Claims

TTI was more cost-effective than similar teacher-transfer incentive interventions

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r? · q2
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.

q2 i? Compared with similar interventions, the Talent Transfer Initiative was more cost-effective. → Steven Glazerman 2013

Evidence

Steven Glazerman 2013

Steven Glazerman, Ali Protik, Bing-ru Teh, Julie Bruch, Jeffrey Max. (2013). Transfer Incentives for High-Performing Teachers: Final Results from a Multisite Randomized Experiment. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. https://ies.ed.gov/ncee

q2 · i? · causal · r?

The report's key findings state that "Compared with similar interventions, TTI was more cost-effective." The page does not print the comparison set, cost figures, or effect sizes underlying this judgment.

"Compared with similar interventions, TTI was more cost-effective."

Discussion

Page metadata
Field Value
type claim
id tti-more-cost-effective-than-similar-interventions
title TTI was more cost-effective than similar teacher-transfer incentive interventions
description TTI was more cost-effective than similar teacher-transfer incentive interventions
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 — steven-glazerman-2013

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