Comparison between the Electronic Version and Traditional Methods of a Test for Dyslexia: A Cost-benefit Analysis

Abstract

Background: The psycholinguistic ability testing of phonological and orthographic skills is one of the assessment tools to measure children’s learning development. The traditional method to administer the test has been face to face with a scale box. Continuing advancements in reducing the test burden are expected to provide new methods of network evaluation for medical assessment. Aims: To compare the electronic version with a net work evaluation and the face-to-face version of a psycholinguistic test and to conduct a cost-benefit analysis. Study Design: To calculate and compare the cost and benefit of two possible methods using the data from a cost survey when administering the traditional psycholinguistic test in a sample of outpatient children from the Chinese Capital Institute of Pediatrics as well as to predict the cost of the electronic version at similar consumption levels. Methodology: We sought to calculate the average cost per hour according to the average incomes of 283 parents of thousands of outpatients by counting the sub-costs of time and materials for a single test administered using both methods. We compared the numbers of cases that could be performed if the initial investments of the two versions were similar as well as the sub-costs inside and outside the family, the time and materials. We generated equations after Bayes’ discrimination with two groups with the test methods and used Fisher’s coefficient analysis as the number of cases increased. The Pareto chart demonstrated the ‘useful many’ and ‘vital few’ of the two methods. Results: The initial costs were assumed to be same for the production, design, data and platform needed for the electronic method and the reference norm constructed beforehand using the traditional method. The cumulative cost curves were typically U-shaped when the subsequent cases increased exponentially. The former method could analyze 5000 cases and the latter only 1000 cases given the balanced U-shaped curve. The sub-costs of the methods were compared with Bayes’ discrimination, and Fisher’s coefficient could form a common trend equation showing a 20/80% phenomenon by classification. Therefore a Pareto chart was subsequently generated. The highest sub-cost was ‘in the family’ with the electronic online method; the traditional assessment method gave priority to ‘time consumption’ with the lowest sub-cost of materials greater than the highest consumption with the electronic method. The results showed that the network evaluation method was far favorable to the face to face format, especially as the scale matured, and its use became more widespread. Conclusions: Dyslexia is a chronic, non-medicinally treated brain disorder. An electronic method for screening would save more time and money for family assessments in Chinese cities.