In terms of the reliability of interview teams, when using trained teams, the interviewers become reliable after six joint interviews; that is, each will score an interview within four points (out of a possible 45 perfect total score) in 80 % of the cases. After six joint interviews, the interviewers will pass (or fail) the same applicants in 95 % of the cases.
In terms of content validity, identifying factors, which discriminate between quitters/failures and “stars”, developed the instrument. “ Quitters/failures” are those who have left urban teaching with unsatisfactory ratings from supervisors or who describe themselves as unable to continue teaching. “ Stars” are urban teachers identified as such by principals, other teachers, students and themselves. The level at which discriminating factors were accepted in developing the instrument was total; that is, the number of failure/quitters who passed the interview was zero. The number of stars who passed as 100%. Since 1962, groups of stars and quitters/failures have been periodically tested to validate this level of discrimination. No changes have been made in the seven factors.
Lastly, in terms of criterion related validity, let me indicate that any test of scale may have a number of validity and reliability coefficients depending on how, when, where, and by whom it is used. Each city using the interview keeps its own records and compares respondents’ initial interview scores (prediction) against school principal’s ratings in subsequent teaching practice. Those who pass the interview with any score (that is, they avoid a zero on all seven factors) are rated satisfactory or higher by school principals 95 % of the time. Another way to state this is that when trained interviewers correctly administer the instrument, there is a 5 % or 1 in 20 chance of hiring a quitter or failure.
Multiple regression analyses have been conducted and variation in respondent’s scores can be predicted because five of the seven factors on the interview can each be readily observed in teachers’ practice. The most powerful predictors of respondents’ success and its cumulated explanation of the variance in scores are as follows: Interview item IV (variance .21) Interview item 1 (Variance .13) Interview Item II (.12) Interview item VII (.08) and Interview Item VI (.05). Research is on going.
In terms of the reliability of the instrument, using the criterion, there is a predictive reliability for all those who are re-interviewed of r = +.93.Applicants interviewed a second time (or more frequently) will pass or fail the interview; again, there are no differences in the reliability of those re-interviewed based on sex, age or ethnicity.
Twelve dissertations have been written using the Haberman research. All affirming the validity of the instrument.
The Haberman Educational Foundation
Related posts:
- An Interview with Christina Asquith: About “The Emergency Teacher” Suzi Cottrell Michael F. Shaughnessy Senior Columnist EducationNews.org Eastern New...
- An Interview with Monique Nadeau, Executive Director of Hope Street Group: On Teacher Evaluations and Using Student Achievement Michael F. Shaughnessy - We are an efficient, streamlined organization...
- Do self-selection and attrition matter in KIPP schools? One of the big questions about the highly successful high-poverty...
