Claims

The full roster and full roster-plus methods are empirically similar

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · associational r? · q1
Currency · newest study 2013 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

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.

q1 i? The full roster method and the full roster-plus method produce empirically similar results when used to account for co-teaching in value-added models. → Eric Isenberg 2013

Evidence

Eric Isenberg 2013

Eric Isenberg, Elias Walsh. (2013). Accounting for Co-Teaching: A Guide for Policymakers and Developers of Value-Added Models. Working Paper 24, Chicago, IL: Mathematica Policy Research. https://www.mathematica.org/publications/accounting-for-coteaching-a-guide-for-policymakers-and-developers-of-valueadded-models

q1 · i? · associational · r?

The paper's key findings report that the authors "show that the last two methods are empirically similar," referring to the full roster method and the full roster-plus method. No effect sizes, statistics, or data description are printed in the available text.

"The authors discuss why the first two methods are impractical, and show that the last two methods are empirically similar."

Discussion

Page metadata
Field Value
type claim
id full-roster-methods-empirically-similar
title The full roster and full roster-plus methods are empirically similar
description The full roster and full roster-plus methods are empirically similar
status review
evidence_strength weak
newest_evidence 2013
generated by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-10-08
trust unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content
sources 1 — eric-isenberg-2013

Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.