The Conceptualization and Validation of the Vanderbilt Assessment of Leadership in Education (VAL-ED) Ellen Goldring, Vanderbilt University Henry May, University of Pennsylvania June 2010 . The Goal – Produce a Psychometrically Sound Assessment of School Leadership.
Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.
The Conceptualization and Validation of the Vanderbilt Assessment of Leadership in Education (VAL-ED)
Ellen Goldring, Vanderbilt University
Henry May, University of Pennsylvania
The team – Andy Porter, Joe Murphy, Ellen Goldring, Steve Elliott, Xiu Cravens, Morgan Polikoff, Henry May,
Funding: The Wallace Foundation and IES
and school goals for rigorous student academic and social learning.
A leadership assessment system that has the following properties:
Works well in a variety of settings and circumstances,
Is construct valid,
If feasible for widespread use,
Provides accurate and useful reporting of results.
Yields a diagnostic profile for summative and formative purposes.
Can be used to measure progress over time in the development of leadership, and
Predicts important outcomes.
Part of a comprehensive assessment of the effectiveness of a leader's behaviors
The VAL-ED Instrument instruments, we find:
Directions for Completing Rating Scale instruments, we find:
Core Components Subscale Scores
Key Process Subscale Scores
Total respondent composite
Item sorting study
Established content validity by asking education leaders to sort the items into 36 cells.
Cognitive interviews of paper/pencil version
Two rounds of cognitive interviews in three districts each.
Three respondents evaluated the format and items.
Nine-school pilot test (320/440 teachers = 73%)
Estimated reliability of each of 12 scales.
Established construct validity through factor analysis.
Established face validity through questions to respondents.
Submitted to urban districts to evaluate language;
Confirmatory factor analysis provided support for both core components and key processes, despite high co-linearity among the core components and among the key processes.
Exploratory factor analysis with oblique rotation yielded an 8-factor solution with fairly consistent results between Forms A and C.
There was considerable support for the core components of Performance Accountability and Connections to External Communities and some support for the core component of Culture of Learning and Professional Behavior. There was also support for the key process of Supporting and the key process of Advocating.
For total score, the correlation between principal and supervisor was .13, principal and teacher .27, supervisor and teacher .18.
For core components, the average correlation between teacher and principal was .26, between teacher and supervisor .19, and supervisor and principal .13.
For key processes, the average correlation was .27 between principal and teacher, .17 between supervisor and teacher, and .13 between principal and supervisor.