All Value-Added Models (VAMs) Are Wrong, but Sometimes They May Be Useful
Saved in:
| Title: | All Value-Added Models (VAMs) Are Wrong, but Sometimes They May Be Useful |
|---|---|
| Language: | English |
| Authors: | Amrein-Beardsley, Audrey, Sloat, Edward, Holloway, Jessica |
| Source: | AASA Journal of Scholarship & Practice. Spr 2020 17(1):31-39. |
| Availability: | AASA, The School Superintendent's Association. 1615 Duke Street, Alexandria, VA 22314. Tel: 703-528-0700; Fax: 703-841-1543; e-mail: info@aasa.org; Web site: http://www.aasa.org |
| Peer Reviewed: | Y |
| Page Count: | 9 |
| Publication Date: | 2020 |
| Document Type: | Journal Articles Reports - Research |
| Education Level: | Elementary Education |
| Descriptors: | Value Added Models, Teacher Effectiveness, Elementary School Teachers, Teacher Evaluation, Validity, Reliability, Inferences, Evaluation Methods |
| ISSN: | 1931-6569 |
| Abstract: | In this study, researchers compared the concordance of teacher-level effectiveness ratings derived via six common generalized value-added model (VAM) approaches including a (1) student growth percentile (SGP) model, (2) value-added linear regression model (VALRM), (3) value-added hierarchical linear model (VAHLM), (4) simple difference (gain) score model, (5) rubric-based performance level (growth) model, and (6) simple criterion (percent passing) model. The study sample included fourth to sixth grade teachers employed in a large, suburban school district who taught the same sets of students, at the same time, and for whom a consistent set of achievement measures and background variables were available. Findings indicate that ratings significantly and substantively differed depending upon the methodological approach used. Findings, accordingly, bring into question the validity of the inferences based on such estimates, especially when high-stakes decisions are made about teachers as based on estimates measured via different, albeit popular methods across different school districts and states. |
| Abstractor: | As Provided |
| Entry Date: | 2020 |
| Access URL: | https://www.aasa.org/jsp.aspx |
| Accession Number: | EJ1249471 |
| Database: | ERIC |
| Abstract: | In this study, researchers compared the concordance of teacher-level effectiveness ratings derived via six common generalized value-added model (VAM) approaches including a (1) student growth percentile (SGP) model, (2) value-added linear regression model (VALRM), (3) value-added hierarchical linear model (VAHLM), (4) simple difference (gain) score model, (5) rubric-based performance level (growth) model, and (6) simple criterion (percent passing) model. The study sample included fourth to sixth grade teachers employed in a large, suburban school district who taught the same sets of students, at the same time, and for whom a consistent set of achievement measures and background variables were available. Findings indicate that ratings significantly and substantively differed depending upon the methodological approach used. Findings, accordingly, bring into question the validity of the inferences based on such estimates, especially when high-stakes decisions are made about teachers as based on estimates measured via different, albeit popular methods across different school districts and states. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 1931-6569 |
