This study examines the structural validity of the 2019 Teacher MKT assessment using empirical data from a sample of 645 elementary educators in Florida (USA). The examination of structural validity was supported through a series of complementary analyses, including evaluation of the dimensionality of the underlying latent trait, item performance, reliability, and the standard error of measurement. Evidence from dimensionality analysis pointed to a borderline unidimensional structure, implying that one factor or dimension may be sufficient for measuring the underlying construct. Based on the empirical results, the 2019 Teacher MKT appears to have adequate reliability and provides useful information about a relatively wide range of teacher abilities.
BallD. L.ThamesM. H.PhelpsG. (2008). Content knowledge for teaching: What makes it special?Journal of Teacher Education, 59(5), 389–407. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487108324554
2.
BanilowerE. R.SmithP. S. (2006, April 3–6). Measuring teachers’ knowledge for teaching force and motion concepts [Paper presentation]. National Association for Research in Science Teaching (NARST)2006 Annual Meeting, San Francisco.
3.
CharalambousC. Y.HillH. C.ChinM. J.McGinnD. (2020). Mathematical content knowledge and knowledge for teaching: Exploring their distinguishability and contribution to student learning. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 23(6), 579–613. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10857-019-09443-2
Copur-GencturkY.TolarT.JacobsonE.FanW. (2018). An empirical study of the dimensionality of the mathematical knowledge for teaching construct. Journal of Teacher Education, 70(5), 485–497. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487118761860
6.
FinchW. H. (2020). Using fit statistic differences to determine the optimal number of factors to retain in an exploratory factor analysis. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 80(2), 217–241. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164419865769
7.
FlakeJ. K.PekJ.HehmanE. (2017). Construct validation in social and personality research: Current practice and recommendations. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 8(4), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550617693063
8.
HillH. C.CharalambousC. Y.BlazarD.McGinnD.KraftM. A.BeisiegelM.HumezA.LitkeE.LynchK. (2012). Validating arguments for observational instruments: Attending to multiple sources of variation. Educational Assessment, 17(2–3), 88–106. https://doi.org/10.1080/10627197.2012.715019
9.
HillH. C.RowanB.BallD. L. (2005). Effects of teachers’ mathematical knowledge for teaching on student achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 42(2), 371–406. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312042002371
10.
HillH. C.SchillingS. G.BallD. L. (2004). Developing measures of teachers’ mathematical knowledge for teaching. The Elementary School Journal, 105(1), 11–30. https://doi.org/10.1086/428763
11.
HillH. C.SchillingS. G.BallD. L. (2004). Developing measures of teachers’ mathematics knowledge for teaching. The Elementary School Journal, 105(1), 11–30. https://doi.org/10.1086/428763
12.
HuL. T.BentlerP. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118
13.
IzsákA.JacobsonE.BradshawL. (2019). Surveying middle-grades teachers’ reasoning about fraction arithmetic in terms of measured quantities. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 50(2), 156–209. https://doi.org/10.5951/jresematheduc.50.2.0156
14.
Learning Mathematics for Teaching. (2004). Mathematical knowledge for teaching measures: Geometry content knowledge, number concepts and operations content knowledge, and patterns and algebra content knowledge. Author.
15.
SchoenR. C.BrayW.WolfeC.NielsenL.TazazA. M. (2017). Developing an assessment instrument to measure early elementary teachers’ mathematical knowledge for teaching. The Elementary School Journal, 118(1), 55–81. https://doi.org/10.1086/692912
16.
SchoenR. C.BrayW. S.TazazA. M.BuntinC. K. (2022). A description of the cognitively guided instruction professional development program in Florida: 2013–2020. Florida State University. https://doi.org/10.33009/fsu.1643828800
17.
SchoenR. C.GuvenA.SolmazG.WangQ.TazazA. (2022). Knowledge for teaching early elementary mathematics (K-TEEM): Second administration by participants in 2019. [data set]. Open Science Framework. https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/GDRMW
18.
SchoenR. C.LaVeniaM.TazazA. M.GerstenR.SmolkowskiK. (2024). Effects of the first year of a three-year CGI teacher professional development program on grades 3–5 student achievement: A multisite cluster-randomized trial. The Elementary School Journal, 125(2), 322–346. https://doi.org/10.1086/732783
SchoenR. C.YangX.TazazA. M.BrayW.FarinaK. (2019). Development and initial field test of the 2016 K-TEEM (knowledge for teaching early elementary mathematics) test (research report no. 2019–01). Florida State University. https://doi.org/10.33009/fsu.1581610055
21.
ShulmanL. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4–14.
