TY - JOUR
T1 - Potential sources of invalidity when using teacher value-added and principal observational estimates
T2 - artificial inflation, deflation, and conflation
AU - Amrein-Beardsley, Audrey
AU - Geiger, Tray J.
N1 - Funding Information:
This study was supported by the Academy of Finland (grant 123621 for L.P.-R., grants 209514, 209518 and 1111056 for L.K-J.), the Research Funds of the University of Helsinki (project no. 2106012 for L.P.-R.), the Social insurance institution of Finland, he Finnish Foundation of Cardiovascular Research, the Signe and Ane Gyllenberg Foundation for L.K-J,the Emil Aaltonen Foundation (T.L.) and the Tampere University Hospital Medical Fund (T.L.). The funding sources had neither been involved in the submission of the manuscript nor in the decision to publish the data. There are no conflicts of interest regarding this manuscript.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2019, Springer Nature B.V.
PY - 2019/11/1
Y1 - 2019/11/1
N2 - Contemporary teacher evaluation policies are built upon multiple-measure systems including, primarily, teacher-level value-added and observational estimates. However, researchers have not yet investigated how using these indicators to evaluate teachers might distort validity, especially when one indicator seemingly trumps, or is trusted over the other. Accordingly, in this conceptual piece, we introduce and begin to establish evidences of three conceptual terms related to the validity of the inferences derived via these two measures in the context of teacher evaluation: (1) artificial inflation, (2) artificial deflation, and (3) artificial conflation. We define these terms by illustrating how those with the power to evaluate teachers (e.g., principals) within such contemporary evaluation systems might (1) artificially inflate or (2) artificially deflate observational estimates when used alongside their value-added counterparts, or (3) artificially conflate both estimates to purposefully (albeit perhaps naïvely) exaggerate perceptions of validity.
AB - Contemporary teacher evaluation policies are built upon multiple-measure systems including, primarily, teacher-level value-added and observational estimates. However, researchers have not yet investigated how using these indicators to evaluate teachers might distort validity, especially when one indicator seemingly trumps, or is trusted over the other. Accordingly, in this conceptual piece, we introduce and begin to establish evidences of three conceptual terms related to the validity of the inferences derived via these two measures in the context of teacher evaluation: (1) artificial inflation, (2) artificial deflation, and (3) artificial conflation. We define these terms by illustrating how those with the power to evaluate teachers (e.g., principals) within such contemporary evaluation systems might (1) artificially inflate or (2) artificially deflate observational estimates when used alongside their value-added counterparts, or (3) artificially conflate both estimates to purposefully (albeit perhaps naïvely) exaggerate perceptions of validity.
KW - Accountability
KW - Educational policy
KW - Educational reform
KW - Teacher evaluation
KW - Validity
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85075904133&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85075904133&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1007/s11092-019-09311-w
DO - 10.1007/s11092-019-09311-w
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:85075904133
SN - 1874-8597
VL - 31
SP - 465
EP - 493
JO - Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability
JF - Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability
IS - 4
ER -