NotesFAQContact Us
Collection
Advanced
Search Tips
Showing all 7 results Save | Export
Title I Technical Issues as Threats to Internal Validity of Experimental and Quasiexperimental Designs.
Murray, Steve; And Others – 1979
Threats to the validity of the Title I Evaluation and Reporting System are covered in two parts: an annotated bibliography of reports concerned with technical issues, and a discussion of threats to validity--from the reporting system in general and from each model in particular. Threats common to all three evaluation models are reported:…
Descriptors: Achievement Gains, Annotated Bibliographies, Compensatory Education, Evaluation Methods
The Equipercentile Assumption as a Pseudo-Control Group Estimate of Gain.
Powell, George; And Others – 1979
The tenability of the equipercentile growth assumption was investigated. This assumption is the basis of the norm referenced evaluation model (Model A) for Title I program evaluations, and supposes that a cohort of students, given no special educational intervention, will maintain the same percentile rank over the course of a school year, as…
Descriptors: Achievement Gains, Compensatory Education, Elementary Education, Evaluation Methods
Validity of Inferences Based on the Proposed Title I Evaluation Models.
Peer reviewed Peer reviewed
Linn, Robert L. – Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 1979
The internal validity of the RMC models, especially Model A, is examined. Concern centers on limiting evaluation to cognitive outcomes, using constant percentile as the no-treatment expectation, and using norms for one test to establish the expected no-treatment performance level for another test. (MH)
Descriptors: Achievement Gains, Compensatory Education, Elementary Education, Evaluation Methods
An Analysis of the Evaluation Data When ESEA, Title 1 Evaluation Models A1 and A2 are Empirically Field Tested Simultaneously.
Fish, Owen W. – 1979
Two ESEA Title I evaluation models developed by the Resource Management Corporation (RMC), were field tested simultaneously with 560 Title I reading students, grades 2-8. Measuring instruments for models 1 and 2 were, respectively, the California Achievement Test (reading vocabulary section), a norm-referenced test; and the Tarmac Reading…
Descriptors: Achievement Gains, Comparative Testing, Compensatory Education, Criterion Referenced Tests
The Effect of Test Selection on Title I Project Impact.
Peer reviewed Peer reviewed
Jaeger, Richard M. – Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 1979
A liberal interpretation of Section 151 of Public Law 93-380, to implement effective local evaluation of Title I programs, is supported. Weaknesses are cited: (1) nationwide impact data, (2) unsound aggregation of Title I achievement gains, and (3) lack of consideration of alternative evaluation methods. (MH)
Descriptors: Achievement Tests, Compensatory Education, Elementary Education, Evaluation Methods
Evaluation by Aggregation: Social and Methodological Biases.
Peer reviewed Peer reviewed
Wiley, David E. – Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 1979
Title I Evaluation models using uniform procedures and data collection for state and national comparisons are interpreted as federal endorsement of basic, common competencies in reading and mathematics. Basic competencies, content homogeneity, conversion methodology, and validity of the evaluation are discussed. (MH)
Descriptors: Academic Achievement, Academic Standards, Basic Skills, Compensatory Education
The Validity of Inferences Based on the Proposed Title I Evaluation Models.
PDF on ERIC Download full text
Linn, Robert L. – 1978
The three RMC models endorsed by the U.S. Office of Education for the evaluation of Elementary and Secondary Education Act Title I programs are based on narrowly conceived approaches to evaluation--the measurement of cognitive achievement gains. Each model requires the comparison of observed student performance with an estimate of what level of…
Descriptors: Academic Achievement, Achievement Gains, Compensatory Education, Control Groups