Less Truth Than Error: Massachusetts Teacher Tests

Scores on the Massachusetts Teacher Tests of reading and writing are highly unreliable. The tests' margin of error is close to double to triple the range found on well-developed tests. A person retaking the MTT several times could have huge fluctuations in their scores even if their skill level...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Walt Haney, Clarke Fowler, Anne Wheelock, Damian Bebell, Nicole Malec
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Arizona State University 1999-02-01
Series:Education Policy Analysis Archives
Online Access:http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/article/view/539
id doaj-442c8bc2f9c84e11ba79dc78f63dbd49
record_format Article
spelling doaj-442c8bc2f9c84e11ba79dc78f63dbd492020-11-25T03:00:42ZengArizona State UniversityEducation Policy Analysis Archives1068-23411999-02-0174Less Truth Than Error: Massachusetts Teacher TestsWalt HaneyClarke FowlerAnne WheelockDamian BebellNicole MalecScores on the Massachusetts Teacher Tests of reading and writing are highly unreliable. The tests' margin of error is close to double to triple the range found on well-developed tests. A person retaking the MTT several times could have huge fluctuations in their scores even if their skill level did not change significantly. In fact, the 9 to 17 point margin of error calculated for the tests represents more than 10 percent of the grading scale (assumed to be 0 to 100). The large margin of error means there is both a high false-pass rate and a high false-failure rate. For example, a person who received a score of 72 on the writing test could have scored an 89 or a 55 simply because of the unreliability of the test. Since adults' reading and writing skills do not change a great deal over several months, this range of scores on the same test should not be possible. While this test is being touted as an accurate assessment of a person's fitness to be a teacher, one would expect the scores to accurately reflect a test-taker's verbal ability level. In addition to the large margin of error, the MTT contain questionable content that make them poor tools for measuring test-takers' reading and writing skills. The content and lack of correlation between the reading and writing scores reduces the meaningfulness, or validity, of the tests. The validity is affected not just by the content, but by a host of factors, such as the conditions under which tests were administered and how they were scored. Interviews with a small sample of test-takers confirmed published reports concerning problems with the content and administration. http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/article/view/539
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Walt Haney
Clarke Fowler
Anne Wheelock
Damian Bebell
Nicole Malec
spellingShingle Walt Haney
Clarke Fowler
Anne Wheelock
Damian Bebell
Nicole Malec
Less Truth Than Error: Massachusetts Teacher Tests
Education Policy Analysis Archives
author_facet Walt Haney
Clarke Fowler
Anne Wheelock
Damian Bebell
Nicole Malec
author_sort Walt Haney
title Less Truth Than Error: Massachusetts Teacher Tests
title_short Less Truth Than Error: Massachusetts Teacher Tests
title_full Less Truth Than Error: Massachusetts Teacher Tests
title_fullStr Less Truth Than Error: Massachusetts Teacher Tests
title_full_unstemmed Less Truth Than Error: Massachusetts Teacher Tests
title_sort less truth than error: massachusetts teacher tests
publisher Arizona State University
series Education Policy Analysis Archives
issn 1068-2341
publishDate 1999-02-01
description Scores on the Massachusetts Teacher Tests of reading and writing are highly unreliable. The tests' margin of error is close to double to triple the range found on well-developed tests. A person retaking the MTT several times could have huge fluctuations in their scores even if their skill level did not change significantly. In fact, the 9 to 17 point margin of error calculated for the tests represents more than 10 percent of the grading scale (assumed to be 0 to 100). The large margin of error means there is both a high false-pass rate and a high false-failure rate. For example, a person who received a score of 72 on the writing test could have scored an 89 or a 55 simply because of the unreliability of the test. Since adults' reading and writing skills do not change a great deal over several months, this range of scores on the same test should not be possible. While this test is being touted as an accurate assessment of a person's fitness to be a teacher, one would expect the scores to accurately reflect a test-taker's verbal ability level. In addition to the large margin of error, the MTT contain questionable content that make them poor tools for measuring test-takers' reading and writing skills. The content and lack of correlation between the reading and writing scores reduces the meaningfulness, or validity, of the tests. The validity is affected not just by the content, but by a host of factors, such as the conditions under which tests were administered and how they were scored. Interviews with a small sample of test-takers confirmed published reports concerning problems with the content and administration.
url http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/article/view/539
work_keys_str_mv AT walthaney lesstruththanerrormassachusettsteachertests
AT clarkefowler lesstruththanerrormassachusettsteachertests
AT annewheelock lesstruththanerrormassachusettsteachertests
AT damianbebell lesstruththanerrormassachusettsteachertests
AT nicolemalec lesstruththanerrormassachusettsteachertests
_version_ 1724696485011914752