Omitting same-subject pre-tests affects value-added estimates more than excluding other student background characteristics¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · associationalr?·q2
Currency · newest study 2018 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person · overdue for a recheck since 2021: 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? In statewide Oklahoma data, not incorporating same-subject pre-tests changes value-added estimates more than excluding other student background characteristics does. → Elias Walsh 2018
Evidence¶
Elias Walsh 2018¶
Elias Walsh, Dallas Dotter, Albert Y. Liu. (2018). Can More Teachers Be Covered? The Accuracy, Credibility, and Precision of Value-Added Estimates with Proxy Pre-Tests. Working Paper 64. Princeton, NJ: Mathematica Policy Research. https://www.mathematica.org/publications/can-more-teachers-be-covered-the-accuracy-credibility-and-precision-of-value-added-estimates
q2 · i? · associational · r?
Analysis of statewide Oklahoma data comparing value-added model specifications with and without same-subject pre-tests and other background controls. The article reports that "not incorporating same-subject pre-tests affects value-added estimates much more than does excluding other student background characteristics."
"We find that not incorporating same-subject pre-tests affects value-added estimates much more than does excluding other student background characteristics."
Discussion¶
Related Claims¶
- Bias, not precision loss, drives the difference in proxy pre-test value-added estimates — related
- The working paper examines the sensitivity and precision of teacher value-added estimates under specifications differing in student-level, peer-level, and double-lagged achievement controls — a broader claim this one bears on
- Proxy pre-test value-added estimates show bias, but may still carry information about teacher effectiveness — related
- Oklahoma's 2013-2014 teacher value-added estimates combined test scores with other information about teachers and students — related
- Rapid guessing did not appear to substantively affect teacher value-added estimates under the value-added specifications used — related
- Teacher value-added estimates are highly correlated across model specifications that differ in student and peer control variables — related
- Teachers in districts with large fractions of disadvantaged students receive lower value-added ratings when student background characteristics are omitted — related
Page metadata
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
type |
claim |
id |
same-subject-pretest-omission-dominates-background-omission |
title |
Omitting same-subject pre-tests affects value-added estimates more than excluding other student background characteristics |
description |
Omitting same-subject pre-tests affects value-added estimates more than excluding other student background characteristics |
status |
review |
evidence_strength |
moderate |
newest_evidence |
2018 |
recheck_by |
2021 |
generated |
by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-10-08 |
trust |
unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content |
sources |
1 — elias-walsh-2018 |
Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.