Audrey Amrein-Beardsley, Matthew Ryan Lavery, Jessica Holloway, Margarita Pivovarova, Debbie L. Hahs-Vaughn
{"title":"Evaluating the validity evidence surrounding use of value-added models to evaluate teachers: A systematic review","authors":"Audrey Amrein-Beardsley, Matthew Ryan Lavery, Jessica Holloway, Margarita Pivovarova, Debbie L. Hahs-Vaughn","doi":"10.14507/epaa.31.8201","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Local education agencies (LEAs) continue to use value-added models (VAMs) for teacher evaluation policies and purposes, often with consequences attached. Although the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) provides more flexibility to LEAs, few have discontinued VAM use, suggesting they interpret VAMs as a valid measure of teacher effectiveness. In this systematic review, we used a framework built on the Standards of Educational and Psychological Testing (AERA et al., 2014) to examine validity evidence contained in 75 articles published in high-quality, peer-reviewed journals in which article authors supported or challenged user interpretations and uses of VAMs. Results with implications for educational policy are presented.","PeriodicalId":11429,"journal":{"name":"Education Policy Analysis Archives","volume":"16 6","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Education Policy Analysis Archives","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.31.8201","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1
Abstract
Local education agencies (LEAs) continue to use value-added models (VAMs) for teacher evaluation policies and purposes, often with consequences attached. Although the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) provides more flexibility to LEAs, few have discontinued VAM use, suggesting they interpret VAMs as a valid measure of teacher effectiveness. In this systematic review, we used a framework built on the Standards of Educational and Psychological Testing (AERA et al., 2014) to examine validity evidence contained in 75 articles published in high-quality, peer-reviewed journals in which article authors supported or challenged user interpretations and uses of VAMs. Results with implications for educational policy are presented.
期刊介绍：
Education Policy Analysis Archives/Archivos Analíticos de Políticas Educativas/Arquivos Analíticos de Políticas Educativas (EPAA/AAPE) is a peer-reviewed, open-access, international, multilingual, and multidisciplinary journal designed for researchers, practitioners, policy makers, and development analysts concerned with education policies. EPAA/AAPE accepts unpublished original manuscripts in English, Spanish and Portuguese without restriction as to conceptual and methodological perspectives, time or place. Accordingly, EPAA/AAPE does not have a pre-determined number of articles to be rejected and/or published. Rather, the editorial team believes that the quality of the journal should be assessed based on the articles that we publish and not the percentage of articles that we reject. For EPAA “inclusiveness” is a key criteria of manuscript quality. EPAA/AAPE publishes articles and special issues at roughly weekly intervals, all of which pertain to educational policy, with direct implications for educational policy. Priority is given to empirical articles. The Editorial Board may also consider other forms of educational policy-relevant articles such as: -methodological or theoretical articles -commentaries -systematic literature reviews
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
分享
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
扫码关注我们
