Summary of Research on Various Teacher Employment ...



Summary of Research on Various Teacher Employment Screening Instruments

Howard Ebmeier

University of Kansas

howard@ku.edu

8/18/2008

|Citation |Sample |Independent measure |Dependent Measure |Correlation/Effect |Reliability |Comments |

| | | | |Size | | |

|AARESTAD, JANNA SERINA (1980) ANALYSIS OF TEACHER SELECTION/RETENTIONAND |N=34 grades 1-6 |TPI |Gain score in math |No relationship | |Dissertation not available, thus information derived from |

|STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT AS RELATED TO SELECTION RESEARCH | | |achievement | | |abstract |

|INCORPORATED'STEACHER PERCEIVER INTERVIEW. Ph.D. dissertation, University| | | | | |TPI scores dropped across grade levels |

|of Minnesota. | | | | | | |

|ARAMBURO, DOROTHY JAMES (1981) THE EFFICACY OF THE STRUCTURED INTERVIEWIN|N=179 special education |TPI |Multiple Teacher Factor |0.29 via canonical | |Dissertation not available, thus information derived from |

|THE SELECTION OF SPECIAL EDUCATION TEACHERS. Ed.D., dissertation, |teachers | |Survey |correlations among | |abstract |

|University of New Orleans. | | | |12 TPI themes and 4 | |Not sure what the MTFS measured but apparently completed by the |

| | | | |factors of MTFS | |teacher |

|Antoline, Carlos Mitchell (2000) A validation study of the Teacher |N=349 employed by district |Teachers group into 4 |Principal ratings |Significant | |Cited in study is Gallup 0.70 reliability estimate for TPI |

|Perceiver Interview. Ph.D. dissertation, Texas Woman's University. |teachers |categories via TPI (not| |difference but very | |Student evaluations were not different. |

| | |continuous variable as | |small F value. Only | | |

| | |hoped) | |top vs. bottom | | |

| | | | |teachers were | | |

| | | | |significantly | | |

| | | | |different in post | | |

| | | | |hoc tests | | |

|Ball, Jane Rowlett 1992) A validation study of students' and parents' |N=11 One school |TPI |Parent, student ratings |None reported | |Very small qualitative study. Concludes that teachers selected |

|perceptions of the talent of teachers selected using the SRI Teacher | | | | | |with TPI were liked by parents and students—same could probably |

|Perceiver interview. Ed.D. dissertation, Kansas State University. | | | | | |be said of all teachers however they were selected |

|Baskin, Maryan Kay (1994) The predictability of the Urban Teacher |N=68 student teachers |Star Teacher by |Practice Teaching |The regression | |“Overall, however, the UTSI did not differentiate student |

|Selection Interview to the classroom success of elementary student | |Haberman |Portfolio |procedure found the | |teachers who would be evaluated as successful in other areas of |

|teachers. Ed.D. dissertation, The University of Memphis. | | | |Pass/Fail element of| |teaching which were part of the Practice Teaching |

| | | | |the Urban Teacher | |Portfolio--areas like planning, classroom management, and using |

| | | | |Selection Interview | |effective teaching strategies. Findings from this study indicate |

| | | | |predicted success on| |that Rank on the UTSI, which is emphasized by Haberman as the |

| | | | |the Communication | |basis for selecting students, was not a significant predictor of |

| | | | |aspect of the | |the classroom success of student teachers.” |

| | | | |evaluation | | |

| | | | |instrument. | | |

|Bingham, Patrick Jerome (2000) The concurrent and predictive validity of |N=138 teachers |TPI |Achievement on TAAS |0.04 (reading) | |Very small correlation that was significant but only because of |

|elementary school teacher pre-employment success indicators. Ph.D. | | |(Texas assessment) |0.03 (math) | |large N-student (N=6600) unit of analysis |

|dissertation, The University of Texas at Austin. | | |Principal Rating |0.07 (writing) | | |

| | | | |-0.05 (principal | | |

| | | | |rating) | | |

|Brown, Karl Kevin (2004) The impact of the Gallup Teacher Perceiver |Three groups Recommended by |TPI |Retention rates | | |ANOVA across 3 groups was significant with difference due to not |

|Interview on hiring teachers as perceived by selected administrators in |TPI (201), not recommended | |Administrator | | |recommended different than pre and recommended. |

|the Alamo Heights Independent School District, San Antonio, Texas. Ed.D. |but hired (105), pre-TPI | |perceptions | | |Retention rates of TPI recommended teachers were higher. |

|dissertation, Texas A&M University. |(602) | | | | | |

|Buresh, Richard John (2003) The predictive validity of the Teacher |N=59 all grade levels |TPI |Panel of experts scored |0.039 for total | |Contains good review of TPI previous research |

|Perceiver Interview in selecting effective elementary teachers in | | |teacher evaluations of |Also reports each | |Reposts negative correlation with leave days |

|amid-sized Midwestern school district. Ed.D. dissertation, The University| | |principals |scale | | |

|of North Dakota. | | | | | | |

|CHALKER, DONALD MERLE (1981) THE TEACHER PERCEIVER INTERVIEW AS |N=40 HS urban teachers in 3 |TPI |Quartile rankings by |Significant | |Dissertation not available, thus information derived from |

|ANINSTRUMENT FOR PREDICTING SUCCESSFUL TEACHING BEHAVIOR. Ed.D.. |districts | |building principals |correlations between| |abstract |

|dissertation, Wayne State University. | | |Ratings by sample of |admin ratings and | |Correlation numbers absent from abstract |

| | | |students |TPI and student | | |

| | | | |ratings and TPI | | |

|COOK, RONALD EUGENE (1981) CHIPPEWA VALLEY LOCAL VALIDATION STUDY OF |N=30 middle school teachers |TPI |Administrator ratings, |Unclear, author | |Dissertation not available, thus information derived from |

|THETEACHER PERCEIVER INTERVIEW PROCESS. Ed.D.. dissertation, Wayne State |High and low scoring scores | |student ratings |concludes no | |abstract |

|University. |were used for t-test | | |significance but | | |

| | | | |then states there | | |

| | | | |was a positive t | | |

| | | | |test and | | |

| | | | |correlations | | |

|CORNINE, LARRY LEE (1980) A VALIDATION STUDY OF THE TEACHER PERCEIVER |N=All Ottawa, KS secondary |TPI |Student ratings of |No relationship | |Dissertation not available, thus information derived from |

|INTERVIEW USING THE ILLINOIS TEACHER EVALUATION QUESTIONNAIRE. Ed.D., |teachers | |teacher competence | | |abstract |

|dissertation, University of Kansas. |Experimental group=secondary | | | | | |

| |teachers hired after TPI | | | | | |

| |Control=teachers before TPI | | | | | |

|Chesley, Daryl (2004) The validity of teacher employment success |N=587 teachers |UTPI |Principal ratings |0.144 (statistically| |Restricted range problems since they were all employed district |

|predictors. Ed.D. dissertation, The George Washington University. | |Praxis | |significant but | |teachers |

| | | | |large N) | | |

| | | | |Praxis not | | |

| | | | |significant | | |

|Davis, David |N=12 elementary teachers |Ventures |Tenn value added |Reading was positive| |“there is little association between Ventures for Excellence |

| | | |composite achievement |but rest were | |scores and TVA scores” |

| | | |scores |negative (rather | |Sample size too small to conclude much of anything |

| | | | |strange since | | |

| | | | |reading and math | | |

| | | | |scores were | | |

| | | | |positively | | |

| | | | |correlated in study)| | |

|Delli, Dane Armand (2000) The predictive validity of the Teacher |N=72 teachers |TPI |Principal ratings |0.37 if all themes |Little or none |Capture in article with Young |

|Perceiver Interview on the teaching performance of classroom teachers. |N=124 | |Absence |are added together |internal reliability|Good review of the development and research behind TPI |

|Ph.D. dissertation, The Ohio State University. | | | |in one regression |in the various |Failed to composite score correlation. |

| | | | |equation |themes | |

| | | | |R**2 0.14 | | |

|Diemer, Janaan S. (1998) Identifying effective teachers of behavior |N=33 teachers (special ed) |TPI |Supervisor Ratings |0.00 | |Teachers deemed ineffective had higher average scores on the |

|disordered students: Is the Gallup Teacher Perceiver Interview an answer?|Identified as top/bottom | | | | |total and subscales that those deemed effective by TPI |

|Ed.D. dissertation, New Mexico State University. |quadrant of TPI | | | | | |

|Dunning, Christopher Michael (2005) Teacher Perceiver interview tool: A |N=40 teachers |TPI | |0.31 for NBC/non-NBC|Cronback alpha |Factor analysis of first 24 questions on TPI (three factors |

|contemporary validation study within a Florida district. Ed.D. |20 NBC certified 20 not | | |teachers (restricted|ranged from 0.0-0.30|suggested: interpersonal (0.35), intrapersonal (0.20), |

|dissertation, University of South Florida. |786 Respondents for factor | | |range problem |on the 10 scales. |extrapersonal (0.45) Reliability of total instrument (0.63) Three|

| |analysis from college | | |likely) | |factor model had good confirmatory factor fit (0.90) but one |

| |interviews | | | | |factor model was slightly better. |

| | | | | | |95% of board certified teachers had TPI highly recommend |

| | | | | | |Expert panel supported 22/24 questions as important. |

|RACHEL DAVIS (1984) THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE TEACHERPERCEIVER |LD teachers N=? |TPI |The Classroom Planning |A non-significant | |From abstract |

|INTERVIEW AND INSTRUCTIONAL BEHAVIORS OF TEACHERS OF LEARNINGDISABLED | | |and Management |correlation between | |Some positive and significant correlations reported among various|

|STUDENTS. Ed.D.. dissertation, University of Virginia. | | |Assessment (CPMA), based|the TPI total score | |scales on the TPI and the dependent measure but overall no effect|

| | | |upon research of |and the CPMA total | | |

| | | |effective teaching |mean score | | |

|Frey, Patricia (2003) Ability of the Urban Teacher Selection Interview to|N=876 teachers at all grade |Star Teacher |Retention |0.13 correlation | |Star Teacher instrument used in initial employment decision thus |

|identify teachers who are likely to be retained in the Buffalo Public |levels | | |(low but significant| |possible range restriction issues |

|Schools. Ed.D. dissertation, Seton Hall University, College of Education| | | |given the large N) | | |

|and Human Services. | | | | | | |

|Gillies, Terry Kim (1988) The relationship between selection variables |N=196 first year teachers |TPI |Principal ratings |Average of 0.17 | |Overall correlation was significant but pretty low. Range |

|and subsequent performance ratings for teachers in an Oregon school |employed by one district | | |(great variation | |restriction effect likely since were employed by district after |

|district. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Oregon. | | | |over the 4 years of | |results of TPI known. |

| | | | |data collection—one | | |

| | | | |year was actually | | |

| | | | |negative) | | |

|Howard, Mildred Anthony (1998) The relationships among teacher selection |N=143 teachers (relatively |TPI |Principal evaluation of |0.47 for all 6 | |Individual subscales correlated from 0.03-0.38. Regression was |

|predictors and teacher performance with principals' opinions about a |new) | |each teacher via a form |scales entered | |run for 6 of the theme variables but not total. |

|teacher selection process. Ph.D. dissertation, Georgia State University. |30 elementary principals | |reflecting values of TPI|collectively | | |

|JOHANNSEN, KENNETH LUDWIG (1981) THE RELATIONSHIP OF A UNIQUE |N=40 20 teacher who |TPI |Math gain score |t-test indicated no | |Dissertation not available, thus information derived from |

|TEACHERSELECTION METHOD TO STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT. Ed.D.. dissertation, |interviewed using TPI and 20 | | |difference between | |abstract |

|Peabody College for Teachers of Vanderbilt University. |who were previous hires and | | |groups | | |

| |had not used the TPI | | | | | |

| |Teachers were balanced in | | | | | |

| |terms of background | | | | | |

|JONES, DAVID EDWARD, JR. (1978) PREDICTING TEACHING PROCESSES WITH | | | | | |Dissertation not available from KU library |

|THETEACHER PERCEIVER INTERVIEW. Educat. D. dissertation, Virginia | | | | | | |

|Polytechnic Institute and State University. | | | | | | |

|Kanipe, Mary Lou Smith (1996) A study of the predictive validity of the |N=233 teachers—all grade |Urban TPI |Principal Evaluations |0.10 total | |Correlation with minority teachers (0.39) indicated definite bias|

|Urban Teacher Perceiver Interview in the Knox County School System. Ed.D.|levels | | |subscales ranged | |May be Range restriction effectsince all teachers were screened |

|dissertation, The University of Tennessee. |68 Principals | | |from 0.0-0.18 | |with TPI prior to employment |

|Koerner, Robert Jacob (2007) The relationship between the Teacher Insight|N=123 3-11 grade |Teacher Insight |TGI (Texas Growth Index)|0.045 English and | |Ceiling effects are present since only teachers hired are used. |

|score and student performance as measured by the Texas Growth Index. |4500 students | | |reading | | |

|Ed.D. dissertation, University of North Texas. | | | |0.042 Math | | |

|Kreifels, Robert G. (2003) A study of selected teacher interview |N=260 elementary teachers |TPI (reported 3 |5th reading |Math—no significant | |The sample size reported for the correlations was 17, which I |

|characteristics and student achievement. Ed.D. dissertation, Saint Louis |(N=17 at 4/5 grade ?) |subscales) |4th math |relationships with | |cannot figure out. |

|University. | | | |correlations ranging| |No relationship between ITBS and TPI found |

| | | | |from 0.20 to –0.03 | | |

| | | | |Reading 0.43 to 0.25| | |

| | | | |with no significant | | |

| | | | |results | | |

|LASHER, HUDSON FRED (1976) THE TEACHER PERCEIVER INTERVIEW AS |Students in education program|TPI | | | |Of little comparative use. |

|ANINSTRUMENT FOR IDENTIFYING CHARACTERISTICS OF PROSPECTIVETEACHERS. | | | | | |Compared college student scores with average national TPI scores |

|Ed.D.. dissertation, University of Wyoming. | | | | | | |

|LEAHY, RICHARD EDGAR (1984) TEACHER CHARACTERISTICS AND | | | | | |Document could not be located at KU |

|STUDENTACHIEVEMENT: AN EXPLORATION OF THE EMPLOYMENT INTERVIEW. Ph.D. | | | | | | |

|dissertation, University of Minnesota. | | | | | | |

|Loyd, David Eugene (2004) The effect of a screening instrument to |N=242 teachers in 3-8 grades |Urban TPI |Tenn. Value Added |No significant main | |Sample was divided into 6 categories based on UTPI score and |

|determine teacher effectiveness as measured by academic gain scores. | | |achievement in math, |effect ANOVA F | |ANOVA conducted. |

|Ed.D. dissertation, The University of Tennessee. | | |reading, language |values were pretty | | |

| | | | |low thus the | | |

| | | | |correlation probably| | |

| | | | |was close to zero | | |

|MAUSER, PHILLIP J. (1986) THE PREDICTIVE VALIDITY OF THE TEACHERPERCEIVER|N=77 all levels |TPI |Principal Evaluation |0.02 | |Excellent background review of the TPI development and older |

|INTERVIEW TO TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS. Ed.D.. dissertation, Oklahoma State | | | | | |studies. Early studies indicated 0.7-0.8 KR internal reliability |

|University. | | | | | | |

|MILLS, JONATHAN KENDALL (1986) THE TEACHER PERCEIVER INSTRUMENT AND |N=? Seventh-day Adventist |TPI |Principal evaluation |Concluded no | |Dissertation not available, thus information derived from |

|ITSCORRELATION WITH OBSERVER RATINGS OF TEACHER-PUPIL RELATIONSHIPS |schools | |using ORS McDaniel |relationship | |abstract |

|(TEACHER INTERVIEWS, CALIFORNIA, TEACHER EVALUATION). Ed.D. dissertation,| | |Observer Rating Scale | | | |

|Loma Linda University. | | | | | | |

|MOODY, WALTER EUGENE (1973) A COMPARISON OF TEACHER PERCEIVER | | | | | |Document could not be located at KU |

|INTERVIEWGUIDE AND MINNESOTA TEACHER ATTITUDE INVENTORY SCORES WITH | | | | | | |

|SUPERVISORRANKING OF SPECIAL EDUCATION TEACHERS. Ed.D.. dissertation, | | | | | | |

|University of Kansas. | | | | | | |

|Martin, Linda J. (2008) Searching for effective teachers: A statistical |N=315 |VE Interview | | |0.757 Cronback |“Construct validity of the instrument was not confirmed” |

|analysis of the Ventures for Excellence Teacher Interview questionnaire. | | | | | |Three factors were discovered: interpersonal sensitivity, |

|Ed.D. dissertation, Seattle Pacific University. | | | | | |engagement beliefs and strategies, and flexible thinking |

|Mills, Scott A. (2007) An investigation of the predictive validity of a |N=61 grades 3-5 sample was |VE interview |Northwest Evaluation |0.36 (Reading) | |Unclear if the teachers having VE scores were younger than those |

|structured teacher-interview instrument. Ph.D. dissertation, Purdue |used for other purposes | |Association’s Measure of|0.33 (LA) | |with no scores. Appears to be a lot of data lost as many |

|University. |N=38 teachers had VE scores | |Academic Progress in |0.27 (math) | |correlations were based on only 100 or so students. |

| | | |reading, LA, and math |7%-13% of variance | | |

|Neal, Stephen O. (1997) A comparison of principals' perceptions of | |TPI | | | |Compared principal and teacher self-ratings on the 12 TPI themes.|

|teacher candidates and selected talent profiles. Ed.D. dissertation, | | | | | |Did not report a great deal of overlap |

|Northern Illinois University. | | | | | | |

|OVERMAN, WILLIAM F. (1981) THE IMPORTANCE OF THE TEACHER | | | | | |Dissertation not available, thus information derived from |

|PERCEIVERINTERVIEW AS A TEACHER SELECTION CRITERION TO ADMINISTRATORS | | | | | |abstract |

|INRELATIONSHIP TO THEIR LEADERSHIP STYLE. Ed.D.. dissertation, University| | | | | |Qualitative study of how administrators perceived the value of |

|of Northern Colorado. | | | | | |the TPI and how they used the results |

|Ostlund, Charles N. (2006) The Teacher Perceiver Interview as apredictor |N=339 special education |TPI Interview |Rates of retention of | | |TPI explained almost no variance. (full Dissertation not |

|of teacher retention in special education. Ed.D. dissertation, University|teachers | |teachers | | |available, thus information derived from abstract) |

|of Virginia. | | | | | | |

|Papiernik, Henry Joseph (1988) An analysis of rating proficiency in the |N=127 principals up for |TPI | | | |Full Dissertation not available, thus information derived from |

|use of the teacher perceiver interview in the selection of teachers. |recertification on the TPI | | | | |abstract |

|Ed.D. dissertation, Temple University. | | | | | |Original proficiency gained from the TPI training is maintained |

| | | | | | |through recertification program. |

| | | | | | |So what was learned? Isn’t that obvious? |

|Potthoff, Dennis Eugene (1991) A qualitative case study of the | | | | | |Qualitative study of 5 elementary education majors |

|relationship between the scores of selected students on the SRI/UNL | | | | | |Interview scores and classroom behavior were different |

|Teacher Perceiver Interview and their subsequent student teaching | | | | | | |

|success. Ph.D. dissertation, The University of Nebraska - Lincoln,. | | | | | | |

|Ricker, Ann Marie McNeela (1999) Teacher selection: Chicago Region One |Single building | | | | |Qualitative study of what principals deem important in a |

|elementary neighborhood school administrators since school reform. Ed.D. | | | | | |candidate |

|dissertation, Northern Illinois University. | | | | | | |

|Robison, Scott E. (2003) An exploratory study of the utility of a |N=14 (half scored well the |VE Interview |Northwest testing data, | |5/14 teachers moved |Comparison of high and low groups was significant in LA and Math |

|structured interview in the employment of classroom teachers. Ph.D. |other half did not) 2-4 grade| |student surveys, | |to the other group |but not reading |

|dissertation, Purdue University. |teachers. N=263 students | |supervisor’s assessment | |after one year and |Comparison groups was not significant for student surveys. |

| | | | | |re-interviewing |Principal evaluations were handled in a qualitative manner |

| | | | | |using the VE | |

|SIMMONS, BERTIE AUSTIN (1984) AN ANALYTICAL AND COMPARATIVE STUDY OF |N=164 teachers |TPI |Principal rating |No significant | |Divided the teachers into 5 groups based on supervisor’s rating |

|THESELECTION RESEARCH INTERVIEW AS AN INSTRUMENT FOR SELECTING TEACHERS | | |Employment stability |relationship via | |followed by ANOVA |

|FORA LARGE, URBAN SCHOOL DISTRICT. Educat. D. dissertation, Texas | | | |ANOVA | |Also did a correlation which was NS |

|Southern University. | | | |0.372 correlation | | |

| | | | |that was not | | |

| | | | |significant | | |

|SIMMONS, JAMES ELWOOD (1976) A STUDY TO TEST THE TEACHER |N=42 |TPI |Student |0.40 with student | |Not all the TPI scales correlated but the total did |

|PERCEIVERINTERVIEW AS AN INSTRUMENT THAT WOULD SELECT VOCATIONAL | | |evaluations--rapport |ratings | | |

|AGRICULTUREINSTRUCTORS THAT DEVELOP POSITIVE RAPPORT WITH THEIR STUDENTS.| | |Administrator ratings |0.37 with | | |

|Ph.D. dissertation, The University of Nebraska - Lincoln. | | | |administrator | | |

| | | | |ratings | | |

|Sawyer, Gayle Buckheister (2005) A study using the Star Teacher Selection|N=33 first year teachers from|Star Teacher |Principals evaluation |No predictive value | |Dissertation not available, thus information derived from |

|Interview to predict the successful performance of teachers in South |alternative certification | | | | |abstract |

|Carolina's Program of Alternative Certification for Educators. Ph.D. |program | | | | | |

|dissertation, University of South Carolina. | | | | | | |

|Schmidt, Wayne D. (1993) The Teacher Perceiver Interview as a predictor |N=154 hired and 144 not hired|TPI |PBES-Principal |0.015 for TPI and | |TPI was a good predictor if candidate was hired (TPI use as |

|of teacher performance. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Missouri | | |evaluation |Principal Evaluation| |screening device thus results were obvious) |

|-Columbia. | | | |N=155 | | |

|Simmons, Anne Carol Brown (1996) A validation study of the use of the |N=55 teachers |TPI |TPAQ-Principal |unknown | |GTOI was not usable since little if any variation |

|Teacher Perceiver Interview (TPI) in a selected southeastern urban high | | |evaluation—measure | | |TPAQ study was qualitative in nature |

|school. Ph.D. dissertation, Georgia State University. | | |GTOI-Principal | | |Study of little use |

| | | |evaluation | | | |

|THOMPSON, ALBERT RAY (1982) THE TEACHER PERCEIVER INTERVIEW AS RELATEDTO |N=27 4th and 5th grade |TPI |Student scores on math, |TPI total score not | |Dissertation not available, thus information derived from |

|STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT. Ed.D.. dissertation, University of Northern |teachers | |reading, and la on the |related to | |abstract |

|Colorado. | | |CTBS |achievement | | |

|Watson, Robert Lewis (1991) A study comparing the profile of selected |40 student teachers |TPI |Compared to TPI national| | |Of little value in assessing the TPI |

|University of Wyoming student teachers with the SRI Gallup Teacher | | |sample | | | |

|Perceiver Interview. Ed.D. dissertation, University of Wyoming. | | | | | | |

|ZARANEK, RICHARD JAMES (1983) A CORRELATIONAL ANALYSIS BETWEEN THETEACHER|N=21 elementary |TPI |Supervisor Evaluation |R=0.46 Elementary | |Range restriction effect present |

|PERCEIVER INTERVIEW AND TEACHER SUCCESS IN THE CHIPPEWA VALLEYSCHOOL |N=29 secondary teachers | | |teachers | |Job satisfaction also included in results |

|SYSTEM (MICHIGAN). Ed.D.. dissertation, Western Michigan University. | | | |R=-0.12 Secondary | |Note absolute differences between elementary and secondary |

| | | | |teachers | |teachers. |

|Gatti, Sharon (1990) Predictors of future teacher effectiveness for |Non-traditional student |TPI plus a host of |Florida Performance |TPI not a | |Not very relevant for this study |

|nontraditional teacher certification candidates. Ph.D. dissertation, |teachers |other measures |Measurement System |significant | |Dissertation not available, thus information derived from |

|Colorado State university | | |(FPMS)—I assume |predictor. | |abstract. |

| | | |completed by cooperating| | | |

| | | |teacher | | | |

|English, John Jarvis (1983) The Relationship between Structured Selection|N=60 elementary and MS |TPI |Assessment for |6 themes | |Dissertation not available, thus information derived from |

|Criteria and the Assessment of Proficient Teaching Ed.D. dissertation, |teachers | |Professional |significantly | |abstract |

|University of Virginia | | |Development—based on |correlated | | |

| | | |effective teaching | | | |

| | | |research (observational | | | |

| | | |data?) | | | |

|Trinka, Rosanne (1983) The Relationship between Administrative Ratings, |N=290 second-forth year |TPI |Principal teacher |TPI correlates only | |Dissertation not available, thus information derived from |

|Selection Criteria, and Demographic Variables of Teachers Employed by |teachers |Host of other measures |evaluations |for 4th year group | |abstract |

|Baltimore County Public Schools, Ed.D. University of Maryland | | | | | |Examined correlations separately for 2,3,4 year teachers |

|Klussmann, Ducan F. (2004) The Impact of Teachers Selected by the Star | N=87 reading teachers |Star Teacher |Reading and math |No statistical | |Dissertation not available, thus information derived from |

|Teacher Interview Process on Student Achievement. Ed.D. dissertation, |N=88 math teachers | |achievement scores |relationship | |abstract. |

|Seton Hall |1351 student scores | | | | | |

|Young, I. Philip, and Delli, Dane (2002) The Validity of the Teacher |N=124 full version |TPI (both versions) |Principal ratings and |0.25 rating Full |0.57 LV |Examined outcomes via two data sets (using long and short |

|Perceiver Interview for Predicting Performance of Classroom Teachers. |N=72 Short version | |attendance |Version |0.27 SV |versions) |

|Educational Administration Quarterly, 38, 5, p586-612 | | | |0.18 rating short |Individual scales | |

| | | | |version |ranged from | |

| | | | |-0.24 attendance FV |0.55-0.00 on LV | |

| | | | |0.09 attendance SV | | |

|Ryan, Patricia M., and Alcock, Martha A. (2002) Personal and | | | | | |Summary of the characteristics of the TPI, Star, Praxis, National|

|Interpersonal Attributes in Selecting teachers, Action in Teacher | | | | | |Board for Professional Teaching |

|Education, 24, 1, p58-67 | | | | | | |

|Sentz, Erma I. (1991) Predicting success in Student Teacher from Teacher |Data were collected |TPI |Student teaching success| | |Results indicated that the Teacher Perceiver Screener showed |

|Perceiver Screeners and Pre-Professional Skills Tests, ED329517 |throughout the 1989-90 school| | | | |promise for use in predicting student teachers' abilities to |

| |year at St. Cloud State | | | | |motivate and communicate with students and to apply their skills |

| |University | | | | |in using specific teaching methods in classrooms. |

|Report: AISD-ORE-83.43 (1984) No Panaceas: A Brief Discussion of Teacher | |TPI | | | |Little support of TPI |

|Selection Instruments, Austin Independent School District, Tx. Office of | | | | | | |

|Research and Evaluation | | | | | | |

|Muller, Gale M. (1978) In Defense of the Teacher Perceiver, Phi Delta | | | | | | |

|Kappan, 59, 10, p 684-5. | | | | | | |

|Haefele, Donald L. (1978) The Teacher Perceiver Interview: How Valid, Phi| | | | | | |

|Delta Kappan, 59, 10, p 683-4 | | | | | | |

|Miller, J. D. and others (1977) A Preliminary Investigation of the | | | | | |Conclusions 1)empirical bases for claims of the various Perceiver|

|Teacher Perceiver Instrument for Teacher Selection, RDCTE-TR-5077 | | | | | |systems are weak 2)evidence that the 60 question format of the |

| | | | | | |TPI is partially predictive of student ratings of new teachers |

| | | | | | |but not of outcomes of good teaching 3) no evidence the TPI is |

| | | | | | |superior to classical interview |

|Drozd, Dee (2006) Poster presented at the 21rd annual conference of the |N=180 teachers across 12 |Teacher Insight |Principal and student |0.25/0.28 |0.81 Cronback on |Initial tested version was 35 items |

|Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology |school districts (all levels)| |ratings |correlations with |entire instrument |No significant age or race bias |

|Study 1 | | | |students and | | |

| | | | |principals | | |

|Drozd, Dee (2006) Poster presented at the 21rd annual conference of the |N=621 teachers from 25 | Teacher Insight |Principal and student |0.21 with students |0.77 Cronback |Revised 35 item version |

|Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology |districts (all levels) | |ratings |0.12 with principal | | |

|Study 2 | | | |rating | | |

|Drozd, Dee, Kirk, Paul, Hays, Theodore (2008) Two Validation Studies of a|190 alternative certified |Teacher Insight |Student gain scores in |0.33 | |34 item Insight instrument |

|School Teacher Selection System, Poster presented at the 23rd annual |teachers placed into 3 groups| |math and reading | | | |

|conference of the Society for Industrial and Organizational |based on their student’s | | | | | |

|Psychology—Study 1 |academic progress in gain | | | | | |

| |scores | | | | | |

|Drozd, Dee, Kirk, Paul, Hays, Theodore (2008) Two Validation Studies of a|N=72 elementary and middle | |Percent of students in a|0.563 however from | |No mention of how many middle scores were deleted. |

|School Teacher Selection System, Poster presented at the 23rd annual |school teachers | |teacher’s class making a|taking only the top | | |

|conference of the Society for Industrial and Organizational | | |gain on SAT10 and |and bottom quadrant.| | |

|Psychology—Study 2 | | |Florida Comprehensive |Scores in 1st and | | |

| | | |Assessment Test |4th quadrant were | | |

| | | | |deleted. | | |

|Metzger, Alan and Meng-Jia Wu (2008) Commercial Teacher Selection |Meta analysis of 24 studies |TPI | |0.28 from 24 studies| |Meta analysis of 24 correlational studies |

|Instruments, Review of Educational Research (in press). |on the TPI | | | | |Concluded that a modest relationship exists |

| | | | | | |Raises questions about what the TPI actually measures |

|Allshouse, Tim J. (2003) A study of the concurrent validity of the |N=21 Content experts |ICIS | |Significant t-test |0.97 on Knowledge of|Compared individuals with strong content background in a given |

|"Knowledge of Content Scale" from the American Association of School |N=20 Not content experts |Knowledge of Content | |differences between |Content Scale |field with excellent teachers who did not have a strong |

|Personnel Administrators' (AASPA) Interactive Computer Interview System | |Scale | |groups | |background in content field |

|(ICIS). Ed.D. dissertation, University of Kansas | | | | | | |

|Beutel, Jennifer L. (2006) The development and field test of an |N=40 special education |ICIS—Special Education |Special education |0.489 for |0.93 on total tool |Describes the development of the version for special education |

|employment interview system designed to identify the highly qualified |teachers | |supervisor rating |supervisors | |teachers |

|special education teacher. Ed.D. dissertation, The University of Kansas | | | | | | |

|Cowan, Patrick Lawrence (1999) A comparison of the predictive power of |27 principals rated |Job vs personality |Principal ratings of |Both types of | |The study sought to compare personality and job-based structured |

|competency-based and personality-based structured interviews in |transcript interviews using |questions |transcripts of |questions | |interview formats. The objective was to determine which of the |

|identifying successful teachers. Ed.D. dissertation, University of |both personality and | |interviews |significantly | |two was better in terms of predicting the ultimate success of |

|Kansas |job-related questions | | |predicted teacher | |newly hired teachers. One, the job-related questions had an |

| | | | |quality | |overall classification accuracy of 86.3% while the personality |

|Published in Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education | | | | | |questions accurately classified only 75% of the cases. |

| | | | | | |Published in Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education |

|Cox, David R. (2006) A study of the reliability of the |N=30 urban teachers |ICIS-Urban |Principal and central |0.586 on urban scale|0.89 on urban scale |Published in Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education 18: |

|Aptitude/Suitability for Teaching in Urban Schools Scale from the | | |office ratings of | |of ICIS |201-218 |

|American Association of School Personnel Administrators (AASPA) | | |teachers | | | |

|Interactive Computer Interview Instrument (ICIS). Ed.D. dissertation, The| | | | | | |

|University of Kansas | | | | | | |

| | | | | | | |

|Published in Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education 18: 201-218 | | | | | | |

|Dillon, Amy (2006) The development of an interview system to identify |N=45 |ICIS-Paraprofessional |Evaluations within |0.80 for instrument |0.958 for instrument|Paper presented at AASPA in 2007. |

|quality paraprofessionals. Ed.D. dissertation, The University of Kansas | | |district by supervisor | | | |

|Dugan, Erin P. (2007) The reliability of building administrators' and |N=44 |ICIS-Special Education |Accuracies of scores on | | |Special education administrators were no better than regular |

|special education administrators' ratings of special education teacher |22 special education | |training video | | |administrators in identifying quality teacher responses |

|applicants using an Interactive Computerized Interview System. Ph.D. |administrators and 22 general| | | | | |

|dissertation, University of Kansas |administrators | | | | | |

|Green, Mary Elizabeth (2005) The development and field testing of an |N=37 secondary school |ICIS-Counselor |Supervisors rating |0.52 |0.90 for total and |Published in Journal of School Counseling |

|interview instrument designed to identify quality secondary school |counselors | | | |all subscales | |

|counselors. Ed.D. dissertation, The University of Kansas | | | | | | |

| | | | | | | |

|Published in Journal of School Counseling | | | | | | |

| |N=31 clerical staff |ICIS—Office Staff |Supervisors rating |0.45 |0.84 for total | |

|Hale, Tina M. (2006) The development and field test of an interview | | | | | | |

|system to identify quality school district office personnel. Ed.D. | | | | | | |

|dissertation, The University of Kansas | | | | | | |

|Longenecker, Dale (2006) An investigation of the metric properties of the|Monte Carlo simulations |ICIS | | | |This research concluded that the branching format allowed for |

|interactive computer interview system. Ed.D. dissertation, The University| | | | | |significantly more accurate results from candidates with |

|of Kansas | | | | | |inconsistent responses, while not elongating the interview |

| | | | | | |process for all candidates. |

|Reik, Michael J. (2007) An examination of concurrent validity of the |N=40 third and fourth grade |ICIS |Missouri MAP achievement|0.454 | |Significant correlation between achievement and ICIS total |

|Interactive Computer Interview System (ICIS) using communication arts and|teachers | |tests | | |scores. ¾ subscales also produced significant correlations. |

|math achievement on the Missouri Assessment Program (MAP) as the outcome | | | | | |Knowledge of Content was only no-significant subscale at p .001 |

|measure. Ed.D. dissertation, University of Kansas | | | | | |level |

|Smith, Vicki W. (2006) The development and field testing of a school |N=41 |ICIS-School |Supervisors rating |0.51 for total |0.87 for total |Results of this study found that practitioners who obtained |

|psychologist employment interview instrument. Ed.D. dissertation, The | |Psychologist | |instrument |instrument |higher average scores on the interview were rated significantly |

|University of Kansas | | | | | |higher by their supervisors. |

| | | | | | | |

|Published in Journal of Applied School Psychology | | | | | | |

|Springston, Scott M. (2006) A study of the reliability and concurrent |N=30 |ICIS-Urban |Supervisors rating |0.59 for total |0.89 |“Statistical analyses indicated a significant correlation between|

|validity of the ICIS-Urban teacher interview instrument. Ed.D. | | | |instrument | |the ICIS-Urban scales Aptitude/Suitability for Urban Teachers |

|dissertation, The University of Kansas | | | | | |(UT), Knowledge of Teaching (KT) and Knowledge of Students (KS) |

| | | | | | |and the district rating of the teacher but a weak correlation |

|Published in Evaluation of School Personnel Journal | | | | | |between the ICIS-Urban scales of Knowledge of Content (KC) and |

| | | | | | |Working with Others |

| | | | | | |(WO)” |

|Stevenson, Gary L. (2005) A study comparing the scores of experienced and|N=50 elementary teachers |ICIS |Examined scores across | | |“This indicates a statistically significant relationship exists |

|inexperienced teachers using the American Association of School Personnel| | |age and experience | | |between experience, age and scores earned on the ICIS tool. |

|Administrator's Interactive Computer Interview System. Ed.D. | | | | | |However, given such a low r-square value, the usefulness of these|

|dissertation, The University of Kansas | | | | | |results is questionable. Based on the results of this analysis, |

| | | | | | |it appears age and experience matter but probably not |

| | | | | | |sufficiently to warrant adjusting the interview scores based on |

| | | | | | |these factors.” |

|Weishaar, Michael (2007) A study of the predictive validity of the |N=40 |ICIS |Stanford Achievement |No correlation | |“This research concluded that the ICIS interview did not |

|Interactive Computer Interview System (ICIS). Ph.D. dissertation, | | |test | | |effectively differentiate between teachers whose students |

|University of Kansas | | | | | |performed at different levels on a given standardized test. This |

| | | | | | |could have been due to a number of factors. One such factor is |

| | | | | | |the time lapse between the time the standardized tests were given|

| | | | | | |and the time the interviews were conducted.” |

| | | | | | |(3 years) |

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download