An Empirical Study of the Impact of the Choice of Persistence Models in Value Added Modeling upon Teacher Effect Estimates

  • Yong LuoEmail author
  • Hong Jiao
  • Robert Lissitz
Conference paper
Part of the Springer Proceedings in Mathematics & Statistics book series (PROMS, volume 140)


It seems that the application of value added modeling (VAM) in educational settings has been gaining momentum in the past decade or so due to the interest in using test scores to evaluate teachers or schools, and currently myriads of VAM models are available for VAM researchers and practitioners. Despite the large number of VAM models, McCaffrey et al. (2004) summarized the relations among them and concluded that many can be viewed as special cases of persistence models. In persistence models, student scores are calculated based on the sum of teacher effects across years. Since different students may change teachers every year and have different membership in multiple group units, such models are also referred to as “multiple membership” models (Browne et al. 2001 Rasbash and Browne 2001). Persistence models differ from each other in the value of the persistence parameter, which, ranging from 0 to 1, denotes how teacher effects at the current year persist into the subsequent years, may it be vanished, undiminished, or diminished. The Variable Persistence (VP) model (Lockwood et al. 2007 McCaffrey et al. 2004) had been considered more flexible due to its free estimation of the persistence parameter, while other persistence models constrain its value to be either 0 or 1.


Teacher Effect Persistence Model Informative Prior Distribution Unstructured Covariance Matrix Multiple Membership 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Browne, W. J., Goldstein, H., & Rasbash, J. (2001). Multiple membership multiple classification (MMMC) models. Statistical Modelling: An International Journal, 1, 103–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Carlin, B., & Louis, T. (2000). Bayes and empirical Bayes methods for data analysis (2nd ed.). Boca Raton, FL: Chapman and Hall/CRC Press.CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. Diggle, P. J., Liang, K.-Y., & Zeger, S. L. (1996). Analysis of longitudinal data. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Gelman, A., Carlin, J., Stern, H., & Rubin, D. (1995). Bayesian data analysis. London: Chapman & Hall.Google Scholar
  5. Gilks, W. R., Richardson, S., & Spiegelhalter, D. J. (1996). Markov chain Monte Carlo in practice. London: Chapman & Hall.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. Harris, D., & Sass, T. (2006). Value-added models and the measurement of teacher quality. Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
  7. Karl, A., Yang, Y., & Lohr, S. (2012a). Efficient maximum likelihood estimation for multiple membership mixed models used in value-added modeling. Computational Statistics and Data Analysis, 59, 13–27.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Karl, A. T., Yang, Y., & Lohr, S. (2012b). GPvam: Maximum likelihood estimation of multiple membership mixed models used in value-added modeling. R Package Version 2.0-0.
  9. Lockwood, J., McCaffrey, D., Mariano, L., & Setodji, C. (2007). Bayesian methods for scalable multivariate value-added assessment. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 32, 125–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Mariano, L., McCaffrey, D., & Lockwood, J. (2010). A model for teacher effects from longitudinal data without assuming vertical scaling. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 35, 253–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. McCaffrey, D., Lockwood, J., Koretz, D., Louis, T., & Hamilton, L. (2004). Models for value-added modeling of teacher effects. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 29, 67–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Meyer, R. (1997). Value-added indicators of school performance: A primer. Economics of Education Review, 16, 183–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Rasbash, J., & Browne, W. (2001). Modelling non-hierarchical structures. In A. Leyland & H. Goldstein (Eds.), Multilevel modelling of health statistics (pp. 93–103). West Sussex, England: Wiley.Google Scholar
  14. Raudenbusch, S. W., & Bryk, A. S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods, second edition. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  15. Rowan, B., Correnti, R., & Miller, R. J. (2002). What large-scale, survey research tells us about teacher effects on student achievement: Insights from the prospects study of elementary schools. Teachers College Record, 104, 1525–1567.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Sanders, W., Saxton, A., & Horn, B. (1997). The Tennessee value-added assessment system: A quantitative outcomes-based approach to educational assessment. In J. Millman (Ed.), Grading teachers, grading schools: Is student achievement a valid evaluational measure? (pp. 137–162). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.Google Scholar
  17. 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 applications (pp. 145–165). Maple Grove, MN: JAM Press.Google Scholar
  18. Shkolnik, J., Hikawa, H., Suttorp, M., Lockwood, J., Stecher, B., & Bohrnstedt, G. (2002). Appendix D: The relationship between teacher characteristics and student achievement in reduced-size classes: A study of 6 California districts. In G. W. Bohrnstedt & B. M. Stecher (Eds.), What we have learned about class size reduction in California Technical Appendix. Palo Alto, CA: American Institutes for Research.Google Scholar
  19. Spiegelhalter, D., Thomas, A., Best, N., Gilks, W., & Lunn, D. (2002). BUGS: Bayesian inference using Gibbs sampling. Cambridge, England: MRC Biostatistics Unit. Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.National Center for Assessment in Higher EducationRiyadhSaudi Arabia
  2. 2.University of MarylandCollege ParkUSA

Personalised recommendations