This commentary on the article titled “Examining the Internal Structure Evidence for the Performance Assessment for California Teachers: A Validation Study of the Elementary Literacy Teaching Event for Tier 1 Teacher Licensure” provides an overview of Performance Assessment for California Teachers (PACT), its relationship to edTPA and the construct (domains) measured, a summary of the major findings of the article commented on, a discussion of PACT validity issues and rubrics, and the need for instructionally sensitive and formative assessments. It concludes with recommendations to the State of California that include attention to construct validity, improved rubrics, formative use of the data, and attention to utility as well as validity and reliability.
American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, and National Council of Measurement in Education. (1999). Standards for educational and psychological testing. Washington, DC: Author.
Council for the Accreditation of Educator Preparation. (2013). CAEP 2103 standards for accreditation of educator preparation. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from http://caepnet.org/standards/caep-commission/standards/
Darling HammondL. (2013). Getting teacher evaluation right: What really matters for effectiveness and improvement. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
7.
DuckorB.CastellanoK.TéllezK.WihardiniD.WilsonM. (2014). Examining the internal structure evidence for the Performance Assessment for California Teachers: A validation study of the elementary literacy teaching event for Tier I teacher licensure. Journal of Teacher Education, 65(5), 402-420.
8.
ElliottE.KahlS. (2014). The domain of assessment literacy and its status in teacher education programs. Washington, DC: American Association of Colleges of Teacher Education.
PecheoneR.ChungR. (2007). Technical report of the Performance Assessment for California Teachers (PACT): Summary of validity and reliability studies for the 2003-2004 pilot year. Stanford, CA: PACT Consortium.
PophamW. (2008). Transformative assessment. Alexandria VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
17.
StigginsR.ChappuisS. (2005). Putting testing in perspective: It’s for learning. Principal Leadership, 6(2), 16-20.
18.
WilkersonJ. R. (2012). Measurement and evaluation perspectives on scaling teacher affect with multiple measures. The International Journal of Educational and Psychological Assessment, 9(2), 165-187.
19.
WilkersonJ. R.LangW. S. (2003). Portfolios, the Pied Piper of teacher certification assessments: Legal and psychometric issues. Educational Policy Analysis Archives, 11(45), 1-30.
20.
WilkersonJ. R.LangW. S. (2007). Assessing teacher competency: Five standards-based steps to valid measurements using the CAATS model. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
21.
WilsonM. (2004). Constructing measures: An item response modelling approach. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
22.
YarbroughD. B.ShulhaL. M.HopsonR. K.CaruthersF. A. (2011). The program evaluation standards: A guide for evaluators and evaluation users (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
