The study assessed rating stability for 2,424 principals and predictive validity for 123 principals using Pennsylvania statewide data¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · associationalr2·q2
Currency · newest study 2016 · not yet checked against its sources · 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? The study examined rating stability using data on 2,424 principals and examined the relationship between the stable part of ratings and future contributions using data on 123 principals. → Hanley Chiang 2016
Evidence¶
Hanley Chiang 2016¶
Hanley Chiang, Moira McCullough, Stephen Lipscomb, Brian Gill. (2016). Can Student Test Scores Provide Useful Measures of School Principals' Performance? Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED570000
q2 · i? · associational · r2
Description of the study's two sets of analyses using Pennsylvania's statewide data on students and principals from 2007/08 to 2013/14: a stability analysis of "2,424 principals" and a predictive analysis of "123 principals", followed by simulation of each measure's accuracy.
"First, using data on 2,424 principals, the study assessed the extent to which ratings from each measure are stable by examining the association between principals’ ratings from earlier and later years. Second, using data on 123 principals, the study examined the relationship between the stable part of each principal’s rating and his or her contributions to student achievement in future years."
Discussion¶
Related Claims¶
- 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 — possibly the same claim (merge candidate)
- There is little prior evidence on the validity of principal evaluation measures, and this is the first study linking practice ratings to credible value-added measures — related
- FFL evaluation scores are significantly and positively correlated with principals' contributions to student achievement (value-added) — related
Page metadata
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
type |
claim |
id |
principal-measure-stability-2424-predictive-123-principals |
title |
The study assessed rating stability for 2,424 principals and predictive validity for 123 principals using Pennsylvania statewide data |
description |
The study assessed rating stability for 2,424 principals and predictive validity for 123 principals using Pennsylvania statewide data |
status |
review |
evidence_strength |
moderate |
newest_evidence |
2016 |
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.