Tracking based on lagged student achievement is usually accounted for in value-added models, which is why the falsification test can mislead¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · theoreticalr3·q2
Currency · newest study 2015 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person · overdue for a recheck since 2018: 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? The primary reason the falsification test does not imply bias is that tracking could be based on lagged student achievement, which is usually accounted for in VAMs. → Dan Goldhaber 2015
Evidence¶
Dan Goldhaber 2015¶
Dan Goldhaber, Duncan Dunbar Chaplin. (2015). Assessing the "Rothstein Falsification Test": Does It Really Show Teacher Value-Added Models Are Biased? Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, vol. 8, issue 1. https://www.mathematica.org/publications/assessingthe-rothstein-falsification-test-does-it-really-show-teacher-valueadded-models-are-biased doi:10.1080/19345747.2014.978059
q2 · i? · theoretical · r3
The authors' theoretical explanation for why the test's tracking signal is consistent with unbiased value-added estimates: tracking on "lagged student achievement" is typically controlled in VAMs. No effect size is printed.
"The primary reason that the test does not imply bias is that tracking could be based on lagged student achievement, which is usually accounted for in VAMs."
Discussion¶
Related Claims¶
- Theoretically and in simulations, the Rothstein test often falsifies unbiased VAMs and fails to falsify biased VAMs — a broader claim this one bears on
- Detecting that students are tracked to teachers does not necessarily imply bias in teacher effectiveness estimates — a broader claim this one bears on
- The Rothstein falsification test generates large and implausible future teacher effects even when students are randomly assigned to classrooms — related
- The Rothstein falsification test is not definitive in showing bias in VAM teacher effect estimates — a broader claim this one bears on
- The Rothstein test can reject VAMs even when students are randomly assigned conditional on the covariates in the model — related
- Rothstein (2010) found that standard VAMs imply implausible future-teacher effects on past student achievement — related
- The Rothstein falsification test can reject value-added models even when estimated teacher effects are unbiased — a broader claim this one bears on
Page metadata
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
type |
claim |
id |
lagged-achievement-tracking-accounted-for-in-vams |
title |
Tracking based on lagged student achievement is usually accounted for in value-added models, which is why the falsification test can mislead |
description |
Tracking based on lagged student achievement is usually accounted for in value-added models, which is why the falsification test can mislead |
status |
review |
evidence_strength |
weak |
newest_evidence |
2015 |
recheck_by |
2018 |
generated |
by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-10-08 |
trust |
unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content |
sources |
1 — dan-goldhaber-2015 |
Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.