IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/jedbes/v29y2004i1p11-36.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

An Empirical Comparison of Statistical Models for Value-Added Assessment of School Performance

Author

Listed:
  • Carmen D. Tekwe
  • Randy L. Carter
  • Chang-Xing Ma
  • James Algina
  • Maurice E. Lucas
  • Jeffrey Roth
  • Mario Ariet
  • Thomas Fisher
  • Michael B. Resnick

Abstract

Hierarchical Linear Models (HLM) have been used extensively for value-added analysis, adjusting for important student and school-level covariates such as socioeconomic status. A recently proposed alternative, the Layered Mixed Effects Model (LMEM) also analyzes learning gains, but ignores sociodemographic factors. Other features of LMEM, such as its ability to apportion credit for learning gains among multiple schools and its utilization of incomplete observations, make it appealing. A third model that is appealing due to its simplicity is the Simple Fixed Effects Models (SFEM). Statistical and computing specifications are given for each of these models. The models were fitted to obtain value-added measures of school performance by grade and subject area, using a common data set with two years of test scores. We investigate the practical impact of differences among these models by comparing their value-added measures. The value-added measures obtained from the SFEM were highly correlated with those from the LMEM. Thus, due to its simplicity, the SFEM is recommended over LMEM. Results of comparisons of SFEM with HLM were equivocal. Inclusion of student level variables such as minority status and poverty leads to results that differ from those of the SFEM. The question of whether to adjust for such variables is, perhaps, the most important issue faced when developing a school accountability system. Either inclusion or exclusion of them is likely to lead to a biased system. Which bias is most tolerable may depend on whether the system is to be a high-stakes one.

Suggested Citation

  • Carmen D. Tekwe & Randy L. Carter & Chang-Xing Ma & James Algina & Maurice E. Lucas & Jeffrey Roth & Mario Ariet & Thomas Fisher & Michael B. Resnick, 2004. "An Empirical Comparison of Statistical Models for Value-Added Assessment of School Performance," Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, , vol. 29(1), pages 11-36, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:sae:jedbes:v:29:y:2004:i:1:p:11-36
    DOI: 10.3102/10769986029001011
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.3102/10769986029001011
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.3102/10769986029001011?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Dan Goldhaber & Roddy Theobald, 2013. "Managing the Teacher Workforce in Austere Times: The Determinants and Implications of Teacher Layoffs," Education Finance and Policy, MIT Press, vol. 8(4), pages 494-527, October.
    2. Helen F. Ladd & Charles T. Clotfelter & John B. Holbein, 2017. "The Growing Segmentation of the Charter School Sector in North Carolina," Education Finance and Policy, MIT Press, vol. 12(4), pages 536-563, Fall.
    3. F. Cugnata & G. Perucca & S. Salini, 2017. "Bayesian networks and the assessment of universities' value added," Journal of Applied Statistics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 44(10), pages 1785-1806, July.
    4. Bruno ARPINO & Roberta VARRIALE, 2010. "Assessing The Quality Of Institutions’ Rankings Obtained Through Multilevel Linear Regression Models," Journal of Applied Economic Sciences, Spiru Haret University, Faculty of Financial Management and Accounting Craiova, vol. 5(1(11)_Spr), pages 7-22.
    5. Garritt L. Page & Ernesto San Martín & Javiera Orellana & Jorge González, 2017. "Exploring complete school effectiveness via quantile value added," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 180(1), pages 315-340, January.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:jedbes:v:29:y:2004:i:1:p:11-36. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.