Averaging principal performance measures across multiple recent years does not improve their accuracy for predicting principals' contributions in the following year¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · associationalr2·q2
Currency · newest study 2016 · checked against its sources 2026-10-20 (automated, 1 of 1 entry) · not reviewed by a person · overdue for a recheck since 2019: 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? Averaging the test-score-based measures across multiple recent years does not improve their accuracy for predicting principals' contributions to student achievement in the following year. → Hanley Chiang 2016
Evidence¶
Hanley Chiang 2016¶
Hanley Chiang, Moira McCullough, Stephen Lipscomb, Brian Gill. (2016). Performance Measures Based on Test Scores – How Well Do They Predict Principals' Impacts? (In Focus Brief). Cambridge, MA: Mathematica Policy Research. https://www.mathematica.org/publications/performance-measures-based-on-test-scores-issue-brief
q2 · i? · associational · r2
A key finding of the brief is that "Averaging measures across multiple recent years does not improve their accuracy for predicting principals' contributions in the following year," based on the simulated accuracy of the four measures.
"Averaging measures across multiple recent years does not improve their accuracy for predicting principals' contributions in the following year."
Discussion¶
Related Claims¶
- Average achievement and adjusted average achievement provide no information for predicting principals' contributions to student achievement in the following year — related
- The study used two sets of analyses—rating stability and the stable component's link to future contributions—to simulate each measure's predictive accuracy — related
- School value-added and adjusted school value-added provide, at most, a small amount of information for predicting principals' contributions in the following year — related
- School median student growth percentiles were stable year to year even when the school changed principals — related
- School value added provides very poor information for revealing principals' persistent levels of effectiveness — related
- Student growth measures describe gains in student learning based on how much students' test scores changed over a school year — related
- School value-added and adjusted school value-added provide at most a small amount of information for predicting principals' future contributions to student achievement — related
- Value-added estimates are likely to be noisy with the amount of data typically used in practice — related
Page metadata
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
type |
claim |
id |
multiyear-averaging-no-accuracy-gain-principal-measures |
title |
Averaging principal performance measures across multiple recent years does not improve their accuracy for predicting principals' contributions in the following year |
description |
Averaging principal performance measures across multiple recent years does not improve their accuracy for predicting principals' contributions in the following year |
status |
review |
evidence_strength |
moderate |
newest_evidence |
2016 |
source_checked |
2026-10-20 |
recheck_by |
2019 |
generated |
by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-10-08 |
trust |
unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content |
sources |
1 — hanley-chiang-2016 |
Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.