The agreement between independent ratings assigned by members of observation teams administering an interview schedule was studied. The appropriateness of selection requirements and the adequacy of observer training in the program are reviewed. Implications are drawn from the objectivity of the ratings for the estimated reliability and validity of the interview schedule.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Eisner, E. W.Uses of educational connoiseurship and criticism for evaluating classroom life. Teachers College Record, 1977, 78, 345-358.
2.
Gulliksen, H.Theory of mental tests. New York: Wiley, 1950 .
3.
Halvorsen, J. and Paden, J. S.Survey of effective school processes. Dayton: Institute for Development of Educational Activities, Charles F. Kettering Foundation, 1976.
4.
Paden, J. S.Development of an implementational strategy. Dayton: Institute of Development of Educational Activities, Charles F. Kettering Foundation, 1969.
5.
Payne, D. A.The assessment of learning, cognitive and affective. Lexington, Mass.: Heath and Company, 1974.
6.
Rossi, P. H. and Wright, S. R.Evaluation research, an assessment of theory, practice and politics. Evaluation Quarterly, 1977, 1, 5-52.
7.
Sax, G.Principles of educational measurement and evaluation. Belmont, Calif.: Wadsworth, 1974.
8.
Thorndike, R. L. and Hagen, E.Measurement and evaluation in psychology and education , (4th ed.) New York: Wiley, 1977.
