Very few independent variables explain much
variance in test scores.
Racial and ethnic background typically accounts for a majority of
the variance in test scores owing to family background.
Hamer calls the VMAT variant «the spiritual allele,» or more dramatically, «the God gene» (also the title of his book)-- even though according to his own statistics, it accounts for only 1 percent of
the variance in the test scores of his subjects.
Studies show that one - third of
the variance in test score gains in North Carolina result from «luck of the draw,» according to FairTest, while a half million students in Virginia have been miscategorized due to their state test's imprecision.
Not exact matches
The model, which achieves a reasonable level of fit, explains approximately 7 % of the
variance in achievement, largely through the direct relationship assumed between collective efficacy and students «
test scores -LRB-.23).
Accordingly, and also per the research, this is not getting much better
in that, as per the authors of this article as well as many other scholars, (1) «the
variance in value - added
scores that can be attributed to teacher performance rarely exceeds 10 percent; (2)
in many ways «gross» measurement errors that
in many ways come, first, from the
tests being used to calculate value - added; (3) the restricted ranges
in teacher effectiveness
scores also given these
test scores and their limited stretch, and depth, and instructional insensitivity — this was also at the heart of a recent post whereas
in what demonstrated that «the entire range from the 15th percentile of effectiveness to the 85th percentile of [teacher] effectiveness [using the EVAAS] cover [ed] approximately 3.5 raw
score points [given the
tests used to measure value - added];» (4) context or student, family, school, and community background effects that simply can not be controlled for, or factored out; (5) especially at the classroom / teacher level when students are not randomly assigned to classrooms (and teachers assigned to teach those classrooms)... although this will likely never happen for the sake of improving the sophistication and rigor of the value - added model over students» «best interests.»
This is a completely separate concern from the fact that, at best, measured «teacher effects» may only explain from 1 % to 15 or 20 % of the
variance in student
test scores, a figure dwarfed by the
variance explained by factors beyond the control of teachers.
He found that the variation
in teacher
test scores accounted for a statistically significant portion of the
variance in student achievement.
We know that of all of the many factors that account for the
variance in student
scores, the teacher is the greatest
in - school factor — she contributes more for example, to student
test scores than does the principal or the school size.
This means the
variance in PARCC
test scores, at their best, predicts only 16 % of the
variance in first year college GPA.
Experts across the country confirm, as the American Statistical Association pointed out, that a teacher has a tiny effect on the
variance in student
test scores: from 1 percent to 14 percent.
As I discussed last week, the differences between teachers only account for at most 20 % of the
variance in student
test scores, and more than 60 % of
score variance correlates to out - of - school factors.
A study with Educational
Testing Service (ETS), which used logistic regression, found that students» engagement and computer use, particularly their home Internet use and computer use for self - regulated learning, explained 14 % of the
variance in their 2006 math
test scores over and above 2005
scores.
According to the Institute, Ford reinforced the driver's side to improve its small overlap front crash
test score, but did not do the same for the passenger - side structure, a condition that led to the
variance in performance from side to side.