You are here:

Examining the Psychometric Properties of the Standards Assessment Inventory
ARTICLE

, University of Northern Colorado, Greeley, United States ; , , 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 .

Keywords

References

View References & Citations Map

These references have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. Signed in users can suggest corrections to these mistakes.

Suggest Corrections to References