Skip to content
University of Maryland LibrariesDigital Repository at the University of Maryland
    • Login
    View Item 
    •   DRUM
    • Theses and Dissertations from UMD
    • UMD Theses and Dissertations
    • View Item
    •   DRUM
    • Theses and Dissertations from UMD
    • UMD Theses and Dissertations
    • View Item
    JavaScript is disabled for your browser. Some features of this site may not work without it.

    A COMPARISON OF DIFFERENT METHODS THAT DEAL WITH CONSTRUCT SHIFT IN VALUE ADDED MODELING: IS VERTICAL SCALING NECESSARY?

    Thumbnail
    View/Open
    Luo_umd_0117E_14789.pdf (2.858Mb)
    No. of downloads: 349

    Date
    2013
    Author
    Luo, Yong
    Advisor
    Jiao, Hong
    Metadata
    Show full item record
    Abstract
    Construct shift is a term used to describe the change of tests in the construct they intend to measure. In tests across multiple grades where curriculum change occurs, construct shift is expected to exist. This presents a problem to many VAM models that assume scores across multiple grades are on a common developmental scale, since these scores cannot be placed on the same scale through vertical scaling. There are three methods currently available to deal with construct shift: the CU method ignores construct shift, carry out the vertical scaling process with a unidimensional IRT model, and directly use the vertically scaled scores in specific VAM models that require vertical scaling; the CB method models construct shift, carry out the vertical scaling process with a bifactor model and use the scores on the general factor in specific VAM models that require vertical scaling; the SU method does not use vertical scaling but directly applies the scores at each grade in the generalized persistence (GP) model. A simulation study was conducted to compare the impacts of construct shift upon teacher rank ordering estimation with those three methods. Results suggest that the performances of all three methods are subject to the influence of magnitude of construct shift and choice of teacher effect persistence pattern. The CB and the CU methods perform similarly, while the SU method is superior to them in most simulation conditions. Only with large magnitude of construct shift is the CB method slightly better than the SU method in terms of the last year's teacher effect estimation. The CB method performs better than the CU method with large magnitude of construct shift, while they perform similarly with small or medium magnitude of construct shift. It is concluded that the SU method performs the best among those three methods and is recommend for use in practice.
    URI
    http://hdl.handle.net/1903/14933
    Collections
    • Human Development & Quantitative Methodology Theses and Dissertations
    • UMD Theses and Dissertations

    DRUM is brought to you by the University of Maryland Libraries
    University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742-7011 (301)314-1328.
    Please send us your comments.
    Web Accessibility
     

     

    Browse

    All of DRUMCommunities & CollectionsBy Issue DateAuthorsTitlesSubjectsThis CollectionBy Issue DateAuthorsTitlesSubjects

    My Account

    LoginRegister
    Pages
    About DRUMAbout Download Statistics

    DRUM is brought to you by the University of Maryland Libraries
    University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742-7011 (301)314-1328.
    Please send us your comments.
    Web Accessibility