03 · What You Need to Know
Understanding Cost and Resource Use in Feasibility Research
What Is Resource Feasibility?
Resource feasibility concerns whether the personnel, infrastructure, equipment, funding, time, and organizational support needed for a proposed study are available and sufficient.
For example, a university may have access to the required participants and research instruments but lack enough trained assessors to collect outcome data within the proposed schedule.
Another study may require software licenses, secure data storage, or specialist statistical support that exceeds available resources.
Resource feasibility is therefore broader than the financial budget alone.
Researchers should identify the resources necessary to implement the study as intended and determine whether those requirements can be met under realistic conditions.
Why Should Cost and Resource Use Be Feasibility Outcomes?
A definitive study can fail operationally even when its methodological design is appropriate.
For example, a multisite intervention may recruit enough participants but require substantially more coordination and technical support than the research team can provide.
A feasibility study can reveal these demands before the definitive project begins.
Cost and resource information may also inform whether procedures should be simplified, staffing increased, recruitment extended, or additional funding obtained.
However, the importance of formal resource measurement depends on the study.
Where costs and staffing requirements are already well established, additional feasibility assessment may contribute little.
What Is the Difference Between Cost and Resource Use?
Resource use concerns the quantities of inputs consumed by an activity.
Cost concerns the monetary value assigned to those inputs.
Resource use
The quantities of resources consumed, such as staff hours, training sessions, software licenses, equipment use, or participant travel.
Cost
The monetary value assigned to the resources used, according to the selected perspective, valuation method, and price basis.
For example, a research assistant may spend 20 hours screening participants. The resource use is 20 staff hours.
The associated cost depends on the relevant labor valuation, which may include salary and applicable employment-related costs.
Researchers should document resource quantities separately from monetary valuations where practical, because prices may differ across institutions and periods.
Which Resources Should Be Examined?
The relevant resources depend on the study design and its operational requirements.
| Resource category |
Possible measurement |
Potential feasibility concern |
| Research personnel |
Staff hours by task and role |
Insufficient staffing or excessive workload |
| Recruitment |
Screening time, communication costs, recruitment materials |
Enrollment requires more resources than anticipated. |
| Participant follow-up |
Reminder contacts, assessment time, support requirements |
Repeated follow-up becomes expensive or difficult to sustain. |
| Training |
Training hours, materials, specialist assistance |
Implementers require additional preparation. |
| Intervention delivery |
Sessions, staff time, materials, technical support |
Delivery demands exceed available capacity. |
| Technology |
Licenses, computing, storage, maintenance, support |
Infrastructure is unavailable or financially impractical. |
| Outcome assessment |
Assessment time, equipment, scoring, assessor training |
Measurement costs threaten the study timeline or budget. |
| Data management |
Entry, verification, storage, processing, analysis support |
Data processing requires unanticipated resources. |
| Institutional coordination |
Administrative time, approvals, site management |
Multisite coordination becomes burdensome. |
Researchers should prioritize resources whose availability or cost could affect progression to the definitive study.
Should Research Costs Be Distinguished From Intervention Costs?
Yes. This distinction is particularly important when a feasibility study prepares an intervention evaluation.
Research costs are incurred because the study is being conducted. They may include recruitment, randomization, research-only assessments, data management, and statistical analysis.
Intervention costs concern the resources required to deliver the intervention itself.
For example, an AI-supported feedback intervention may require software access and teacher review time during ordinary implementation.
The research team may also require additional assessments and data verification procedures that would not be necessary if the intervention were delivered routinely.
Combining these costs without distinction may overestimate the resources required for routine implementation or underestimate the actual research budget.
What Is the Difference Between Financial Cost and Economic Cost?
Financial cost generally concerns monetary expenditure incurred by an organization or individual.
Economic cost may also account for the value of resources used even when no direct payment occurs.
For example, a university may provide staff time or existing facilities without charging the research project directly.
Those resources may nevertheless have an opportunity cost because they could have been used for other activities.
The distinction depends on the purpose and perspective of the assessment.
Researchers should explain whether they are estimating actual budget expenditure, broader economic resource use, or both.
What Is a Costing Perspective?
A costing perspective specifies whose costs are considered.
Possible perspectives include the research funder, participating institution, intervention provider, participant, or a broader societal perspective.
For example, a university-focused budget may include staff salaries, technology expenses, and institutional support.
A participant perspective may consider travel, internet expenses, or time required to complete research activities.
Different perspectives can produce different cost estimates for the same intervention.
Researchers should specify the perspective before deciding which resources to measure.
Should Participant Costs Be Included?
Participant costs may be relevant when participation requires substantial time, travel, equipment, internet access, or other resources.
For example, an online intervention may appear inexpensive to the institution while requiring students to use personal devices and connectivity.
These demands may affect accessibility and participation.
However, not every feasibility study requires comprehensive participant cost estimation.
The decision should depend on the study's purpose, costing perspective, and whether participant resource demands could affect feasibility or equity.
Researchers should avoid assuming that an activity is cost-free simply because the institution does not pay for it.
How Can Staff Time Be Measured?
Staff time may be measured through activity logs, time records, structured observations, or other suitable procedures.
For example, researchers may record the time spent screening participants, delivering training, administering assessments, and resolving technical problems.
However, self-reported time estimates may be affected by recall error, while intensive time recording can create additional administrative burden.
The measurement approach should balance precision with practicality.
Researchers should define the activities being recorded and avoid double-counting time shared across tasks.
How Do You Calculate Cost Per Participant Recruited?
Cost per recruited participant can help researchers understand the resource requirements of recruitment.
This result describes average recruitment cost under the observed conditions.
It does not establish that recruiting additional participants will cost the same amount or that the recruitment method is the most efficient available.
Fixed costs, recruitment channel differences, and changes in the eligible population may affect future costs.
How Do You Estimate Intervention Delivery Cost?
A practical approach is to identify the resources required for each intervention activity, measure their quantities, and assign appropriate unit costs.
For example, teacher training may require facilitator time, participant time, materials, and technical support.
Weekly intervention delivery may require additional teacher hours and software access.
Researchers should distinguish one-time setup costs from recurring delivery costs.
They should also consider whether resources are shared across participants or sites.
Average cost per participant may change as the intervention expands, particularly when fixed costs are distributed across more users.
Should Fixed and Variable Costs Be Separated?
Yes, when the distinction is important for scaling the definitive study.
Fixed costs do not necessarily change in direct proportion to the number of participants within a relevant range.
Examples may include initial software configuration, development of training materials, or equipment purchase.
Variable costs may increase with participant numbers, intervention sessions, or assessment volume.
For example, a platform setup cost may be incurred once, while individualized teacher review time increases as more students participate.
Separating these categories can improve projections, although real-world costs may not fit perfectly into simple fixed and variable classifications.
Can Pilot Costs Be Extrapolated to the Definitive Study?
They can inform projections, but direct extrapolation requires caution.
For example, multiplying the pilot cost per participant by the planned definitive sample may be misleading if the pilot includes substantial setup costs.
It may also underestimate costs if larger implementation requires additional coordination, infrastructure, or supervision.
Researchers should identify which resources are likely to scale with participant numbers and which may change differently.
Scenario-based estimates may be more useful than one simple multiplication.
Any projection should state its assumptions and acknowledge uncertainty.
How Does Multisite Research Affect Resource Feasibility?
Multisite studies may involve additional coordination, training, communication, data management, and monitoring.
For example, a research team may need local coordinators at several universities to manage recruitment and intervention delivery.
Some costs may be shared across sites, while others may be incurred separately at each institution.
Researchers should examine variation in staffing, infrastructure, and local requirements.
A single average site cost may conceal important differences.
Feasibility findings from one institution should not automatically be treated as representative of every intended location.
Should Technology Costs Be Measured in Educational Research?
Technology costs may be consequential when the intervention or data collection procedures depend on software, computing infrastructure, storage, or technical assistance.
For example, an AI-supported feedback system may involve usage-based computing expenses, platform subscriptions, teacher training, and monitoring requirements.
Some expenses may change with the number of users or the volume of generated content.
Researchers should distinguish actual expenditure from estimated future usage and verify relevant pricing through the responsible provider when budgeting.
Because software pricing and service arrangements may change, definitive budgets should use current documented terms rather than assume that preliminary prices will remain fixed.
What About Donated or Existing Institutional Resources?
Resources provided without direct charge may still be relevant to feasibility.
For example, a university may allow researchers to use existing computer laboratories, staff support, or institutional software.
These arrangements may reduce direct project expenditure but do not necessarily eliminate resource constraints.
Researchers should document whether access is guaranteed, temporary, shared, or dependent on institutional approval.
Where an economic perspective is used, the opportunity cost of such resources may also require consideration.
The chosen valuation approach should be explicit.
How Is Resource Feasibility Different From Cost-Effectiveness?
Resource feasibility asks whether the proposed research or intervention can be implemented within available resources.
Cost-effectiveness analysis examines the relationship between costs and outcomes when comparing alternatives.
Resource feasibility assessment
Examines whether the necessary inputs are available, affordable, and practical for the proposed study or intervention.
Cost-effectiveness analysis
Compares costs and relevant outcomes of alternatives using a defined economic evaluation framework.
A feasibility study may collect resource-use information needed for a future economic evaluation.
However, it is commonly not designed to establish definitive cost-effectiveness, particularly when effectiveness estimates are imprecise.
Researchers should avoid interpreting low implementation cost as proof that an intervention provides good value.
Should a Feasibility Study Include a Preliminary Economic Evaluation?
It may be appropriate when the definitive study will include an economic evaluation and important uncertainties concern the methods for collecting cost or outcome information.
For example, researchers may test whether resource-use questionnaires are understandable or whether institutional records can provide the required cost data.
They may also examine whether unit cost information is available and whether the intended economic analysis can be implemented.
However, a small pilot is unlikely to provide precise comparative cost-effectiveness estimates.
The emphasis should be on the feasibility of economic data collection and analysis rather than definitive economic conclusions.
What Is the Role of the CHEERS Reporting Guidance?
The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards, known as CHEERS, provide guidance for reporting health economic evaluations.
The CHEERS 2022 statement addresses reporting elements such as study perspective, resources and costs, valuation, and uncertainty.
However, CHEERS is not a mandatory reporting framework for every resource feasibility study, particularly outside health economics.
Researchers conducting educational cost evaluations may draw on relevant economic principles while selecting reporting guidance appropriate to their discipline and study purpose.
Frameworks should support transparent reporting rather than be applied mechanically to unrelated designs.
Should Resource Use Be a Primary Feasibility Outcome?
It may be primary when uncertainty about resources represents the central obstacle to conducting the definitive study.
For example, a proposed intervention may require substantial specialist staff time, and the research team may not know whether that workload can be sustained.
In such circumstances, resource requirements may determine whether the design is practical.
However, costs need not be primary when recruitment, intervention adherence, or outcome completeness is more consequential.
The choice should follow the feasibility objectives rather than a universal requirement to prioritize financial indicators.
How Large Should a Resource Feasibility Study Be?
There is no universal sample size.
A focused assessment may identify the resources required for a particular procedure, while a multisite study may need observations across different institutional contexts.
Estimating average resource use with useful precision may require more observations than identifying obvious staffing or technical barriers.
The relevant unit may also be a site, staff member, session, or participant rather than only the number of individuals enrolled.
Researchers should justify the scope according to the resource uncertainties and decisions being investigated.
How Should Uncertainty in Cost Estimates Be Handled?
Cost estimates may be uncertain because of limited observations, variable resource use, changing prices, or assumptions about future implementation.
Researchers should identify the most consequential assumptions and consider plausible alternative scenarios.
For example, the definitive budget may differ depending on whether teacher review time averages 10 or 20 minutes per student activity.
A sensitivity analysis can examine how projected costs change under these assumptions.
However, sensitivity analysis does not establish which scenario will occur.
Researchers should communicate uncertainty rather than present preliminary estimates as precise future expenditure.
What Is a Resource-Use Progression Criterion?
A resource-use progression criterion specifies how observed requirements will inform whether the definitive study proceeds.
For example, a research team may establish a maximum sustainable staff workload based on available personnel and the proposed implementation schedule.
Another study may require that essential intervention delivery costs remain within a documented funding limit.
However, progression criteria should reflect genuine constraints rather than arbitrary cost thresholds.
Some expensive procedures may be necessary for methodological quality or participant safety.
Researchers should not automatically eliminate essential safeguards simply to meet a financial target.
Should Cost Criteria Use Green, Amber, and Red Categories?
A traffic-light approach may support decisions when resource thresholds can be justified.
Green might indicate that resource requirements are compatible with available capacity, amber that modifications or additional resources are needed, and red that the proposed design cannot proceed under current conditions.
However, categories should be interpreted with attention to uncertainty and possible corrective actions.
A high preliminary cost may reflect one-time setup expenses rather than recurring expenditure.
The green-amber-red approach to progression criteria should therefore support informed judgment rather than impose mechanical decisions.
What If the Feasibility Study Reveals Higher Costs Than Expected?
Researchers should identify which activities account for the difference.
For example, additional expenditure may arise from recruitment delays, staff training, technical support, or repeated assessments.
Some costs may be reduced through better scheduling or more efficient procedures.
Others may represent essential requirements that should be funded rather than eliminated.
Researchers should distinguish modifications that improve efficiency from changes that compromise the study's methodological integrity.
Substantial redesign may require further feasibility testing.
Can Low Costs Indicate Good Feasibility?
Low resource requirements may support feasibility when essential procedures can be implemented adequately.
However, low costs do not automatically indicate good research quality or efficient implementation.
For example, reducing assessor training may lower expenditure while increasing measurement inconsistency.
Similarly, eliminating technical support may create barriers for participants.
Resource feasibility should therefore be interpreted alongside data completeness, intervention delivery, and other essential feasibility outcomes.
How Should Cost and Resource Findings Be Reported?
The report should specify the costing perspective, observation period, resource categories, measurement methods, and monetary valuation assumptions.
Researchers should distinguish research-only costs from intervention delivery costs where relevant.
Resource quantities and unit costs should be reported separately when practical.
Where monetary estimates are provided, the currency and price year should be stated.
Findings should explain important limitations, uncertainty, and assumptions used for definitive-study projections.
The discussion should connect resource requirements to the decision about whether and how the proposed study can proceed.
Watch Out
Do not assume that pilot cost per participant can be multiplied directly by the definitive sample size to obtain an accurate budget. Setup costs, shared resources, capacity limits, and changes in implementation scale may alter costs substantially. Also distinguish the cost of conducting research from the cost of delivering the intervention in routine practice.
