Distorting Value Added: The Use of Longitudinal, Vertically Scaled Student Achievement Data for Growth-Based, Value-Added Accountability

By Joseph A. Martineau. 2006

151 citations recorded by the source corpus.

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/ac5af9e70993aea006e38028e6401c0becd3b71f

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

Citations in the corpus

A Model for Teacher Effects From Longitudinal Data Without Assuming Vertical Scaling (2010, background): “For example, Martineau (2006) shows that when the content mix measured by tests is shifting across grades, models that assume CP can yield severely biased estimate of teacher effects and that bias can also result with the VP model of McCaffrey et al. (J. Martineau, personal communication, October…”
Assessing Rothstein's critique of teacher value‐added models (2012, background): “3See, for example, Kane and Staiger (2002), Amrein-Beardsley (2008), Harris and Sass (2011), Martineau (2006), Koedel and Betts (2010b), and Koretz (2002).”
Student Sorting and Bias in Value-Added Estimation: Selection on Observables and Unobservables (2009, unknown): “This is central to my strategy because it enables me to recover the amount of sorting on the unobserved variables W by measuring the degree of sorting on the observed variables Z. Assignments may depend in part on the nonpredictive variables, η, however.”
Teacher Quality in Educational Production. Tracking, Decay, and Student Achievement. NBER Working Paper No. 14442. (2008, unknown): “30 While several 30 Although a full discussion is beyond the scope of this paper, assumptions about " decay " are closely related to issues of test scaling and content coverage (Rothstein, 2008; Ballou, 2008; Martineau, 2006).”
Correcting for Test Score Measurement Error in ANCOVA Models for Estimating Treatment Effects (2014, background): “‘‘Vertical’’ or ‘‘developmental’’ scales are designed to have this property, but psychometricians caution that such scales might not live up to the ideal (Reckase, 2004; Schafer, 2006) and that inferences about the impacts of educational factors on student progress can be sensitive to scale properti”
The Sensitivity of Value‐Added Teacher Effect Estimates to Different Mathematics Achievement Measures (2007, background): “…VALUE-ADDED MEASURES 3 added settings with the possibility of construct weights varying over time or across grade levels, opening the possibility for inferences about educator impacts to be confounded by content shifts (Hamilton, McCaffrey and Koretz, 2006; Martineau, 2006; McCaffrey et al., 2003).”