Predicting Teacher Success Using Teacher Selection Practices and Classroom Performance Assessment

Abstract

This study evaluated the predictive validity of two preemployment screening devices-the Urban Teacher Perceiver Interview and the Academic Skills Assessment portion of the Praxis Series test-as used by an urban highneed and hard-to-staff school district. Specifically, we compared predictor scores with subsequent teacher assessment scores generated through the Teacher Performance Assessment process. Three research questions directed this study: Is the Urban Teacher Perceiver Interview an effective predictor of teacher performance as measured by the Teacher Performance Assessment? Is the Praxis Series an effective predictor of teacher performance as measured by the Teacher Performance Assessment? Is the combination of the Urban Teacher Perceiver Interview and the Praxis Series an effective predictor of teacher performance as measured by the Teacher Performance Assessment? When each predictor was factored separately, the results indicated a statistically significant relationship between a prospective teacher's score on the Urban Teacher Perceiver Interview score and the subsequent Teacher Performance Assessment score. No statistically significant relationship between a teacher candidate's Praxis Series score and subsequent Teacher Performance Assessment was determined. The results indicated increased predictability of subsequent teacher performance when based on both predictors (R 2 ϭ .117).

Identifying, Preparing and Evaluating Army Instructors

“…Since that time a variety of different proxy measures of teacher intelligence have been explored (McEachin & Brewer, 2011). These have included: general measures of intelligence (Morsh & Wilder, 1954), standardized test scores (D'Augostino & Powers, 2009;Gimbert & Chelsey, 2009;Schalock, 1979;Webster, 1988;Wise et al, 1987) and academic ability (Heinz, 2013;Schalock, 1979;Wise et al, 1987;). The following section discusses the literature on each of these in further detail.…”

Exploring Gifted Education Program and Practice in Rural Appalachia

“…. necessary for safe and effective practice" (Educational Testing Service, 2019, p. 5), but Gimbert and Chesley (2009) found "no statistically significant relationship" between the Praxis core assessment and subsequent teacher performance (p. 49).…”

Smart teachers, successful students? A systematic review of the literature on teachers’ cognitive abilities and teacher effectiveness

“…A total of 12 studies reported the use of basic skills test scores. Blue et al (2002), Gimbert and Chesley (2009), Goldhaber, Liddle, and Theobald, (2013), Henry et al (2013), and Smith, Wageman, Anderson, Duield, and Nyachwaya (2019) used Praxis 1 composite scores. In all of their three studies, Buddin and Zamarro (2009a,b,c) focused on California Basic Educational Skills Test (CBEST) composite scores.…”

“…Unfortunately, a few studies had small sample sizes, raising concerns about low statistical power. Moreover, taking a closer look at the studies that reported information on the initially considered pool of participants reveals that in some studies the sample sizes were drastically reduced, e.g., due to the unavailability of administrative data for large numbers of teachers (e.g., Gimbert & Chesley, 2009). It has long been known that sample size reduction can attenuate the generalizability of indings and represents a potential threat to their validity if the teachers who could not be reached, dropped out, or were excluded difer systematically from those who remained in the sample (e.g., Miller & Hollist, 2007).…”

“…Some studies explored this possibility (e.g., Rockof et al, 2011, who report diferences between survey responders and non-responders), and a few further studies attempted to account for bias arising from potential non-random teacher attrition in their analyses (e.g., Goldhaber et al, 2017); nevertheless, this remains a critical issue. In addition, participating (prospective) teachers were taken from single institutions, e.g., from one teacher education program (Henry et al, 2013), one university (e.g., Andrew et al, 2005), or one urban high-need and hard-to-staf school district (Gimbert & Chesley, 2009). Most authors were well aware of the non-representativeness of their samples and acknowledged this as a In regressions with teacher efectiveness in year 4 as outcome: signiicant, positive efect of SAT score equivalent (both when only SAT score equivalents entered as predictor and when SAT score equivalents and teacher efectiveness in year 2 entered as predictors); bivariate correlations: nonsigniicant positive relation with teacher efectiveness in year 2, signiicant positive relation with teacher efectiveness in year 4…”