The Educative Teacher Performance Assessment (edTPA) is a widely implemented performance assessment in the United States used to indicate the readiness of pre-service teachers to enter the classroom and the level of pre-service teacher preparation supported by individual colleges of education. The purpose of this study is to investigate the psychometric qualities (i.e., validity and reliability) of the edTPA specifically in the context of pre-service music education candidates. The study was guided by the following questions: ‘What is the overall psychometric quality (i.e., validity and reliability) of the edTPA rubric items in the context of pre-service music educators?’ (Research Question 1); ‘How do the rubric criteria fit the measurement model and how do they vary in difficulty?’ (Research Question 2); and (c) ‘Do the category response structures for each criterion empirically cooperate to provide meaningful measures?’ (Research Question 3). Results indicated overall adequate model-data fit but demonstrated measurement optimization concerns attributed to the category response structures. Implications for pre-service music education training are discussed.
BerendonkC.StalmeijerR. E.SchuwirthL. W. T. (2013). Expertise in performance assessment: Assessors’ perspectives. Advances in Health Sciences Education, 18, 559–571.
2.
BoylesD. R. (Ed.) (2005). Schools or markets? Commercialism, privatization, and school-business partnerships. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
3.
Darling-HammondL. (2010). Evaluating teacher effectiveness: How teacher performance assessments can measure and improve teaching. Washington, DC: Center for American Progress.
4.
Darling-HammondL.HylerM. E. (2013). The role of performance assessment in developing teaching as a profession. Rethinking Schools, 27(4), 10–15.
EngelhardG.Jr.PerkinsA. F. (2011). Person response functions and the definition of units in the social sciences. Measurement: Interdisciplinary Research and Perspectives, 9(1), 40–45.
10.
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, 181–199.
11.
LalleyJ. P. (2017). Reliability and validity of edTPA. In CarterJ. H.LochteH. A. (Eds.), Teacher performance assessment and accountability reforms: The impact of edTPA on teaching and schools (pp. 47–78). New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
12.
LinacreJ. M. (1994). Sample size and item calibration [or person measure] stability. Rasch Measurement Transactions, 7, 328. Retrieved from http://www.rasch.org/rmt/rmt74m.htm
13.
LinacreJ. M. (2002). Optimizing rating scale category effectiveness. Journal of Applied Measurement, 3, 86–106.
14.
LinacreJ. M. (2017). Facets rasch measurement. Chicago, IL: Winsteps.com.
15.
MastersG. N.WrightB. D. (1997). The partial credit model. In Van der LindenW. J.HambletonR. K. (Eds.), Handbook of modern item response theory (pp. 101–121). New York, NY: Springer.
16.
MolnarA. (2005). School commercialism: From democratic ideal to market commodity. New York, NY: Routledge.
17.
MusselwhiteD. J.WesolowskiB. C. (2018). Old wine in new bottles: A methodology for developing and validating performance measures using modern measurement theory. In BrophyT. (Ed.), Context matters: The 6th international symposium on assessment in music education (ISAME), Birmingham, UK, (pp. 353–361). Chicago, IL: GIA.
18.
NayfeldI.PecheoneR. L.WhittakerA.ShearB.KleschH. (2015). 2014 edTPA administrative report. Stanford, CA: Stanford Center for Assessment, Learning and Equity.
19.
OlsonJ. D.RaoA. B. (2015). Adopting the edTPA as a high-stakes assessment: Resistance, advocacy, and reflection in Illinois. Mid-Western Educational Researcher, 29, 377–402.
20.
OrzolekD. C. (2019). Overview of music teacher evaluation. In BrophyT. S. (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of assessment policy and practice in music education (pp. 795–829). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
21.
ParkesK. A. (2013). Evaluating reflective practice in music pre-service teachers: The importance of pedagogical content knowing. Poster presented at the Society for Music Teacher Education Conference, Greensboro, NC, September.
22.
ParkesK. A.PowellS. R. (2015). Is the edTPA the right choice for evaluating teacher readiness?Arts Education Policy Review, 116, 103–113.
PecheoneR. L.ChungR. R. (2006). Evidence in teacher education: The Performance Assessment for California Teachers (PACT). Journal of Teacher Education, 57, 22–36.
RoyalK. D.EllisA.EnsslenA.HomanA. (2010). Rating scale optimization in survey research: An application of the Rasch rating scale model. Journal of Applied Quantitative Methods, 5, 607–617.
30.
SatoM. (2014). What is the underlying conception of teaching of the edTPA?Journal of Teacher Education, 65, 421–434. http://doi.org/10.1177/0022487114542518
TaebelD. K. (1992). The evaluation of music teachers and teaching. In ColwellR. (Ed.), Handbook of research on music teaching and learning: A project of the Music Educators National Conference (pp. 310–332). Reston, VA: National Association for Music Education (MENC).
36.
WesolowskiB. C. (2017a). Examination of the psychometric qualities of the model cornerstone assessments. In BurrackF.ParkesK. (Eds.), Applying the model cornerstone assessmentsin K-12 music: A research supported approach. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishing.
37.
WesolowskiB. C. (2017b). Methodology for examining the psychometric qualities of the model cornerstone assessments. In BurrackF.ParkesK. (Eds.), Applying the model cornerstone assessmentsin K-12 music: A research supported approach. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishing.
