured by making plans for improvement, providing information about organizational performances, and guiding the university toward its goals. Therefore, in recent years, a large number of researchers have focused on measuring and comparing the efficiency of decision-making units to improve efficiency, reduce costs, and manage resources and their subunits. Efficiency analysis allows universities’ policymakers to define policies and guidelines to improve their performances (4).

There are several methods to evaluate the efficiency of decision-making units, including universities. The data envelopment analysis (DEA), introduced by Charnes et al in 1978, is one of the most widely used methods, which uses multiple inputs and outputs. DEA is a linear and nonparametric method and is used to evaluate the relative efficiency of decision-making units (DMUs). The function of DEA is to evaluate the efficiency by multiple inputs and outputs data from the decision-making units and to evaluate the advantages as much as possible by assigning variable weights to each element of input and output (5). In this method, the best performance is given to a unit that produces the highest output with the lowest input and this unit is then used as the reference to determine the inefficiency of other units (6, 7).

In DEA method, the efficiency of each unit depends on the selected inputs and outputs, which are highly important, as inputs and outputs must reflect appropriate university resources and its specific activities. Also, DEA depends on the study objectives and does not provide guidance for selecting output and input (8, 9).

The aim of this study was to determine the inputs and outputs by reviewing the existing articles that have evaluated the efficiency of universities using the DEA method to evaluate the efficiency of universities of medical sciences. In Iran, universities of medical sciences are supervised by the Ministry of Health, while nonmedical universities are supervised by the Ministry of Science. However, in most countries, medical and nonuniversities of medical sciences are integrated. Therefore, in this study, all articles that evaluated the efficiency of universities were examined. Finally, the most frequently used inputs and outputs to determine the efficiency of universities was reported.

Methods

Data were retrieved from Web of Science (WOS), Scopus, Ovid, ProQuest, Science Direct, and PubMed databases using advanced search to extract and compile all articles related to the performance evaluation of universities using DEA method.

The time limit for retrieving articles was considered from the beginning of the publication of the first paper in this field until the end of 2017. The search process was conducted in November 2018 for 1 month. The keywords were obtained using MeSH terms and limited by expert opinions. The keywords used to retrieve the articles were compiled as follow: efficiency, efficacy, data envelopment analysis, DEA, university(s), college(s), faculty(s), school(s), and academic unit(s).

An example of strategies used in science direct database is as follows:

(“efficiency” OR “efficacy”) AND (“data envelopment analysis” OR “DEA”) AND (“university” OR “universities” OR “college” OR “colleges” OR “faculty” OR “faculties” OR “school” OR “schools” OR “academic unit” OR “academic units”).

The criteria for including articles to the study were as follow: relevancy of the articles to the purpose of the research, availability of the articles’ full-text, articles published up to the end of 2017, and the articles published in English.

Exclusion criteria were the lack of access to the text of the articles, unrelated subject area, other formats of the article, non-English articles, and review articles. Endnotes were used to remove similar articles, and if similar studies were found during reviewing the articles, they were removed by the researchers. The elimination and review process, including studying abstracts, and full-text of the articles were performed by 2 individuals separately; then, the results and contradictory items were determined. In cases where there was disagreements, a third person reviewed the article. After the articles were collected, data entered into a table containing the title of the article, inputs, and outputs. It was also found that the university's efficiency with respect to education and research was examined separately.

Results

The results of the reviewing process and selecting articles in terms of entry and exit criteria are summarized in Flowchart 1.

Flowchart 1.

Flowchart 1

The results of the process of reviewing and selecting articles in terms of entry and exit criteria

Open in a new tab

Table 1 presents the list of the most inputs used in the literature to determine efficiency of universities.

Table 1. List of the most inputs used in the literature to determine efficiency of universities .

Title of inputs Title of inputs used in articles
Number of academic staff Full-time equivalent faculty (10-12)
Number of academic staff (9, 13-60)
Number of professors (61, 62)
Academic staff full-time equivalent (63)
Number of fulltime equivalent academic staff (64, 65)
Full-time academic staff (66, 67)
Faculties (5, 68-73)
Total number of full-time professors (62, 74)
Rate of professors with PhD (62)
Rate of full-time professors (62)
Number of academic employees (75)
The number of residents, fellowships, and faculty members (76)
Number of faculty members (76-80)
Number of research assistant position (81)
Number of professor position (81)
Number of faculty members with PhD degree (76)
Number of teaching staff (82-86)
Professors and Assistant professors (87, 88)
Other researchers (88)
Share of faculty with degrees (77)
Academic Rating (89)
Ratio between full time academic staff and full-time students (90)
Research staff (48, 91, 92)
% of the faculty with doctorates (73, 93)
Faculty to student ratio (93-96)
Academic staff per student (97)
Number of domestic full-time faculty (7, 98)
Full-time teachers (99)
Number of academic staff Number of full professors (7, 100, 101)
Average number of teachers(102)
% of the faculty with associate professor position or higher (94)
Academic personnel (103-105)
Number of teachers (106, 107)
Number of Full time professors with a doctorate degree (108)
Number of assistant professors (7, 100)
Number of lecturers (101, 109)
Number of full-time academic staff + ½ times the number of part-time academic staff (110, 111)
Number of associate professors (7, 100, 101)
Number of full-time equivalent instructors (76, 80, 112)
Number of lecturers and assistant professors (87)
Total academic staff (113)
Number of professors per enrolled students (114)
Number of Teaching and Research Faculty (115)
Weighted number of academic staff (57)
Weight points of professor ranks (116)
Budget and Costs Revenue (13, 54, 113)
Grant-in aid for management (5)
Financial Resources (10, 24, 74)
Physical Resources (10)
Staff Expenditure (10)
Operating costs (14, 15, 35, 48, 117, 118)
Research funding (16, 45)
Expenses (21, 58, 109, 119, 120)
Resources (67)
Annual operating budget (18)
Internal research fund (18)
External research fund (18)
Annual Educational Expenditure (68, 70)
Non personnel expenditures (19)
Total income (19, 60, 72, 121)
Grants (69)
Other prime costs + taxes and charges (122)
Remuneration (122)
Intramural expenditure (20)
Weighted tuition (62)
Labor costs (75)
Government operating grant (21)
Staff costs (82, 123)
Expenditures (7, 12, 26, 31, 36, 37, 43, 44, 66, 105, 110-112, 124, 125)
Costs (28, 65, 92, 123, 126, 127)
Public funding (60, 77)
Financial Rating (128)
Ratio between expenditure and full-time students (90)
Operating expenses (7, 38, 40, 50, 51, 78, 106, 129-132)
Public expenditures (29)
Annual expenditure (79)
Academic support expenditures (71, 115)
Institutional support expenditures (71)
Instruction expenditures (71)
Personal expenditures (32)
Non personal expenditures (32)
Management expenses (74)
Government research funding (33)
Personnel expenses (133)
Research expenditure (7, 91, 94, 99, 131, 132)
Annual tuition (134)
Profit from donations (5)
Educational and general expenditures per student (93)
Government budget subsidy (34, 113)
Total funding per student (97, 135)
Research grants (36, 104)
Educational resources (136)
Services resources (136)
PhD candidates funding (137)
Public funds for each institution (102)
Education and research expenses (5)
Average monthly costs (138)
Total administrative costs (139)
Total financial resources and investment resources (80)
Funding (56, 140)
Operating budget (73, 83)
Total expenditure per student (97)
Library budget (83)
General expenditures (141)
General and administrative expenses (5)
Other costs than costs for staff (123)
Number of students Number of students (13, 17, 22, 23, 25, 27, 29, 43, 53-56, 60, 61, 76, 80, 82, 102, 107)
First joining graduates (11)
Total enrolment (11, 63)
Number of bachelor and students (64)
Number of undergraduate students (39, 44, 46, 52, 67, 71)
Number of graduate students (67, 71, 87)
Number of postgraduate students (39, 44, 46, 52, 94, 105, 110, 111)
Undergraduate enrollment (33, 62, 84)
Graduate enrollment (33, 62)
Total number of students enrolled (24, 85, 86)
Percentage of enrolments who attended a lyceum (25)
Student to faculty ratio (80, 134)
Number of licenses to award higher doctorate degrees (34)
Number of taught course students (36, 48)
Number of research students (36, 48)
Number of domestic students (98)
Number of licenses to award PhD degrees (34)
Number of international members (98)
Number of regular students (57, 102)
Number of active registered students (40)
Number of admitted postgraduate students (49)
Entering students (142)
Full-time equivalent enrollment (131)
Number of admitted undergraduate students (49)
The total number of first degree and other undergraduates (105, 110, 111)
Number of first year enrolled students (57)
Number of students including regular students (57)
Number of PhD students (60)
Full-time students (90)
Number of nonacademic staff Nonacademic staff (9, 14, 15, 18, 19, 24, 27, 29, 32, 35, 37-40, 42-44, 46, 49, 51, 54, 58)
Number of other employees (34, 61)
Full-time equivalents other staff (67)
Academic support staff (19)
Full-time equivalent personnel (20)
Administrative staff (21, 30, 56, 72, 79, 115)
Technical administrative staff (88, 92)
Ratio between total number of administrative and technical support personnel and full-time students (90)
Administrative personnel (145)
Number of workers (5)
Support staff (83)
Nonacademic personnel (130)
Full-time equivalent nonacademic staff (66)
Number of nonacademic teaching staff (59) other personnel (104)
Maintenance and operational personnel (19)
Management, quality control, and administration staff (19)
Space Space (14, 121)
Floor area (15, 45, 50, 99, 103)
Faculty Area (61)
Area of classroom (68, 70)
Area of laboratory (68, 70, 145, 146)
Land (122)
Buildings and civil engineering structures (122)
Number of available places (22)
Ratio between total space in square meters and full-time students (90)
Outdoor-indoor area (30)
Squared feet of construction (74)
Library collection size (99)
Area of the buildings (94)
Room space (41)
Square feet of facilities (112)
Number of places (57)
Work placements(147)
Usable departmental space (106)
Equipment Number of available seats (16, 23)
Total assets (21, 79)
Property, plant, and equipment (78)
Costs of equipment (133)
Value of noncurrent assets (37)
Library books (45, 94)
Expenditure on library and computing services (52)
Equipment (121)
Equipment expenditure (125)
Number of seats in lecture halls and in computer laboratories (84)
Total number of computers per enrolled students (114)
Capital equipment (115)
Equipment and facilities cost (127)
Number of books (106)
Students score prior to university Average scores of the entrance exam (15)
Weighted universal admission test score (62)
Weighted admission high school score (62)
Students’ education prior to university (148)
High school grades (149)
Percentage of students with a high score in secondary school (25)
First year students' average examination results (77)
Admission rating (128)
Percentage of students in top quartile of class (128)
SAT average or midpoint scores (93)
Minimum entrance score (80)
Quality of university entrants (143)
Mean A-level entry score in the last 3 years (52)
Number of first-year enrolled students with a score higher than 0.9 in secondary school (57)
Average GMAT score (95)
Students’ academic results prior to university (150)
Open in a new tab

Also, Table 2 shows the list of the most outputs used in the literature to determine efficiency of universities.

Table 2. List of the most outputs used in the literature to determine efficiency of universities .

Title of outputs Title of outputs used in articles
Number of graduates Number of graduates (5, 11, 13, 14, 17, 18, 21-24, 26, 27, 29, 30, 36, 38, 40, 43, 51, 54, 56-58, 60, 61, 63, 65, 72, 75, 76, 79, 82, 83, 85-87, 92, 98, 102, 107, 109, 115, 117, 122, 124, 126, 136, 142, 144)
Number of students graduating (64)
Graduate enrollments (119)
Number of doctoral graduates (18)
Number of graduates of master’s and doctoral degrees (76)
Number of graduates who received the board degree(76)
Graduation rate (36, 48, 90, 93)
Number of bachelor/master/PhD graduates (28, 55)
Graduates per year (78)
Number of master’s and doctoral graduates (74)
Total graduate students (97)
Total PhD degrees awarded (26, 97)
Number of graduates from research (36)
Number of postgraduate degrees awarded (39, 44)
Undergraduate completions (46)
Postgraduate completions (46)
Number of graduated PhD students (101)
Number of undergraduate degrees awarded (39, 44)
PhD completions (46)
Number of graduates from taught courses (48)
Number of graduating undergraduate/ postgraduate diploma/ master’s/ doctorate students (49)
Number of higher degrees awarded (52)
Number of first degree and other undergraduate degrees awarded (71, 110, 111)
Total number of graduates within institutional time (84)
Number of graduate students per academic year (113)
Number of graduated students (101)
Number of students graduated by the end of the legal period established to complete the degrees (57)
Last year graduates (59)
Number of master’s students graduated (101)
Graduate enrolment in master's level program/ doctoral stream program (7, 132)
Total number of first degrees awarded weighted by degree classification (105)
Number of higher degrees + total other postgraduate qualifications awarded (111)
Number of successful leavers (52)
Number of postgraduate degrees conferred (37)
Undergraduate and postgraduate qualifications awarded (33)
% of regular graduated students (82)
Number of undergraduate degrees conferred (37)
Publications Number of publications (13, 17, 20, 24, 26, 30, 36, 41, 45, 46, 48, 50, 51, 54, 62-65, 75, 77, 91, 94, 100, 106, 109, 113, 119, 127, 130, 141, 144-146)
Articles in indexed journals (10)
Indexed journals (10, 74)
Scopus papers (11)
Research publications (12, 16, 66, 73)
Number of publications in national and international journals (18)
Papers (5, 47, 68, 70)
Journal papers (41, 69)
Conference papers (69)
Total weighted publications (118, 120)
Number of written or translated books (76)
Numbers of published papers (32, 72, 74, 76)
Publication points of nationally visible publications (81)
Total number of ISI publications (88)
Number of citations (29, 109, 127)
Number of scientific articles (29)
Journal publications (79)
Number of indexed publications per academic staff (31, 94)
High quality publications (32)
Number of students Number of undergraduate students (5, 10, 15, 16, 31, 47, 65, 79, 83, 109, 115, 119, 125, 141)
Number of postgraduate students (10, 15, 31, 47, 105, 125)
Total number of inactive students (25)
Number of students enrolled (14, 35, 59, 78, 88, 124)
Number of students (26, 45, 75, 77, 112, 121-123, 126, 133)
Number of full-time equivalent students (37, 38, 73, 104, 120)
Number of dropout enrolments at the end of the first year (25)
Regular students (126)
Students with internships (128)
Number of bachelor/master/PhD students (28)
Number of inactive enrolments (25)
Percentage of students studying abroad/ international students/ students with university scholarships/ students with government ministry scholarships (34)
Number of postgraduate and undergraduate degrees enrolled (7, 37)
Number of degree-seeking international students/ exchange students/ collaborations (140)
Average enrolment per class (83)
Number of master’s and doctoral students (12, 141)
Weighted number of full-time students and full-time PhD students (34)
Domestic students (45)
Foreign students (45)
Number of undergraduate completions(66)
Number of postgraduate students per academic year (113)
Number of students per 10 000 population (135)
Number of enrolled full-time students per number of school-leavers who passed the state university entrance exam (135)
Number of new students (59)
Number of doctorate students per academic year (113)
Undergraduate enrolments (9)
Postgraduate enrolments (9)
Undergraduate enrolment in the sciences or other programs (132)
Number of students (127)
Number of teaching or research postgraduates (127)
Number of PhD students (123)
Students enrolled in scientific courses/nonscientific courses (123)
Student load (118)
Science/ nonscience/ research higher degree/ nonresearch higher degree student load (118)
Undergraduate enrolment in the sciences (7)
Students’ score Number of students with exam results in the top quintile (10)
Academic results of students (148)
Number of top-rank students in the board exam (76)
Mean scores of practical board exams and theoretical board exams (76)
Degree marks at the end of the first year (149)
Average graduates’ results (36, 48, 150)
Difference between last-year and first-year scores (114)
Students grade point averages (151)
Students exam score (116)
Success rate of undergraduate students (96)
Publications Number of internationally visible publications (81)
High quality publications (32)
International articles (91)
Domestic articles (91)
Research index (35)
Number of journal (136)
Number of printed books (136)
Internal printed papers (136)
External printed papers (136)
Refereed articles (137)
Nonrefereed articles (137)
Refereed articles in Dutch journals (137)
Nonrefereed articles in Dutch journals (137)
Number of books (5)
Impact of research (138)
Number of articles published in international journals (140)
Monographs (41)
Scientific production index (42)
H-index (146)
Citation index (45, 146)
Chapters in books and proceedings(137)
Score of scientific and publishing activity (143)
Total value of publication points (53)
Number of presented papers at international venues (87)
Virtual impact (73)
Compilations of educational group (151)
Number of journals and books published (56)
Income Research income (14, 15, 40, 42)
Income (44, 64, 65)
Doctor/master/bachelor degree Granting (68, 70)
Income from sales (122)
Gants (5, 62, 71, 91, 126, 132)
Income generation excluding government grants (21)
Fees income (21)
Amount of expended third party funds (81)
Total external research funding (24)
Research grants (27, 31, 51, 79, 92, 101, 105, 144)
Total revenue (78, 124, 145)
Public service expenditures (71)
Quantity of financial support (98)
Funds (102)
External research grants and contracts (102)
Contract research funds (5)
Profit from business (5)
Total income from students (139)
National scientific and educational collaboration expenditures (140)
Income from research and consultancy (39)
Total budget for accepted projects (141)
Number of formative credits (102)
Loan quantity (129)
Loan price (129)
External grants (103, 123)
Financial funds (41)
Number of degrees granted at 5 levels (131)
Total nonadministrative staff costs (139)
Revenues from national and regional research grants/ international research grants/ orders (146)
Ratio of nonbudget income to number of students paid (143)
National competitive grants (12, 46)
Industry grants (12, 46, 66)
Grants from science and technology activities (50)
Number of supported projects (109)
Income received in funding council grants and research grants and contracts (110-112)
Revenue from state government (112)
Total internal and external grants (87)
Number of research funded (56)
Public sector grants (12)
Total sponsored research expenditure (7)
Average salary and benefits (132)
Total expenditure (132)
External grants for research weighted by quality measure (123)
Project funding (106)
Number of active grants as a percentage of eligible faculty (7)
Open in a new tab

The list of most inputs and outputs used in the literature to determine efficiency of universities is presented in Table 3.

Table 3. Number of most inputs and outputs used in the literature to determine efficiency of universities .

Subject Input/output Number of articles included
Number of academic staff Input 113
Budget and costs Input 107
Number of students Input 50
Number of nonacademic staff Input 42
Space Input 23
Equipment Input 17
Students score prior to university Input 14
Number of graduates Output 75
Publications Output 69
Income Output 55
Number of students Output 50
Students’ score Output 11
Open in a new tab

Discussion

This study showed that in some studies, the efficiency of universities in the fields of education and research has been studied separately (36, 41, 42, 48, 53, 69, 76, 87, 88, 101, 104, 106, 118, 126).

In the extraction section for inputs for the efficiency section of universities, in 79% of the reviewed papers, the number of academic staffs were considered as one of the inputs, which included some titles such as an academic staff member, academic staffs, faculties, teaching staff, etc. In some of these articles, academic staffs were also classified according to academic rank (43, 66, 102).

Also, in 75% of the articles, the budget and costs were used as one of the inputs with headings like funds, income, financial resources, revenue, budget, expenditure, costs, grants, and spending.

In 35% of the articles, other inputs used to analyze the efficiency were number of students with different titles: total number of students, total enrolment, number of undergraduates, and postgraduates.

The number of nonacademic staffs, with titles as number of nonacademic staff, number of administrative staffs, other personnel, support staff etc., were seen in 29% of the articles; physical space, with titles as floor area, land space, number of room and etc., were observed in 16% of the articles; also, physical amenities, with titles as assets, equipment, physical capital, physical resources and etc., were used as an input in 12% of the articles.

Another input related to analyzing efficiency of universities used in 10% of the articles by the researchers was students’ entrance score with titles such as average exam score, minimum entrance score, mean entry score, etc.

The followings were also observed to be used as inputs: diversity of teaching materials (148), socioeconomic level of students (148), quality of teaching materials (148), number of research centers (76), human resources (24, 145-147), ranking of the university in the previous year (91), average students’ qualifications (36), discipline level (99), richness of course contents (152), diversity of accessed multiple teaching channels (152), average students and staffs qualification (48), student contact hour (112), teaching experience of members (147, 151), number of study programs (56), number of collages (59), number of electives (95), provision of work placement (147), and personnel characteristics (150).

Furthermore, in some articles, input factors were expressed as ratios: the ratio between full-time academic staffs, expenditures, number of nonacademic staffs, and total space to full-time students (90); student to faculty ratio (80, 134); educational and general expenditures per student (93); total funding per student (97); academic staffs and total expenditures per student (97); number of professors and computers per enrolled student (114); budget per student (116); faculty to student ratio (95); and average total spending per student (96).

In the section of output variable selection for analyzing efficiency of universities, in 52% of the articles, the number of graduates, and in 48% of the studies, publication, with titles of number of publication, number of articles, number of research papers, citation index and etc., were considered as outputs.

Income, with titles of income, grants, funds, revenue etc., in 38% of all articles, number of students in 35% of the articles, and student’s score, with titles such as academic results, the mean score of exam etc., in 8% of the articles were used as one of the outputs.

Some titles, including completion rate (15), volume of contracts (27, 61), patents (41, 56, 68, 70, 98), number of projects (41, 69, 76, 136), students’ level of satisfaction (24, 95, 121, 148), number of dissertations (41, 81, 96, 137), students who found jobs (36, 45, 99, 128, 134), papers presented in national and international conferences (76), retention and progress rate (35, 90), number of certificates (71), international collaborations (32, 98, 140), rank of university (32, 80), median starting salaries (45, 99, 134), freshman retention rate (93), employer preference for hiring alumni (34), number of awards (36), percentage of international students (34, 45, 140), number of intellectual awards (36, 48, 64), number of seminars (136), technology transfer (139), average number of classes taught per department (83), students learning performance (152), number of accredited educational, national program (108), number of infringement and turning over to the committee of peculiar cases (121), employer satisfaction with training of the student (112), employer satisfaction with graduate ability (95, 106), competencies (147), and achievements of students in competitions (106) were outputs used to assess efficiency of universities.

In addition, in some articles, outputs were expressed as ratios, including number of indexed publications per academic staffs (31, 94), average enrolment per class (83), ratio of income to the number of students who paid for education (143), number of graduate/ postgraduate/ doctorate students per academic year (113), and the number of students per number of school leavers (135).

Conclusion

In the reviewed articles, the number of academic staffs, costs, and number of students were the most important inputs; also, number of graduates, publications, and income were the most important outputs used to determine the efficiency of universities via DEA method. Moreover, we suggest the use of these inputs and outputs to evaluate medical universities and the efficiency of their faculties in future studies.

In this study, most of the universities included the faculties of medical sciences. Therefore, these data can also be used to measure the efficiency of universities of medical sciences using DEA method.

Acknowledgments

This study was part of the PhD thesis of Mohammad M. Mojahedian.

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Cite this article as:: Mojahedian MM, Mohammadi A, Abdollahi M, Kebriaeezadeh A, SharifzadehM, Asadzandi Sh, Nikfar Sh. A review on inputs and outputs in determining the efficiency of universities of medical sciences by data envelopment analysis method. Med J Islam Repub Iran. 2020 (2 May);34:42. https://doi.org/10.34171/mjiri.34.42

References

  • 1. Hanushek EA, Ruhose J, Woessmann L. Economic gains for US states from educational reform. NBER; 2015.
  • 2.Hanushek EA, Woessmann L. The role of cognitive skills in economic development. J Econ Lit. 2008;46(3):607–68. [Google Scholar]
  • 3. Kupriyanova V, Estermann T, Sabic N. Efficiency of Universities: Drivers, Enablers and Limitations. European Higher Education Area: The Impact of Past and Future Policies: Springer; 2018. p. 603-18.
  • 4.Witte KD, López-Torres L. Efficiency in education: a review of literature and a way forward. J Oper Res Soc. 2017;68(4):339–63. [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Aoki S, Inoue K, Gejima R. Data envelopment analysis for evaluating Japanese universities. Artif Life Robot. 2010;15(2):165–70. [Google Scholar]
  • 6. Cooper WW, Seiford LM, Zhu J. Handbook on data envelopment analysis: Springer Science & Business Media; 2011.
  • 7. McMillan ML, Datta D. The relative efficiencies of Canadian universities: a DEA perspective. Canadian Public Policy/Analyse de Politiques. 1998:485-511.
  • 8.Inoue K, Aoki S, Fukuoka K, Tsuji H. Data envelopment analysis for evaluating structure of input and output items. IEEJ Trans Electron Inf Syst. 2014;134:138–47. [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Avkiran NK. Investigating technical and scale efficiencies of Australian Universities through data envelopment analysis. Socio-Econ Plan Sci. 2001;35(1):57–80. [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Visbal-Cadavid D, Martínez-Gómez M, Guijarro F. Assessing the efficiency of public universities through DEA A case study. Sustainability (Switzerland) 2017;9(8) [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Sagarra M, Mar-Molinero C, Agasisti T. Exploring the efficiency of Mexican universities: Integrating Data Envelopment Analysis and Multidimensional Scaling. Omega. 2017;67:123–33. [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Lee BL. Efficiency of Research Performance of Australian Universities: A Reappraisal using a Bootstrap Truncated Regression Approach. Econ Anal Policy. 2011;41(3):195–203. [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Wolszczak-Derlacz J. An evaluation and explanation of (in)efficiency in higher education institutions in Europe and the US with the application of two-stage semi-parametric DEA. Res Policy. 2017;46(9):1595–605. [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Tran CTT, Villano RA. Input Rigidities and Performance of Vietnamese Universities. Asian Econ J. 2017;31(3):253–73. [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Tran CDTT, Villano RA. An empirical analysis of the performance of Vietnamese higher education institutions. J Furth High Educ. 2017;41(4):530–44. [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Podinovski VV, Wan Husain WR. The hybrid returns-to-scale model and its extension by production trade-offs: an application to the efficiency assessment of public universities in Malaysia. Ann Oper Res. 2017;250(1):65–84. [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Guccio C, Martorana MF, Mazza I. The efficiency change of Italian public universities in the new millennium: a non-parametric analysis. Tert Educ Manag. 2017;23(3):222–36. [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Kantabutra S, Tang JC. Efficiency analysis of public universities in Thailand. Tert Educ Manag. 2010;16(1):15–33. [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Veiderpass A, McKelvey M. Evaluating the performance of higher education institutions in Europe: a nonparametric efficiency analysis of 944 institutions. Appl Econ. 2016;48(16):1504–14. [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Pastor JM, Serrano L. The determinants of the research output of universities: specialization, quality and inefficiencies. Scientometrics. 2016;109(2):1255–81. [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Hock-Eam L, Taib FM, Abdullah NAH, Hwa YS. How efficient are Malaysian public universities? A comparative analysis using data envelopment analysis. Asian Acad Manag J. 2016;21(2):75–97. [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Guccio C, Martorana MF, Monaco L. Evaluating the impact of the Bologna Process on the efficiency convergence of Italian universities: a non-parametric frontier approach. J Product Anal. 2016;45(3):275–98. [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Guccio C, Martorana MF, Mazza I. Efficiency assessment and convergence in teaching and research in Italian public universities. Scientometrics. 2016;107(3):1063–94. [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Barra C, Zotti R. Measuring Efficiency in Higher Education: An Empirical Study Using a Bootstrapped Data Envelopment Analysis. Int Adv Econ Res. 2016;22(1):11–33. [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Barra C, Zotti R. A Directional Distance Approach Applied To Higher Education: An Analysis of Teaching-Related Output Efficiency. Ann Public Cooperative Econ. 2016;87(2):145–73. [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Agasisti T, Wolszczak-Derlacz J. Exploring efficiency differentials between Italian and Polish universities, 2001-11. Sci Public Policy. 2016;43(1):128–42. [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Agasisti T, Barra C, Zotti R. Evaluating the efficiency of Italian public universities (2008-2011) in presence of (unobserved) heterogeneity. Socio-Econ Plan Sci. 2016;55:47–58. [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Mikušová P. An Application of DEA Methodology in Efficiency Measurement of the Czech Public Universities. Proced Econ Fin. 2015;25:569–78. [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Kyratzi P, Tsamadias C, Giokas D. Measuring the efficiency and productivity change of Greek universities over the time period 2005-2009. Int J Educ Econ Dev. 2015;6(2):111–29. [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Gökşen Y, Doğan O, Özkarabacak B. A Data Envelopment Analysis Application for Measuring Efficiency of University Departments. Proced Econom Fin. 2015;19:226–37. [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Erkoç TE. Measuring efficiencies of Turkish public universities with non-parametric efficiency estimation method [Türkiye’de kamu üniversitelerinin etkinliğinin parametrik olmayan yöntem ile ölçülmesi] Hacettepe Üni Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi. 2016;29(3):124–36. [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Daraio C, Bonaccorsi A, Simar L. Rankings and university performance: A conditional multidimensional approach Eur J Oper. Res. 2015;244(3):918–30. [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Arjomandi A, Salleh MI, Mohammadzadeh A. Measuring productivity change in higher education: an application of Hicks–Moorsteen total factor productivity index to Malaysian public universities. J Asia Pac Econ. 2015;20(4):630–43. [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Nazarko J, Saparauskas J. Application of dea method in efficiency evaluation of public higher education institutions. Technol Econ Dev Econ. 2014;20(1):25–44. [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Tyagi P, Yadav SP, Singh SP. Relative performance of academic departments using DEA with sensitivity analysis. Eval Program Plan. 2009;32(2):168–77. doi: 10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2008.10.002. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Kuah CT, Wong KY. Efficiency assessment of universities through data envelopment analysis. Proced Comput Sci. 2011;3:499–506. [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Abbott M, Doucouliagos C. The efficiency of Australian universities: a data envelopment analysis. Econ Educ Rev. 2003;22(1):89–97. [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Fernando BIS, Cabanda EC. Measuring efficiency and productive performance of colleges at the university of Santo Tomas: A nonparametric approach. Int Trans Oper Res. 2007;14(3):217–29. [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Flegg AT, Allen D, Field K, Thurlow T. Measuring the efficiency of British universities: a multi‐period data envelopment analysis. Educ Econ. 2004;12(3):231–49. [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Katharaki M, Katharakis G. A comparative assessment of Greek universities’ efficiency using quantitative analysis. Int J Educ Res. 2010;49(4):115–28. [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Leitner KH, Prikoszovits J, Schaffhauser-Linzatti M, Stowasser R, Wagner K. The impact of size and specialisation on universities' department performance: A DEA analysis applied to Austrian universities. High Educ (Dordr) 2007;53(4):517–38. [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Martín E. Efficiency and quality in the current higher education context in Europe: An application of the data envelopment analysis methodology to performance assessment of departments within the University of Zaragoza. Qual High Educ. 2006;12(1):57–79. [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Taylor B, Harris G. Relative efficiency among South African universities: A data envelopment analysis. High Educ (Dordr) 2004;47(1):73–89. [Google Scholar]
  • 44. Flegg A, Allen D, Field K, Thurlow T. Measuring the efficiency and productivity of British universities: an application of DEA and the Malmquist approach. University of the West of England, Department of Economics, series Discussion Papers 2003;304.
  • 45.Tochkov K, Nenovsky N. University efficiency and public funding for higher education in Bulgaria. Post-Commun Econom. 2012;24(4):517–34. [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Worthington AC, Lee BL. Efficiency, technology and productivity change in Australian universities, 1998–2003. Econ Educ Rev. 2008;27(3):285–98. [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Yang F, Ang S, Xia Q, Yang CC. Ranking DMUs by using interval DEA cross efficiency matrix with acceptability analysis. Eur J Oper Res. 2012;223(2):483–8. [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Ali I, Pant M, Rana US, Jauhar SK. DEA for measuring the academic performance of a higher educational institute of Uttarakhand, India. Int J Comput Inform Syst Indust Manag Appl. 2017;9:206–17. [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Inua OI, Maduabum C. Performance efficiency measurement in the Nigerian public sector: The federal universities dilemma. Mediterr J Soc Sci. 2014;5(20):838–47. [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Do QH, Chen JF. A hybrid fuzzy AHP-DEA approach for assessing university performance. WSEAS Trans Bus Econ. 2014;11(1):386–97. [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Aziz NAA, Janor RM, Mahadi R. Comparative Departmental Efficiency Analysis within a University: A DEA Approach. Proced Soc Behav Sci. 2013;90:540–8. [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Athanassopoulos AD, Shale E. Assessing the comparative efficiency of higher education institutions in the UK by the means of data envelopment analysis. Educ Econ. 1997;5(2):117–34. [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Flégl M, Vltavská K. Efficiency at faculties of economics in the czech public higher education institutions: Two different approaches. Int Educ Stud. 2013;6(10):1–12. [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Parteka A, Wolszczak-Derlacz J. Dynamics of productivity in higher education: cross-european evidence based on bootstrapped Malmquist indices. J Product Anal. 2013;40(1):67–82. [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Mikusova P. Measuring the efficiency of the czech public higher education institutions: an application of dea. Eries. 2017;10(2):58–63. [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Alip M, Jati H. Evaluation of the efficiency of indonesian education university using data envelopment analysis during the year of 2010–2012. Adv Sci Lett. 2016;22(12):4109–11. [Google Scholar]
  • 57. Monaco L. Measuring Italian university efficiency: a non-parametric approach. MPRA. 2011.
  • 58. García Aracil A, Palomares Montero D. Evaluation of Spanish universities: Efficiency, technology and productivity change. DIGITAL. CSIC. 2008.
  • 59.El-Razik EA. Data envelopment analysis a technique for measuring efficiency. BJMCS. 2015;5(6):763. [Google Scholar]
  • 60.Agasisti T, Johnes G. Beyond frontiers: Comparing the efficiency of higher education decision-making units across more than one country. Educ Econ. 2009;17(1):59–79. [Google Scholar]
  • 61.Sharifian S, Ebrahimi A, Alimohammadlou M. An application of window data envelopment analysis methodology with double frontier in the performance assessment of Shiraz university colleges. Decis Sci Lett. 2017;6(3):269–82. [Google Scholar]
  • 62.Munoz DA. Assessing the research efficiency of higher education institutions in Chile: A data envelopment analysis approach. Int J Educ Manag. 2016;30(6):809–25. [Google Scholar]
  • 63.de la Torre EM, Gomez-Sancho JM, Perez-Esparrells C. Comparing university performance by legal status: a Malmquist-type index approach for the case of the Spanish higher education system. Tert Educ Manag. 2017;23(3):206–21. [Google Scholar]
  • 64.De La Torre EM, Agasisti T, Perez-Esparrells C. The relevance of knowledge transfer for universities' efficiency scores: An empirical approximation on the Spanish public higher education system. Res Eval. 2017;26(3):211–29. [Google Scholar]
  • 65.Tomkins C, Green R. An experiment in the use of data envelopment analysis for evaluating the efficiency of UK university departments of accounting. Fin Account Manag. 1988;4(2):147–64. [Google Scholar]
  • 66.Garcia-Aracil A. Understanding productivity changes in public universities: Evidence from Spain. Res Eval. 2013;22(5):351–68. [Google Scholar]
  • 67.Andersson C, Antelius J, Mansson J, Sund K. Technical efficiency and productivity for higher education institutions in Sweden. Scand J Educ Res. 2017;61(2):205–23. [Google Scholar]
  • 68.Wang CY, Lv XH, Zhao SK. The Relative Efficiencies of Research Universities of Science and Technology in China: Based on the Data Envelopment Analysis and Stochastic Frontier Analysis. Eurasia J Math Sci T. 2016;12(10):2753–70. [Google Scholar]
  • 69.Sahney S, Thakkar J. A comparative assessment of the performance of select higher education institutes in India. Qual Assur Educ. 2016;24(2):278–302. [Google Scholar]
  • 70.Chuanyi W, Xiaohong L, Shikui Z. The relative efficiencies of research universities of science and technology in China: Based on the data envelopment analysis and stochastic frontier analysis. Eurasia J Math Sci T. 2016;12(10):2753–70. [Google Scholar]
  • 71. Calhoun J, Hall JC. Data Envelopment analysis of relative efficiencies of public and private institutions of higher learning: Citeseer; 2013.
  • 72.Berbegal-Mirabent J, Lafuente E, Sole F. The pursuit of knowledge transfer activities: An efficiency analysis of Spanish universities. J Bus Res. 2013;66(10):2051–9. [Google Scholar]
  • 73.Al Kahtani NS, Malik SA. An investigation of technical and scale efficiency of public universities in Saudi Arabia. Res J Appl Sci Eng Technol. 2014;7(15):3087–93. [Google Scholar]
  • 74.Canal GY, Amado APG, Hurtado MG. Research Efficiency Assessment of Colombian Public Universities 2003-2012: Data Envelopment Analysis. Inge Cuc. 2015;11(2):97–108. [Google Scholar]
  • 75.Jablonsky J. Efficiency analysis in multi-period systems: an application to performance evaluation in Czech higher education. Cent Eur J Oper Res. 2016;24(2):283–96. [Google Scholar]
  • 76.Delavari S, Rezaee R, Hatam N. Technical efficiency of Shiraz school of medicine in research and education domains: a data envelopment analysis. J Adv Med Educ Prof. 2016;4(1):13–20. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 77.Abankina I, Aleskerov F, Belousova V, Gokhberg L, Kiselgof S, Petrushchenko V. et al. From equality to diversity: Classifying Russian universities in a performance oriented system. Technol Forecast Soc Change. 2016;103:228–39. [Google Scholar]
  • 78.Castano MCN, Cabanda EC. Performance evaluation of the efficiency of Philippine Private Higher Educational Institutions: application of frontier approaches. Int Trans Oper Res. 2007;14(5):431–44. [Google Scholar]
  • 79.Ho HF. Are universities in taiwan less efficient than top universities in the world? Rev Eur Stud. 2015;7(3):202–9. [Google Scholar]
  • 80.Celik O, Ecer A. Efficiency in accounting education: evidence from Turkish Universities. Crit Perspect Account. 2009;20(5):614–34. [Google Scholar]
  • 81.Clermont M. Effectiveness and efficiency of research in Germany over time: an analysis of German business schools between 2001 and 2009. Scientometrics. 2016;108(3):1347–81. [Google Scholar]
  • 82.Cantele S, Guerrini A, Campedelli B. Efficiency of Italian universities: The effect of controllable and non-controllable environmental and operational variables. Int J Public Pol. 2016;12(3):243–60. [Google Scholar]
  • 83.Arcelus FJ, Coleman DF. An efficiency review of university departments. Int J Syst Sci. 1997;28(7):721–9. [Google Scholar]
  • 84.Laureti T, Secondi L, Biggeri L. Measuring the efficiency of teaching activities in Italian universities: An information theoretic approach. Econ Educ Rev. 2014;42:147–64. [Google Scholar]
  • 85.Alam T. Efficiency of colleges at Prince Sattam bin Abdulaziz University, Al Kharj (A comparative study using data envelopment analysis) J Eng Appl Sci. 2017;12(15):3899–904. [Google Scholar]
  • 86.Alam T. The efficiency of colleges: Using DEA - A non-parametric approach. Int J Mech Eng Technol. 2017;8(8):1004–8. [Google Scholar]
  • 87.Saniee Monfared MA, Safi M. Network DEA: an application to analysis of academic performance. J Ind Eng Int. 2013;9(1) [Google Scholar]
  • 88.Bolli T, Olivares M, Bonaccorsi A, Daraio C, Aracil AG, Lepori B. The differential effects of competitive funding on the production frontier and the efficiency of universities. Econ Educ Rev. 2016;52:91–104. [Google Scholar]
  • 89.Aviles-Sacoto S, Cook WD, Imanirad R, Zhu J. Two-stage network DEA: When intermediate measures can be treated as outputs from the second stage. J Oper Res Soc. 2015;66(11):1868–77. [Google Scholar]
  • 90.Ruiz JL, Segura JV, Sirvent I. Benchmarking and target setting with expert preferences: An application to the evaluation of educational performance of Spanish universities. Eur J Oper Res. 2015;242(2):594–605. [Google Scholar]
  • 91.Yaisawarng S, Ng YC. The impact of higher education reform on research performance of Chinese universities. China Econ Rev. 2014;31:94–105. [Google Scholar]
  • 92.Kempkes G, Pohl C. The efficiency of German universities–some evidence from nonparametric and parametric methods. Appl Econ. 2010;42(16):2063–79. [Google Scholar]
  • 93.Breu TM, Raab RL. Efficiency and perceived quality of the nation's “top 25” National Universities and National Liberal Arts Colleges: An application of data envelopment analysis to higher education. Soc Econ Plan Sci. 1994;28(1):33–45. [Google Scholar]
  • 94.Johnes J, Yu L. Measuring the research performance of Chinese higher education institutions using data envelopment analysis. China Econ Rev. 2008;19(4):679–96. [Google Scholar]
  • 95.Colbert A, Levary RR, Shaner MC. Determining the relative efficiency of MBA programs using DEA. Eur J Oper Res. 2000;125(3):656–69. [Google Scholar]
  • 96. Afonso A, Santos M. Students and teachers: A DEA approach to the relative efficiency of portuguese public universities. ISEG-UTL Economics Working Paper 2005;(07).
  • 97.Cunha M, Rocha V. On the efficiency of public higher education institutions in Portugal: An exploratory study. University of Porto: FEP Working Paper. 2012:468. [Google Scholar]
  • 98.Chen JK, Chen IS. Inno-Qual efficiency of higher education: Empirical testing using data envelopment analysis. Expert Syst Appl. 2011;38(3):1823–34. [Google Scholar]
  • 99.Li G. Output Efficiency Evaluation of University Human Resource Based on DEA. Proced Engineer. 2011;15:4707–11. [Google Scholar]
  • 100.Abramo G, D'Angelo CA. Assessing technical and cost efficiency of research activities: A case study of the Italian university system. Res Eval. 2009;18(1):61–70. [Google Scholar]
  • 101.Kasim MM, Kashim R, Rahim RA. Development of a two-dimensional productivity measurement model for higher learning institutionsInt Rev. Manag Mark. 2016;6(7Special Issue):91–4. [Google Scholar]
  • 102.Agasisti T, Dal Bianco A. Data envelopment analysis to the Italian university system: Theoretical issues and policy implications. Int J Bus Perform Manag. 2006;8(4):344–67. [Google Scholar]
  • 103.Kao C, Hung HT. Efficiency analysis of university departments: An empirical study. Omega. 2008;36(4):653–64. [Google Scholar]
  • 104.Glass JC, McCallion G, McKillop DG, Rasaratnam S, Stringer KS. Implications of variant efficiency measures for policy evaluations in UK higher education Socio-Econ. Plan Sci. 2006;40(2):119–42. [Google Scholar]
  • 105.Johnes J. Data envelopment analysis and its application to the measurement of efficiency in higher education. Econ Educ Rev. 2006;25(3):273–88. [Google Scholar]
  • 106.Chang TY, Chung PH, Hsu SS. Two-stage performance model for evaluating the managerial efficiency of higher education: Application by the Taiwanese tourism and leisure department. J Hosp Leis Sports Tour Educ. 2012;11(2):168–77. [Google Scholar]
  • 107.Agasisti T, Bonomi F. Benchmarking universities' efficiency indicators in the presence of internal heterogeneity. Stud High Educ. 2014;39(7):1237–55. [Google Scholar]
  • 108.Altamirano-Corro A, Peniche-Vera R. Measuring the Institutional Efficiency Using DEA and AHP: the Case of a Mexican University. J Appl Res Technol. 2014;12(1):63–71. [Google Scholar]
  • 109.Turkan S, Ozel G. Efficiency of State Universities in Turkey During the 2014-2015 Academic Year and Determination of Factors Affecting Efficiency. Egit Bilim-Edu Sci. 2017;42(191):307–22. [Google Scholar]
  • 110.Johnes J. Efficiency and mergers in english higher education 1996/97 to 2008/9: Parametric and non-parametric estimation of the multi-input multi-output distance function. Manchester School. 2014;82(4):465–87. [Google Scholar]
  • 111.Johnes J. Efficiency and productivity change in the English higher education sector from 1996/97 to 2004/5. Manchester School. 2008;76(6):653–74. [Google Scholar]
  • 112.Bessent AM, Bessent EW, Charnes A, Cooper WW, Thorogood NC. Evaluation of Educational Program Proposals by Means of DEA. Educ Adm Q. 1983;19(2):82–107. [Google Scholar]
  • 113.Selim S, Bursalioglu SA. Analysis of the Determinants of Universities Efficiency in Turkey: Application of the Data Envelopment Analysis and Panel Tobit Model. Proced Soc Behav Sci. 2013;89:895–900. [Google Scholar]
  • 114.Zoghbi AC, Rocha F, Mattos E. Education production efficiency: Evidence from Brazilian universities. Econ Model. 2013;31:94–103. [Google Scholar]
  • 115.Sav GT. Productivity, efficiency, and managerial performance regress and gains in United States universities: a Data Envelopment Analysis. Adv Manag Appl Econom. 2012;2(3):13. [Google Scholar]
  • 116.Suescun OYB, Cubillos AAE, Cardenas DL. Technical Efficiency Measurement of the Teaching Function in the Undergraduate Attendance Programs at Universidad Militar Nueva Granada. Tecciencia. 2015;10(18):25–35. [Google Scholar]
  • 117.Sinuanystern Z, Mehrez A, Barboy A. Academic departments efficiency via dea. Comput Oper Res. 1994;21(5):543–56. [Google Scholar]
  • 118.Carrington R, Coelli T, Rao DP. The performance of Australian universities: Conceptual issues and preliminary results. J Appl Econ. 2005;24(2):145–63. [Google Scholar]
  • 119.Cherchye L, De Rock B, Hennebel V. Coordination efficiency in multi-output settings: a DEA approach. Ann Oper Res. 2017;250(1):205–33. [Google Scholar]
  • 120.Moradi-Motlagh A, Jubb C, Houghton K. Productivity analysis of Australian universities. Pacific Account Rev. 2016;28(4):386–400. [Google Scholar]
  • 121.Hamdi K, Lotfi FH, Moghaddas Z. An application of DEA in efficiency evaluation of universities. Int J Math Oper Res. 2014;6(5):550–66. [Google Scholar]
  • 122.Rzadzinski L, Sworowska A. Parametric and Non-Parametric Methods for Efficiency Assessment of State Higher Vocational Schools in 2009-2011. Entrepreneur Bus Econ Rev. 2016;4(1):95–112. [Google Scholar]
  • 123.Agasisti T, Bianco AD. Measuring efficiency of higher education institutions. Int J Manag Decis Mak. 2009;10(5-6):443–65. [Google Scholar]
  • 124.Cuenca JS. Efficiency of state universities and colleges in the Philippines: A data envelopment analysis. PIDS Discussion Paper Series. 2011 [Google Scholar]
  • 125.Beasley JE. Comparing university departments. Omega. 1990;18(2):171–83. [Google Scholar]
  • 126.Agasisti T. Cost structure, productivity and efficiency of the Italian public higher education industry 2001-2011. Int Rev Appl Econ. 2016;30(1):48–68. [Google Scholar]
  • 127.Beasley JE. Determining teaching and research efficiencies. J Oper Res Soc. 1995;46(4):441–52. [Google Scholar]
  • 128.Avilés Sacoto S, Güemes Castorena D, Cook WD, Cantú Delgado H. Time-staged outputs in DEA. Omega (United Kingdom) 2015;55:1–9. [Google Scholar]
  • 129.Fried HO, Lovell CAK, Turner JA. An analysis of the performance of university-affiliated credit unions. Comput Oper Res. 1996;23(4):375–84. [Google Scholar]
  • 130.Kao C, Hung H-T. Efficiency analysis of university departments: An empirical study. Omega. 2008;36(4):653–64. [Google Scholar]
  • 131.Sexton TR, Comunale CL, Gara SC. Efficiency-based funding for public four-year colleges and universities. Educ Fin Policy. 2012;7(3):331–59. [Google Scholar]
  • 132.McMillan ML, Chan WH. University efficiency: A comparison and consolidation of results from stochastic and non-stochastic methods. Educ Econ. 2006;14(1):1–30. [Google Scholar]
  • 133.Yang XM, Shieh CJ, Wu WC. Measuring Distance Learning Performance with Data Envelopment Analysis. Eurasia J Math Sci T. 2014;10(6):559–64. [Google Scholar]
  • 134.W Palocsay S, Wood WC. An Investigation of US Undergraduate Business School Rankings Using Data Envelopment Analysis With Value-Added Performance Indicators. J Educ Bus. 2014;89(6):277–84. [Google Scholar]
  • 135.Leshukov OV, Platonova DP, Semyonov DS. The efficiency of regional higher education systems and competition in russia. Econ Reg. 2016;12(2):417–26. [Google Scholar]
  • 136.Kiakojoori D, Aghajani H, Roudgarnezhad F, Alipour H, Kojoori KK. Performance appraisal of Islamic Azad University branches of Mazandaran province using data envelopment analysis. Aust J Basic Appl Sci. 2011;5(12):840–8. [Google Scholar]
  • 137.Cherchye L, Abeele PV. On research efficiency - A micro-analysis of dutch university research in economics and business management. Res Policy. 2005;34(4):495–516. [Google Scholar]
  • 138.Korhonen P, Tainio R, Wallenius J. Value efficiency analysis of academic research. Eur J Oper Res. 2001;130(1):121–32. [Google Scholar]
  • 139.Casu B, Shaw D, Thanassoulis E. Using a group support system to aid input–output identification in DEA. J Oper Res Soc. 2005;56(12):1363–72. [Google Scholar]
  • 140.Chang DF, Wu CT, Ching GS, Tang CW. An evaluation of the dynamics of the plan to develop first-class universities and top-level research centers in Taiwan. Asia Pac Educ Rev. 2009;10(1):47–57. [Google Scholar]
  • 141. Cinar Y. Research and Teaching Efficiencies of Turkish Universities with Heterogeneity Considerations: Application of Multi-Activity DEA and DEA by Sequential Exclusion of Alternatives Methods. arXiv preprint arXiv:170107318. 2016.
  • 142.Koksal G, Nalcaci B. The relative efficiency of departments at a Turkish engineering college: A data envelopment analysis. High Educ (Dordr) 2006;51(2):173–89. [Google Scholar]
  • 143.Abankina I, Aleskerov F, Belousova VY, Bonch-Osmolovskaya A, Petruschenko V, Ogorodniychuk D. et al. University efficiency evaluation with using its reputational component. Lecture Notes in Management Science. 2012;4:244–53. [Google Scholar]
  • 144.Sinuany-Stern Z, Mehrez A, Barboy A. Academic departments efficiency via DEA. Comput Oper Res. 1994;21(5):543–56. [Google Scholar]
  • 145.Agasisti T, Dal Bianco A, Landoni P, Sala A, Salerno M. Evaluating the Efficiency of Research in Academic Departments: An Empirical Analysis in an Italian Region. High Educ Q. 2011;65(3):267–89. [Google Scholar]
  • 146.Agasisti T, Catalano G, Landoni P, Verganti R. Evaluating the performance of academic departments: An analysis of research-related output efficiency. Res Eval. 2012;21(1):2–14. [Google Scholar]
  • 147.Joumady O, Ris C. Performance in European higher education: A non‐parametric production frontier approach. Educ Econ. 2005;13(2):189–205. [Google Scholar]
  • 148.Fuentes R, Fuster B, Lillo-Banuls A. A three-stage DEA model to evaluate learning-teaching technical efficiency: Key performance indicators and contextual variables. Expert Syst Appl. 2016;48:89–99. [Google Scholar]
  • 149.Barra C, Zotti R. Managerial Efficiency in Higher Education Using Individual Versus Aggregate Level Data. Does the choice of Decision Making Units Count? MDE Manage Decis Econ. 2016;37(2):106–26. [Google Scholar]
  • 150.Johnes J. Measuring teaching efficiency in higher education: An application of data envelopment analysis to economics graduates from UK Universities 1993. Eur J Oper Res. 2006;174(1):443–56. [Google Scholar]
  • 151.Esmaeili Z, Rezaeian SA. Evaluation of the performance of educational groups of Farhangian University, Province of Guilan, using data envelopment analysis and prioritization based on the AHP model. Res J Appl Sci. 2016;11(4):116–20. [Google Scholar]
  • 152.Montoneri B, Lin TT, Lee CC, Huang SL. Application of data envelopment analysis on the indicators contributing to learning and teaching performance. Teach Teach Educ. 2012;28(3):382–95. [Google Scholar]

Articles from Medical Journal of the Islamic Republic of Iran are provided here courtesy of Iran University of Medical Sciences

RESOURCES