Use of the probit model to estimate school performance in student attainment of achievement testing standards
In the USA, trends in educational accountability have driven several models attempting to provide quality data for decision making at the national, state, and local levels, regarding the success of schools in meeting standards for competence. Statistical methods to generate data for such decisions have generally included (a) status models that examine simple indications of number of students meeting a criterion level of achievement, (b) growth models that explore change over the course of one or more years, and (c) value-added models that attempt to control for factors deemed relevant to student achievement patterns. This study examined a new strategy for student and school achievement modeling that augments the field through the use of the probit model to estimate the likelihood of students meeting an established level standard and estimating the proportion of individuals within a school meeting the standard. Results of the study showed that the probit model was an effective tool both for providing such adjustments, as well as for adjusting them based upon salient demographic variables. Implications of these results and suggestions for further use of the model are discussed.
KeywordsSchool assessment Standardized achievement test Probit model
- Aud, S., Wilkinson‐Flicker, S., Kristapovich, P., Rathbun, A., Wang, X., and Zhang, J. (2013). The Condition of Education 2013 (NCES 2013‐037): U.S. department of education, national center for education statistics. Washington, DC. http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch.
- Azen, R., & Walker, C. M. (2011). Categorical data analysis for the behavioral and social sciences. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
- Baker, M., & Johnston, P. (2010). The impact of socioeconomic status on high stakes testing reexamined. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 37(3), 193–199.Google Scholar
- Barton, P. E. (2008). The right way to measure growth. Educational Leadership, 65, 70–73.Google Scholar
- Braun, H. (2005). Using student progress to evaluate teachers: a primer to value-added models. Princeton: ETS.Google Scholar
- Capraro, R. M., Young, J. R., Lewis, C. W., Yetkiner, Z. E., & Woods, M. N. (2009). An examination of mathematics achievement and growth in a midwestern urban school district: implications for teachers and administrators. Journal of Urban Mathematics Education, 2(2), 46–65.Google Scholar
- IBM Corp. (2010). IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, version 19.0. Armonk: IBM Corp.Google Scholar
- Darling-Hammond, L., Amerin-Beardsley, A., Haertel, E., & Rothstein, J. (2012). Evaluating teacher evaluation. Phi Delta Kappan, 93(6), 8–15.Google Scholar
- Fox, J. (2008). Applied regression analysis and generalized linear models. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
- Goldschmidt, P., Roschewski, P., Choi, L., Auty, W., Hebbler, S., Blank, R., & Williams, A. (2005). Policymakers’ guide to growth models for school accountability: How do accountability models differ? Washington DC: The Council of Chief State School Officers. http://www.ccsso.org/Resources/Publications/Policymakers%E2%80%99_Guide_to_Growth_Models_for_School_Accountability_How_Do_Accountability_Models_Differ.html. Accessed 14 Jan 2014.
- Goldschmidt, P., Choi, K., Martinez, F., & Novak, J. (2010). Using growth models to monitor school performance: comparing the effect of the metric and the assessment. School Effectiveness and School Improvement: An International Journal of Research, Policy, and Practice, 21(2), 337–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Linn, R. L. (2000). Assessments and accountability. Educational Researcher, 29, 4–16.Google Scholar
- Lockwood, J. R., McCaffrey, D. F., Hamilton, L. S., Stecher, B., Le, V.-N., & Martinez, F. (2006). The sensitivity of value-added teacher effect estimates to different mathematics achievement measures. Santa Monica: RAND.Google Scholar
- McCaffrey, D.F. (2013). Do value-added methods level the playing field for teachers? Carnegie Knowledge Network. http://carnegieknowledgenetwork.org/briefs/value-added/level-playing-field/.
- Northwest Evaluation Association. (2003). Technical manual for use with measures of academic progress and achievement level tests. Portland: Northwest Evaluation Association.Google Scholar
- Olson, L. (2004). Value added models gain in popularity. Education Week, 24(12), 14–15.Google Scholar
- Perry, L. B., & McConney, A. (2010). Does the SES of the school matter? An examination of socioeconomic status and student achievement using PISA 2003. Teachers College Record, 112(4), 1137–1162.Google Scholar
- Scherrer, J. (2012). What’s the value of VAM (value-added modeling)? Phi Delta Kappan, 93(8), 58–60.Google Scholar
- Schmidt, W. H., Houang, R. T., & McKnight, C. C. (2005). Value-added research: right idea but wrong solution? In R. Lissitz (Ed.), Value added models in education: theory and practice (pp. 272–297). Maple Grove: JAM.Google Scholar
- Sidak, Z. (1967). Rectangular confidence regions for the means of multivariate normal distributions. Journal of American Statistical Association, 67(62), 626–633.Google Scholar
- Tong, H., & Lim, K. S. (1980). Threshold autoregression, limit cycles, and cyclical data. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series B, 42, 245–292.Google Scholar
- Wainer, H. (2000). Computer adaptive testing: a primer. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar