This study evaluated the predictive validity of two preemployment screening devices—the Urban Teacher Perceiver Interview and the Academic Skills Assessment portion of the Praxis Series test—as used by an urban high-need and hard-to-staff school district. Specifically, we compared predictor scores with subsequent teacher assessment scores generated through the Teacher Performance Assessment process. Three research questions directed this study: Is the Urban Teacher Perceiver Interview an effective predictor of teacher performance as measured by the Teacher Performance Assessment? Is the Praxis Series an effective predictor of teacher performance as measured by the Teacher Performance Assessment? Is the combination of the Urban Teacher Perceiver Interview and the Praxis Series an effective predictor of teacher performance as measured by the Teacher Performance Assessment? When each predictor was factored separately, the results indicated a statistically significant relationship between a prospective teacher's score on the Urban Teacher Perceiver Interview score and the subsequent Teacher Performance Assessment score. No statistically significant relationship between a teacher candidate's Praxis Series score and subsequent Teacher Performance Assessment was determined. The results indicated increased predictability of subsequent teacher performance when based on both predictors (R2 = .117).
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AndrewsJ. W., BlackmonC. R., & MackeyJ. A. (1980). Preservice performance and the National Teacher Examinations. Phi Delta Kappan, 61(5), 358–359.
2.
AntolineB. A. (2000). A validation study of the Teacher Perceiver Interview. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Texas Woman's University, Denton, TX.
3.
AyersJ. B., & QuailsG. S. (1979). Concurrent and predictive validity of the National Teacher Examinations. Journal of Educational Research, 73, 86–91.
4.
BakerH. B., & SpeirM. S. (1990). The employment interview: Guaranteed improvement in reliability. Public Personnel Management, 19(1), 85–90.
5.
BaskinM., & RossS. (1993, November). The Urban Teacher Selection Interview: Internal validity. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Mid-South Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
6.
BaskinM., RossS., & SmithD. (1996). Selecting successful teachers: The predictive validity of the Urban Teacher Selection Interview. The Teacher Educator, 32(1), 1–21.
7.
BinghamP. J. (2000). The concurrent and predictive validity of elementary school teacher pre-employment success indicators. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Texas at Austin.
8.
BraceyG. (1986). Pandora and Pollyanna: Some comments on the rush to mandate. Phi Delta Kappan, 67(6), 452–455.
BureshR. J. (2003). The predictive validity of the Teacher Perceiver Interview in selecting effective elementary teachers in a mid-sized Midwestern school district. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of North Dakota, Grand Forks.
11.
CampionM. A., PursellE. D., & BrownB. K. (1988). Structured interviewing: Raising the psychometric properties of the employment interview. Personnel Psychology, 41, 25–42.
12.
CarlsonR. E., SchwabD. P., & HennemanH. G. (1970). Agreement among selection interview styles. Journal of Applied Psychology, 5, 8–17.
13.
CrossL. H. (1985). Validation of the NTE tests for certification decisions. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 4(3), 7–10.
14.
DanielsonC. (1996). Enhancing professional practice: A framework for teaching.Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
15.
DanielsonC. (2001, June). [Keynote speech]. Speech given at the Framework for Teaching Users’ Conference, Cleveland, OH.
16.
Darling-HammondL. (2001). The challenge of staffing our schools. Educational Leadership, 58(8), 12–17.
17.
Darling-HammondL., HammernessK., GrossmanP., RustF., & ShulmanL. (2005). The design of teacher education programs. In Darling-HammondL., & BransfordJ. (Eds.), Preparing teachers for a changing world: What teachers should learn and be able to do (pp. 390–441). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
18.
Darling-HammondL., WiseA. E., & KleinS. P. (1999). A license to teach: Raising standards for teaching.San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
19.
Darling-HammondL., & YoungsP. (2002). Defining “highly qualified teachers”: What does scientifically-based research actually tell us?Educational Researcher, 37(9), 13–25.
20.
DavisD. R., EllettC. D., & AnnunziataJ. (2003). Teacher evaluation, leadership, and learning organizations. Journal of Personnel Evaluation, 76(4), 287–310.
21.
DelliD. A. (2001). Criteria for adopting commercial interviews for teacher selections. The ASSA Professor, 25(1), 30–33.
22.
DelliD. A., & VeraE. L. (2003). Psychological and contextual influences on the teacher selection interview: A model for future research. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 7(2), 137–155.
23.
DipboyeR. L. (1992). Selection interviews: Process perspectives.Cincinnati, OH: South-Western.
24.
DipboyeR. (1994). Structured and unstructured selection interviews: Beyond the job-fit model. In FerrisG. (Ed.), Research in personnel and human resource management (pp. 79–123). Greenwich, CT: JAI.
25.
DwyerC. A., & StufflebeamD. (1996). Teacher evaluation. In BerlinerD. C., & CalfeeR. C. (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 765–786). New York: MacMillan.
26.
EhrenbergR. G., & BrewerD. J. (1995). Did teachers’ verbal ability and race matter in the 1960s? Coleman revisited. Economics of Education Review, 14(1), 1–21.
27.
EllettC. D. (2000). Professional Assessment and Comprehensive Evaluation System (PACES) teaching and learning professional growth manual.Watkinsvtlle, GA: CDE Research.
28.
EmleyK., & EbmeierH. (1997). The effects of employment interview format on principals’ evaluation of teachers. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 11(1), 39–56.
29.
FreyP. (2001). The Urban Teacher Selection Interview as a segment of the 1999 Buffalo teacher selection procedure and its ability to identify English teachers who are likely to be retained in the Buffalo public schools. Unpublished manuscript, Seton Hall University, South Orange, NJ.
GordonG. L. (1999). Teacher talent and urban schools. Phi Delta Kappan, 87(4), 304–307.
34.
GortonR. A., & SchneiderG. T. (1991). School-based leadership: Challenges and opportunities.Dubuque, IA: W. C. Brown.
35.
GuarinoC. M., SantibanezL., & DaleyG. A. (2006). Teacher recuitment and retention: A review of the recent empirical literature. Review of Educational Research, 76(2), 173–208.
36.
GuarinoC. M., SantibanezL., DaleyG. A., & BrewerD. (2004). A review of the research literature on teacher recruitment and retention (Report No. TR-164–EDU). Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
37.
HabermanM. (1993). Predicting the success of urban teachers (the Milwaukee trials). Action in Teacher Education, 15(3), 1–5.
38.
HabermanM. (1995). A brief review of the history and development of the Urban Teacher Selection Interview. Unpublished manuscript, University of Wisconsin at Milwaukee.
39.
Haberman Educational Foundation. (2000). Star teacher selection interview.Houston, TX: Author.
40.
HarrisD. N., & HerringtonC. D. (2006). Accountability, standards, and the growing achievement gap: Lessons from the past half-century. American Journal of Education, 112(2), 209–238.
41.
HarrisM. M. (1989). Reconsidering the employment interview: A review of recent literature and suggestion for future research. Personnel Psychology, 42, 691–726.
42.
HarveyF., & GimbertB. G. (2007). Evaluation of non-traditionally and traditionally prepared teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge and practice using performance-based evidence. Journal of National Association for Alternative Certification, 2(1), 42–65.
43.
HaycockK. (1998). Good teaching matters. Thinking K-16, 3(1), 1–14.
44.
HerbruckE. H. (2006, February). Performance on Ohio teacher tests: Equity implications for the teaching force. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Cleveland State University, Cleveland, OH.
45.
IngersollR. M. (2001). Teacher turnover and teacher shortages: An organizational analysis. American Educational Research Journal, 38(3), 499–534.
46.
IngersollR. M. (2002). The teacher shortage: A case of wrong diagnosis and wrong prescription. NASSP Bulletin, 86, 18–27.
47.
KahleyJ. (2001). Predicting the success of first year teacher candidates based upon indicators determined prior to employment: A study of one district's hiring practices and the likelihood that candidates selected will become contracted teachers. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Widener University, Chester, PA. Retrieved January 12, 2008, from http://muse.widener.edu/~egr0001/Dissertations/KahleyB.html
48.
KanipeM. L. (1996). A study of the predictive validity of the urban teacher perceiver interview in the Knox County school system. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Tennessee, Knoxville.
49.
KellerE., MilanowskiT., & OddenA. (1990). How Vaughn Next Century Learning Center developed a knowledge-and-skill pay program.Madison: University of Wisconsin, Wisconsin Center for Education Research, Consortium for Policy Research in Education.
50.
KimballS. M. (2001). Innovations in teacher evaluation: Case studies of two school districts with teacher evaluation systems based on the framework for teaching. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Wisconsin at Madison.
51.
LathamA. S., GitomerD., & ZiomekR. (1999). What the tests tell us about new teachers. Educational Leadership, 56(8), 23–26.
52.
LoadmanW., MooreR., & TroyerM. (2007, April). Examining the psychometric properties of Praxis III: Statewide results. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago.
53.
MarzanoR. (2003). What works in schools: Translating research into action.Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Design.
54.
MauserP. J. (1986). The predictive validity of the Teacher Perceiver Interview to teacher effectiveness. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Oklahoma State University, Oklahoma City.
55.
MayfieldE. C. (1964). The selection interview: A reevaluation of published research. Personnel Psychology, 17, 239–260.
56.
McDanielM. A., SchmidtF. L., & HunterJ. E. (1988). A meta-analysis of methods for rating training and experience in personnel selection. Personnel Psychology, 41, 283–314.
57.
McDanielM. A., WhetzelD. L., SchmidtF. L., & MaurerS. D. (1994). The validity of employment interviews: A comprehensive review and meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79(4), 599–616.
58.
MooreR., & RichterD. (2007, April). What do teacher licensure tests tell us? The interrelationship between Praxis II and Praxis III? Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago.
59.
MortonC. (1994). A comparison of a Context Mastery Examination for Educators (CMEE) and the Praxis I Academic Skill Assessment for initial certification of Montana educators (Report No. 142). Helena, MT: Montana State Board of Education. (ERIC document Reproduction Service No. ED390808)
60.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2002). Common core of data: Information on public schools and school districts in the United States. Retrieve on July 28, 2009, from http://nces.ed.gov/ccd
61.
National Commission on Teaching and America's Future. (1996). What matters most: Teaching for America's future.Washington, DC: Author.
62.
NewmanF. M. (1996). Authentic achievement: Restructuring schools for intellectual quality.San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
63.
No Child Left Behind. (2002). The No Child Left Behind Act: Reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, January 3, 2002. Retrieved on January 22, 2009, from http://www.nochildleftbehind.gov
64.
PetersonK. D. (1995). Teacher evaluation: A comprehensive guide to new directions and practices.Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
65.
PursellE. D., CampionM. A., & GaylordS. R. (1980). Structured interviewing: Avoiding selection problems. Personnel Journal, 59, 907–912.
66.
QuirkT., WittenB., & WeinbergS. (1973). Review of studies of concurrent and predictive validity of the National Teacher Examinations. Review of Educational Research, 43, 89–114.
RutledgeS. A., HarrisD.N., ThompsonC. T., & IngleW. K. (2008). Certify, blink, hire: An examination of the process and tools of teacher screening and selection. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 7(3), 237–263.
69.
SawyerG. (2005). A study using the Star Teacher Selection Interview to predict the successful performance of teachers in South Carolina's Program of Alternative Certification for Educators. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of South Carolina, Columbia.
70.
SawyerG., & GimbertB. (2008). Policies and practices for selecting highly qualified teachers for alternative certification programs. Journal of the National Association for Alternative Certification, 3(1), 9–29.
71.
SchmittN. (1976). Social and situational determinants of interview decisions: Implications for the employment interview. Personnel Psychology, 29, 79–101.
72.
SchmittN, SchneiderJ. R., & CohenS. A. (1990). Factors affecting validity of a regionally administered center. Personnel Psychology, 43(1), 1–12.
73.
SchusslerD., BercawL., & StooksberryL. (2008). The fabric of teacher candidate dispositions: What case studies reveal about teacher thinking. Action in Teacher Education, 29(4), 39–52.
74.
SchwabD. P., & HennemanH. G. (1969). Relationship between interview structure and interinterviewer reliability in an employment situation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 53, 214–217.
75.
ScrivenM. (1994). Duties of the teacher. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 8, 151–184.
76.
SimmonsA. C. (1996). A validation study of the use of the Teacher Perceiver Interview (TPI) in a selected Southeastern urban high school. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Georgia State University, Atlanta.
77.
SmithM. C., & KnabK. M. (1996, April). Designing and implementing teacher selection systems. NASSP Bulletin, pp. 101–106.
78.
SummerA. A., & WolfeB. L. (1975). Equality of educational opportunity quantified: A production function approach.Philadelphia: Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia, Department of Research.
79.
UlrichL., & TrumboD. (1965). The selection interview since 1949. Psychological Bulletin, 63, 100–116.
80.
ValliL., CroningerR., AlexanderP., ChamblissM., GraeberA., & PriceJ. (2004). A study of high quality teaching: Mathematics and reading. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego, CA.
81.
WagnerR. (1949). The employment interview: A critical review. Personnel Psychology, 2, 17–46.
WilsonS. M. (1995). Performance-based assessment of teachers. In SoledS. W. (Ed.), Assessment, testing and evaluation in teacher education (pp. 189–219). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
84.
WrightO. R. (1969). Summary of research on the selection interview since 1964. Personnel Psychology, 22, 391–413.
85.
YoungI. P. (1993). Effects of job attribute categories, applicant job experience, and recruiter sex on applicant job attractiveness ratings. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 7(1), 55–66.
86.
YoungI. P. (2008). The human resources function in educational administration (9th ed.). Columbus, OH: Pearson / Merrill / Prentice Hall.
87.
YoungI. P., & DelliD. A. (2002). The validity of the Teacher Perceiver Interview for predicting performance of classroom teachers. Education Administration Quarterly, 38(5), 586–612.
