IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/obuest/v87y2025i5p924-941.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Teacher Bias and Evaluation Differences in Test Scores: Different Methods for Different Questions

Author

Listed:
  • Judith M. Delaney
  • Paul J. Devereux

Abstract

We study differences in teacher evaluations of student performance relative to those measured by test scores. While much literature is concerned with estimating various types of teacher biases, we show conceptually that there is no single ‘teacher bias’ effect. Even if teachers have no group bias, teacher evaluation differences by group masystematically deviate from test score differences if the distribution of test scores differs across groups. Commonly used approaches are not equivalent and can lead to different conclusions as they target different estimands. We demonstrate our findings using Monte Carlo simulations and, using two recent UK cohort surveys, we show that these conceptual issues matter in practice when we evaluate whether teachers are likely to over‐estimate female performance in English. Finally, we use the methods to examine an issue of substantive importance, gender differences in teacher perceptions in comparative advantage in English relative to mathematics. Our findings suggest that it is unlikely that teacher misperceptions of comparative advantage by gender are an important cause of the gender gap in STEM.

Suggested Citation

  • Judith M. Delaney & Paul J. Devereux, 2025. "Teacher Bias and Evaluation Differences in Test Scores: Different Methods for Different Questions," Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, Department of Economics, University of Oxford, vol. 87(5), pages 924-941, October.
  • Handle: RePEc:bla:obuest:v:87:y:2025:i:5:p:924-941
    DOI: 10.1111/obes.12657
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/obes.12657
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/obes.12657?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:obuest:v:87:y:2025:i:5:p:924-941. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/sfeixuk.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.