Examining the Psychometric Properties of the Standards Assessment Inventory
ARTICLE
William Merchant, University of Northern Colorado, Greeley, United States ; Kaita Ciampa, Zora Wolfe, Widener University, Chester, United States
IJTEPD Volume 1, Number 1, ISSN 2572-4878 Publisher: IGI Global
Abstract
The purpose of this article is to assess the psychometric properties of the Standards Assessment Inventory (SAI) in order to confirm its construct validity using modern statistical procedures. The SAI is a 50-item assessment designed to measure the degree to which professional development programs align with seven factors related to “high quality” teacher learning (Learning Forward, 2011). These seven factors are Learning Communities, Leadership, Resources, Data, Learning Design, Implementation, and Outcomes. In their original evaluation of the factor structure of the SAI, Learning Forward (2011) tested one model containing all 50 items loading onto a single factor, and seven individual factor models, each containing one of the seven standards of professional development. To date there has been no published report related to the psychometric properties of a seven-factor model, which allows each of the seven standards to covary. The initial test of this model produced a poor fit, after which a series of modifications were attempted to improve the functioning of the SAI. After all meaningful modifications were added, the overall fit of the SAI was still outside of a range that would suggest a statistically valid measurement model. Suggestions for SAI modification and use are made as they relate to these findings.
Citation
Merchant, W., Ciampa, K. & Wolfe, Z. (2018). Examining the Psychometric Properties of the Standards Assessment Inventory. International Journal of Teacher Education and Professional Development, 1(1), 76-88. IGI Global. Retrieved March 28, 2024 from https://www.learntechlib.org/p/187047/.
Keywords
References
View References & Citations Map- Bellini, J., & Rumrill, P. (2009). Research in rehabilitation counseling (2nd ed.). Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas.
- Bentler, P.M. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychological Bulletin, 107(2), 238–246.
- Bentler, P.M., & Chou, C. (1987). Practical issues in structural modeling. Sociological Methods& Research, 16(1), 78–117.
- Bollen, K.A. (1990). Overall fit in covariance structure models: Two types of sample size effects. Psychological Bulletin, 107(2), 256–259.
- Brown, T.A. (2006). Confirmatory Factor Analysis for Applied Research. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
- Browne, M.W., & Cudeck, R. (1992). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. Sociological Methods& Research, 21(2), 230–258.
- Chou, C.P., Bentler, P.M., & Satorra, A. (1991). Scaled test statistics and robust standard errors for nonnormal data in covariance structure analysis: A Monte Carlo study. British Journal of Mathematical& Statistical Psychology, 44(2), 347–357.
- Cortina, J. (1993). What is coefficient alpha? An examination of theory and applications. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(1), 98–104.
- Curran, P.J., Bollen, K.A., Chen, F., Paxton, P., & Kirby, J.B. (2003). Finite sampling properties of the point estimates and confidence intervals of the RMSEA. Sociological Methods& Research, 32(2), 208–252.
- Desimone, L.M. (2009). Improving impact studies of teachers’ professional development: Toward better conceptualizations and measures. Educational Researcher, 38(3), 181–199.
- Desimone, L.M. (2009). Improving impact studies of teachers’ professional development: Toward better conceptualizations and measures. Educational Researcher, 38(3), 181–199.
- DuFour, R., & DuFour, R. (2013). Learningbydoing: A handbook for professional learning communities at work TM. Solution Tree Press.
- Dugard, P., Todman, J., & Staines, H. (2010). Approaching multivariate analysis: A practical introduction (2nd ed.). Hove, Sussex, New York: Routledge.
- Fitzgerald, S.M., Li, J., Rumrill, P.D., Merchant, W., & Bishop, M. (2014). Examining the factor structure of the Multiple Sclerosis Impact Scale. Work (Reading, Mass.), 49(3), 523–538. PMID:23823213
- Gorsuch, R.L. (1990). Common factor analysis versus principal components analysis: Some well and little-known facts. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 25(1), 333–339.
- Hu, L.T., & Bentler, P.M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6(1), 1–55.
- Hu, L.T., Bentler, P.M., & Kano, Y. (1992). Can test statistics in covariance structure analysis be trusted? Psychological Bulletin, 112(2), 351–362.
- Jöreskog, K.G., & Sörbom, D. (1986). LISREL VI: Analysis of linear structural relationships by maximum likelihood and least squares methods. Mooresville, IN: Scientific Software.
- Kazdin, A.E. (2003). Research design in clinical psychology. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
- Kline, P. (1999). The handbook of psychological testing (2nd ed.). London: Routledge.
- Learning Forward. (2011). Standards for professional learning. Retrieved from: www.learningforward.org/ standards/index.cfm International Journal of Teacher Education and Professional Development Volume 1 • Issue 1 • January-June 2018
- Manfreda, K.L., Bosnjak, M., Berzelak, J., Haas, I., Vehovar, V., & Berzelak, N. (2008). Web surveys versus other survey modes: A meta-analysis comparing response rates. Journal of the Market Research Society, 50(1), 79–104.
- Marsh, H.W., Balla, J.R., & McDonald, R.P. (1988). Goodness of fit indexes in confirmatory factor analysis: The effect of sample size. Psychological Bulletin, 103(3), 391–410.
- Muthén, L.K., & Muthén, B.O. (2007). Mplus. Statistical analysis with latent variables (Version 3).
- Nevitt, J., & Hancock, G.R. (2001). Performance of bootstrapping approaches to model test statistics and parameter standard error estimation in structural equation modeling. Structural Equation Modeling, 8(3), 353–377.
- Powell, D.A., & Schafer, W.D. (2001). The robustness of the likelihood ratio chi-square test for structural equation models: A meta-analysis. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 26(1), 105–132.
- Raykov, T. (2005). Bias-corrected estimation of noncentrality parameters of covariance structure models. Structural Equation Modeling, 12(1), 120–129.
- Raykov, T., & Marcoulides, G. (2000). A first course in structural equation modeling. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
- Schumacker, R.E., & Lomax, R.G. (2010). A beginner’s guide to structural equation modeling (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.
- Smith, C., & Gillespie, M. (2007). Research on professional development and teacher change: Implications for adult basic education. Review of Adult Learning and Literacy, 7(7).
- Snook, S.C., & Gorsuch, R.L. (1989). Component analysis versus common factor analysis: A Monte Carlo study. Psychological Bulletin, 106(1), 148–154.
- Steiger, J.H. (1990). Structural model evaluation and modification: An interval estimation approach. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 25(2), 173–180.
- Steiger, J.H., & Lind, J. (1980). Statistically-based tests for the number of common factors. Paper presented at the Meeting of the Psychometric Society, Iowa City, IA.
- Tanaka, J.S. (1993). Multifaceted conceptions of fit in structure equation models. In K.A. Bollen& J.S. Long (Eds.), Testing Structural Equation Models (pp. 136–162). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
- Widaman, K.F. (1993). Common factor analysis versus principal component Research analysis: Differential bias in representing model parameters? Multivariate Article Behavioral Research, 28(3), 263–311.
- Yuan, K.H. (2005). Fit indices versus test statistics. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 40(1), 115–148.
- Zepeda, S.J. (2012). Professional development: What works. Larchmont, NY: Eye on education. International Journal of Teacher Education and Professional Development Volume 1 • Issue 1 • January-June 2018
These references have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. Signed in users can suggest corrections to these mistakes.
Suggest Corrections to References