The purpose of this study was to examine the psychometric quality of Educative Teacher Performance Assessment (edTPA) scores for 136 preservice music teachers at a Midwest university. I addressed the factor structure of the edTPA for music education, the extent to which the edTPA fits the one- and three-factor a priori models proposed by the test authors, and the reliability of edTPA scores awarded to music education students. Factor analysis did not support the a priori one-factor model around teacher readiness, or the three-factor model based on the edTPA tasks of Planning, Instruction, and Assessment. Internal consistency was acceptable for all rubrics together and for the Instruction task. However, estimates of interrater reliability fell substantially below those reported by test administrators. These findings indicate the need for revision of the edTPA for music education and call into question its continued use among music teacher candidates in its current form.
AdkinsA.KlassP.PalmerE. (2015, January). Identifying demographic and preservice teacher performance predictors of success on the edTPA [Conference presentation]. 2015 Hawaii International Conference on Education. Honolulu, Hawaii. http://hiceducation.org/wp-content/uploads/proceedings-library/EDU2015.pdf
2.
AsmusE. P. (1989). Factor analysis: A look at the technique through the data of Rainbow. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 101, 1–29. www.jstor.org/stable/40318371
3.
AustinJ. R.BergM. H. (2020). A within-program analysis of edTPA score reliability, validity, and utility. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 226, 46–65. https://doi.org/10.5406/bulcouresmusedu.226.0046
4.
BehizadehN.NeelyA. (2018). Testing injustice: Examining the consequential validity of edTPA. Equity & Excellence in Education, 51(3–4), 242–264. http://doi.org/10.1080/10665684.2019.1568927
BrennanR. L.PredigerD. J. (1981). Coefficient kappa: Some uses, misuses, and alternatives. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 41(3), 687–699. https://doi.org/10.1177/001316448104100307
7.
BrownJ. D. (2009). Choosing the right type of rotation in PCA and EFA. Shiken: JALT Testing & Evaluation Newsletter, 13(3), 20–25. http://hosted.jalt.org/test/PDF/Brown31.pdf
8.
BrownT. A. (2015). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research (2nd ed.). Guilford Press.
9.
CarminesE. G.ZellerR. A. (1979). Reliability and validity assessment. Sage.
CostelloA, B.OsborneJ. (2005). Best practices in exploratory factor analysis: Four recommendations for getting the most from your analysis. Practical Assessment, Research, and Evaluation, 10, Article 7. https://doi.org/10.7275/jyj1-4868
DoverA.SchultzB.SmithK.DugganT. (2015). Embracing the controversy: edTPA, corporate influence, and the cooptation of teacher education. Teachers College Record, Article 18109. www.tcrecord.org/books/Content.asp?ContentID=18109
14.
GitomerD. H.MartinezJ. F.BatteyD.HylandN. E. (2021). Assessing the assessment: Evidence of reliability and validity in the edTPA. American Educational Research Journal, 58(1), 3–31. https://doi.org/10.3102%2F0002831219890608
15.
HeilL.BergM. H. (2017). Something happened on the way to completing the edTPA: A case study of teacher candidates’ perceptions of the edTPA. Contributions to Music Education, 42, 181–200. www.jstor.org/stable/26367442
16.
KrippendorffK. (2013). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology (3rd ed.). Sage.
17.
LandisJ. R.KochG. G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical date. Biometrics, 33(1), 159–174. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2529310
18.
MikszaP.ElpusK. (2018). Design and analysis for quantitative research in music education. Oxford University Press.
19.
MusselwhiteD. J.WesolowskiB. C. (2019). Evaluating the psychometric qualities of the edTPA in the context of pre-service music teachers. Research Studies in Music Education. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/1321103X19872232
National Association of Schools of Music. (2020). Handbook 2019-20. https://bit.ly/3jTVKQi
22.
ParkesK. A. (2020). Student teaching and certification assessments. In ConwayC.PellegrinoK.StanleyA. M.WestC. (Eds.), Oxford handbook of preservice music teacher education in the United States (pp. 231–252). Oxford University Press.
23.
ParkesK. A.PowellS. R. (2015). Is the edTPA the right choice for evaluating teacher readiness?Arts Education Policy Review, 116(2), 103–113. https://doi.org/10.1080/10632913.2014.944964
PowellS. R.ParkesK. A. (2020). Teacher evaluation and performativity: The edTPA as a fabrication. Arts Education Policy Review, 121(4), 131–140. https://doi.org/10.1080/10632913.2019.1656126
26.
SatoM. (2014). What is the underlying conception of teaching of the edTPA?Journal of Teacher Education, 65(5), 421–434. http://doi.org/10.1177/0022487114542518
27.
SimJ.WrightC. C. (2005). The kappa statistic in reliability studies: Use, interpretation, and sample size requirements. Physical Therapy, 85(3), 257–268. https://doi.org/10.1093/ptj/85.3.257
StemlerS. E.TsaiJ. (2008). Best practices in interrater reliability: Three common approaches. In OsbornJ. (Ed.), Best practices in quantitative methods (pp. 29–49). Sage.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
