The Full Roster Method offers the most promise for robust, practical implementation among the three co-teaching value-added methods considered.¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · associationalr?·q2
Currency · newest study 2012 · checked against its sources 2026-10-20 (automated, 1 of 1 entry) · not reviewed by a person · overdue for a recheck since 2015: tool and model accuracy changes quickly
Subclaims¶
Reading the evidence codes
q is the design tier, i the impact, n the sample, and the kind with its r
the rigour judged within that kind: what each code means.
This claim: no standardized effect is recorded in observations/ for it yet, so no benchmark reading is possible.
q2 i? Of the Partial Credit, Teacher Team, and Full Roster Methods, the authors judge the Full Roster Method the most promising for robust, practical implementation. → Hock 2012
Evidence¶
Hock 2012¶
Hock, H., & Isenberg, E. (2012). Methods for Accounting for Co-Teaching in Value-Added Models. Working Paper 6. Washington, DC: Mathematica Policy Research. https://www.mathematica.org/publications/methods-for-accounting-for-coteaching-in-valueadded-models
q2 · i? · associational · r?
The authors' summary judgment states that "the Full Roster Method offers the most promise for robust, practical implementation" relative to the other methods compared in the paper. The available text prints no supporting statistics.
"Furthermore, the Full Roster Method offers the most promise for robust, practical implementation."
Discussion¶
Related Claims¶
- The Teacher Team Method and Full Roster Method provide a more stable approach than the Partial Credit Method for estimating teacher effects when students have multiple teachers for the same subject. — a narrower finding that bears on this claim
- The Teacher Team Method and Full Roster Method produce similar estimates of teacher value added — a narrower finding that bears on this claim
- The partial credit and teacher team methods for co-teaching are impractical — a narrower finding that bears on this claim
- The full roster and full roster-plus methods are empirically similar — related
- The Full Roster Method effectively counts co-taught students more than once in value-added calculations — related
- Applying the Full Roster-Plus Method instead of the Full Roster Method produces very small empirical differences in value-added estimates in District of Columbia Public Schools data — related
Page metadata
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
type |
claim |
id |
full-roster-method-most-promise-practical-implementation |
title |
The Full Roster Method offers the most promise for robust, practical implementation among the three co-teaching value-added methods considered. |
description |
The Full Roster Method offers the most promise for robust, practical implementation among the three co-teaching value-added methods considered. |
status |
review |
evidence_strength |
moderate |
newest_evidence |
2012 |
source_checked |
2026-10-20 |
recheck_by |
2015 |
generated |
by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-10-08 |
trust |
unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content |
sources |
1 — hock-2012 |
Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.