Classifying Designs of MSP Evaluations Lessons Learned and Recommendations Barbara E. Lovitts June 11, 2008.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Educational Research: Causal-Comparative Studies
Advertisements

Chapter 22 Evaluating a Research Report Gay, Mills, and Airasian
Types of Experimental Designs Non-experimental –Post-test only –Pre-post test Experimental –Pre & post-test with control group –Pre & multiple post-test.
Group Discussion Describe the fundamental flaw that prevents a nonequivalent group design from being a true experiment? (That is, why can’t these designs.
Designs to Estimate Impacts of MSP Projects with Confidence. Ellen Bobronnikov March 29, 2010.
Experimental Research Designs
Quasi-Experimental Design
Issues of Technical Adequacy in Measuring Student Growth for Educator Effectiveness Stanley Rabinowitz, Ph.D. Director, Assessment & Standards Development.
8. Evidence-based management Step 3: Critical appraisal of studies
MSP Evaluation Rubric and Working Definitions Xiaodong Zhang, PhD, Westat Annual State Coordinators Meeting Washington, DC, June 10-12, 2008.
Questions What is the best way to avoid order effects while doing within subjects design? We talked about people becoming more depressed during a treatment.
Group Discussion Describe the similarities and differences between experiments , non-experiments , and quasi-experiments. Actions for Describe the similarities.
Project Design and Data Collection Methods: A quick and dirty introduction to classroom research Margaret Waterman September 21, 2005 SoTL Fellows
Chapter 7 Correlational Research Gay, Mills, and Airasian
Nasih Jaber Ali Scientific and disciplined inquiry is an orderly process, involving: problem Recognition and identification of a topic to.
Evaluation of Math-Science Partnership Projects (or how to find out if you’re really getting your money’s worth)
I want to test a wound treatment or educational program but I have no funding or resources, How do I do it? Implementing & evaluating wound research conducted.
I want to test a wound treatment or educational program but I have no funding or resources, How do I do it? Implementing & evaluating wound research conducted.
Preliminary Results – Not for Citation Investing in Innovation (i3) Fund Evidence & Evaluation Webinar May 2014 Note: These slides are intended as guidance.
ANCOVA Lecture 9 Andrew Ainsworth. What is ANCOVA?
I want to test a wound treatment or educational program in my clinical setting with patient groups that are convenient or that already exist, How do I.
Overview of MSP Evaluation Rubric Gary Silverstein, Westat MSP Regional Conference San Francisco, February 13-15, 2008.
Moving from Development to Efficacy & Intervention Fidelity Topics National Center for Special Education Research Grantee Meeting: June 28, 2010.
The Evaluation of Mathematics and Science Partnership Program A Quasi Experimental Design Study Abdallah Bendada, MSP Director
Quasi-Experimental Designs For Evaluating MSP Projects: Processes & Some Results Dr. George N. Bratton Project Evaluator in Arkansas.
Evaluating a Research Report
Educational Research: Competencies for Analysis and Application, 9 th edition. Gay, Mills, & Airasian © 2009 Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved.
Major Types of Quantitative Studies Descriptive research –Correlational research –Evaluative –Meta Analysis Causal-comparative research Experimental Research.
Chapter 8 Causal-Comparative Research Gay, Mills, and Airasian
Educational Research: Competencies for Analysis and Application, 9 th edition. Gay, Mills, & Airasian © 2009 Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved.
Assisting GPRA Report for MSP Xiaodong Zhang, Westat MSP Regional Conference Miami, January 7-9, 2008.
Quantitative and Qualitative Approaches
Quantitative SOTL Research Methods Krista Trinder, College of Medicine Brad Wuetherick, GMCTE October 28, 2010.
Mathematics and Science Partnerships: Summary of the Performance Period 2008 Annual Reports U.S. Department of Education.
1 Experimental Research Cause + Effect Manipulation Control.
MSRP Year 1 (Preliminary) Impact Research for Better Schools RMC Corporation.
MSP Annual Performance Report: Online Instrument MSP Regional Conferences November, 2006 – February, 2007.
Evaluating Impacts of MSP Grants Hilary Rhodes, PhD Ellen Bobronnikov February 22, 2010 Common Issues and Recommendations.
Chapter 3 should describe what will be done to answer the research question(s), describe how it will be done and justify the research design, and explain.
EDCI 696 Dr. D. Brown Presented by: Kim Bassa. Targeted Topics Analysis of dependent variables and different types of data Selecting the appropriate statistic.
Mathematics and Science Partnerships: Summary of the FY2006 Annual Reports U.S. Department of Education.
The Evaluation of Mathematics and Science Partnerships Program A Quasi Experimental Design Study Abdallah Bendada, Title II Director
Experiments. The essential feature of the strategy of experimental research is that you… Compare two or more situations (e.g., schools) that are as similar.
Evaluating Impacts of MSP Grants Ellen Bobronnikov Hilary Rhodes January 11, 2010 Common Issues and Recommendations.
Research Design ED 592A Fall Research Concepts 1. Quantitative vs. Qualitative & Mixed Methods 2. Sampling 3. Instrumentation 4. Validity and Reliability.
Chapter 10 Finding Relationships Among Variables: Non-Experimental Research.
Mathematics and Science Partnerships: Summary of the Performance Period 2008 Annual Reports U.S. Department of Education.
ANCOVA. What is Analysis of Covariance? When you think of Ancova, you should think of sequential regression, because really that’s all it is Covariate(s)
Evaluation Designs Adrienne DiTommaso, MPA, CNCS Office of Research and Evaluation.
Framework of Preferred Evaluation Methodologies for TAACCCT Impact/Outcomes Analysis Random Assignment (Experimental Design) preferred – High proportion.
Evaluating Impacts of MSP Grants Ellen Bobronnikov January 6, 2009 Common Issues and Potential Solutions.
Sample Size Determination
Evaluation Requirements for MSP and Characteristics of Designs to Estimate Impacts with Confidence Ellen Bobronnikov February 16, 2011.
Title of your Study Your Name Date of your defense.
Chapter Eight: Quantitative Methods
Developing an evaluation of professional development Webinar #2: Going deeper into planning the design 1.
ANCOVA.
1. /32  A quasi-experimental design is one that looks like an experimental design but lacks the key ingredient -- random assignment. 2.
Preliminary Results – Not for Citation Investing in Innovation (i3) Fund Evidence & Evaluation Webinar 2015 Update Note: These slides are intended as guidance.
Unit 7 Research Designs. What is a Research Design?? Researcher’s strategy: Describes how the researcher(s) will answer their questions/test hypotheses.
IMPACT EVALUATION PBAF 526 Class 5, October 31, 2011.
CaMSP Science Assessment Webinar Public Works, Inc. Sharing Lessons Learned in the Development and Use of Science Assessments for CaMSP Teachers and Students.
Experimental Design Ragu, Nickola, Marina, & Shannon.
Issues in Evaluating Educational Research
Evaluation Requirements for MSP and Characteristics of Designs to Estimate Impacts with Confidence Ellen Bobronnikov March 23, 2011.
The Non-Experimental and Quasi- Experimental Strategies:
Chapter Eight: Quantitative Methods
Designing an Experiment
Quantitative Research
CCSSO National Conference on Student Assessment June 21, 2010
Presentation transcript:

Classifying Designs of MSP Evaluations Lessons Learned and Recommendations Barbara E. Lovitts June 11, 2008

2 The Sample of Projects First level of screening 1. Final year – APR start and end dates. 2. Type of evaluation design: Experimental (random assignment) Quasi-experimental – Comparison group study with equating – Regression-discontinuity study

3 Findings – Final Year Started with 124 projects. Ended with 88 projects (results are not final). Projects eliminated based on: – Evidence in project narrative or evaluation report. – Information provided by the Project Director.

4 Evaluation Design Type of DesignStarting NumberEnding Number Experimental3*0 Quasi- Experimental 47* 19* *Results are not final.

5 Findings - Quasi-Experimental Designs Many studies had a one-group pre-/post design (eliminated). In many treatment/comparison group studies, the comparison teachers were in the same school at the same grade level as the treatment teachers (not eliminated).

6 Applying the Rubric Challenges Projects used different designs to evaluate different outcomes (e.g., content knowledge, pedagogy, efficacy) Projects used different designs to evaluate different participant groups (e.g., teachers, students) Projects used different designs at different grade levels or for different instruments.

7 Applying the Rubric Solution Identify each measured outcome and group (e.g., 5 th grade teachers – earth science content knowledge). Apply the rubric to each outcome/group combination that was evaluated using an experimental or a quasi- experimental design

8 Applying the Rubric A. Baseline Equivalence of Groups (Quasi- Experimental Only) Criterion: No significant pre-intervention differences between treatment and comparison on variables related to the study’s key outcomes; or Adequate steps were taken to address the lack of baseline equivalence in the statistical analysis.

9 Applying the Rubric Common Issues: No pre-test information on outcome-related measures. Within groups pre-test results given for the treatment and comparison groups, but no tests of between groups differences. Projects match groups on unit of assignment (e.g., schools, teachers), but do not provide data on unit of assessment (e.g., teachers, students).

10 Applying the Rubric Recommendation: Baseline Equivalence Participant Group and Outcome Treatment Pre-test Comparison Pre-test p-value mean or percent

11 Applying the Rubric B. Sample Size Criterion: Sample size was adequate – Based on a power analysis with recommended: significance level = 0.05 power = 0.8 minimum detectable effect informed by the literature or otherwise justified

12 Applying the Rubric Common Issues: Power analyses rarely conducted. Different sample sizes given throughout the APR and Evaluation Report. Sample sizes in the APR and Evaluation Report do not match. Report sample size for teachers but not for students, or for students but not for teachers. Subgroup sizes: – are not reported – reported inconsistently – vary by discipline, subdiscipline (e.g., earth science, physical science), and/or grade level

13 Applying the Rubric Recommendation: Sample Size Participant Group and Outcome Treatment (Final sample size) Comparison (Final sample size) Power Calculation Assumptions (if available) NNAlpha = Power = MDE = NN Recommended significance levels: alpha = 0.05, power = 0.8, Minimal Detectable Effect (MDE) = informed by the literature.

14 C. Quality of the Data Collection Methods Criterion: The study used existing data collection instruments that had already been deemed valid and reliable to measure key outcomes; or The study used data collection instruments developed specifically for the study that were sufficiently pre-tested with subjects who were comparable to the study sample.

15 Applying the Rubric Common Issues: Locally developed instruments not tested for validity or reliability. Identify an instrument in the APR and select “not tested for validity or reliability,” but a Google search shows that the instrument has been tested for validity and reliability. Use many instruments but do not report validity or reliability for all of them. Do not provide results for all instruments.

16 Applying the Rubric Recommendation: Data Collection Instruments Participant Group and Outcome Name of InstrumentEvidence for Validity and Reliability Teacher content knowledge – math DTAMS{cite website or other reference were evidence can be found} Teacher content knowledge – marine biology Locally developed instrument Narrative description of the evidence Teacher content knowledge - science Borrowed items from [instrument name(s)]. Total # of items. # of items borrowed from each instrument.

17 Applying the Rubric D. Quality of the Data Collection Methods Criterion: The methods, procedures, and timeframes used to collect the key outcome data from treatment and comparison groups were the same.

18 Applying the Rubric Common Issues: Little to no information is provided in general about data collection. Information is provided for the treatment group but for not the comparison group. Treatment teachers typically receive the pre-test before the summer institute and a post-test at the end of the summer institute, and sometime another post-test at the end of the school year. Comparison teachers receive a pre-test at the beginning of the school year and a post-test at the end of the school year. Comparison teachers receive a single test at the beginning of the year.

19 Applying the Rubric Recommendation: Quality of Data Collection Methods 1. Participant Group and Outcome ______________ A. Method/procedure for collecting data from treatment group (describe): B. Was the same method/procedure used to collect data from the comparison group? ___ Yes ___ No If no, please describe how the method/procedure was different: (continued)

20 Applying the Rubric C. Time Frame Participant Group and Outcome Month and Year Pre-testPost-testRepeated Post-test Treatment group Comparison Group

21 Applying the Rubric E. Data Reduction Rates Criterion: The study measured the key outcome variable(s) in the post-tests for at least 70% of the original study sample (treatment and comparison groups combined) 0r there is evidence that the high rates of data reduction were unrelated to the intervention; AND The proportion of the original study sample that was retained in the follow- up data collection activities (e.g., post-intervention surveys) and/or for whom post-intervention data were provided (e.g., test scores) was similar for both the treatment and comparison groups (i.e., less than or equal to a 15% difference), Or the proportion of the original study sample that was retained in the follow-up data collection was different for the treatment and comparison groups, and sufficient steps were taken to address this differential attrition were not taken in the statistical analysis.

22 Applying the Rubric Common Issues: Attrition information is typically not reported. Abt can sometimes calculate attrition, but it is difficult because sample and subsample sizes are not reported consistently. If projects provide data on attrition or if Abt can calculate it, it is usually for the treatment group only. Projects rarely provide data on student attrition, though some occasionally mention that there is a lot of student mobility, but it is not quantified.

23 Applying the Rubric Recommendation: Data Reduction Rates Participant Group and Outcome Original Sample Size Pre-test sample size Post- test sample size Post-test N/Pre-test N Post-test N/ Original N Treatment Comparison

24 Applying the Rubric E. Relevant Data Criterion: The final report includes treatment and comparison group post-test means and tests of significance for key outcomes; or Provides sufficient information for calculation of statistical significance (e.g., mean, sample size, standard deviation/standard error).

25 Applying the Rubric Common Issues: Projects reports that the results were significant or non-significant but do not provide supporting data. Projects provide p-values but do not provide means or percents. Projects provide means/percents, p-values, but not standard deviations. Projects provide within group data for the treatment and comparison groups but do not provide between-group tests of significance. Projects with treatment and comparison groups provide data for the treatment group only. Projects provide significant results but do not identify the type of statistical test they performed. Projects provide an overwhelming amount of data for a large number of subgroups (e.g., on individual test or survey items).

26 Applying the Rubric Recommendation: Relevant Data Participant Group and Outcome Mean or Percent SD or SEt, F, or Chi square p-value Treatment Comparison

27