Cost-effectiveness of Consultation for a Daily Report Card Intervention: Comparing In-Person and Online Implementation Strategies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Teachers can implement a high quality Daily Report Card (DRC) intervention when they receive face-to-face consultation or interactive online supports. Yet, it is unclear which method is most cost-effective. Using an ingredients-based approach and societal perspective, we examined costs and cost-effectiveness (compared to typical practice) of three implementation strategies (face-to-face standard consultation, face-to-face enhanced consultation, interactive online supports) with 112 elementary school teachers. Teachers received consultation for DRC implementation with one student with or at risk for ADHD. Over 2 months, we collected data on teachers’ implementation and changes in student behaviors. Regarding cost per student, enhanced consultation was the most costly ($864), followed by standard consultation ($634) and interactive online supports ($307). Regarding cost-effectiveness (costs required to achieve the desired effect beyond typical practice), interactive online supports were the most cost-effective followed by enhanced consultation and standard consultation. We discuss implications for research and maximizing outcomes given dollars spent.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".