IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/evarev/v37y2013i6p520-554.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Strategies for Improving Power in School-Randomized Studies of Professional Development

Author

Listed:
  • Ben Kelcey
  • Geoffrey Phelps

Abstract

Objectives: Group-randomized designs are well suited for studies of professional development because they can accommodate programs that are delivered to intact groups (e.g., schools), the collaborative nature of professional development, and extant teacher/school assignments. Though group designs may be theoretically favorable, prior evidence has suggested that they may be challenging to conduct in professional development studies because well-powered designs will typically require large sample sizes or expect large effect sizes. Using teacher knowledge outcomes in mathematics, we investigated when and the extent to which there is evidence that covariance adjustment on a pretest, teacher certification, or demographic covariates can reduce the sample size necessary to achieve reasonable power. Method: Our analyses drew on multilevel models and outcomes in five different content areas for over 4,000 teachers and 2,000 schools. Using these estimates, we assessed the minimum detectable effect sizes for several school-randomized designs with and without covariance adjustment. Results: The analyses suggested that teachers’ knowledge is substantially clustered within schools in each of the five content areas and that covariance adjustment for a pretest or, to a lesser extent, teacher certification, has the potential to transform designs that are unreasonably large for professional development studies into viable studies.

Suggested Citation

  • Ben Kelcey & Geoffrey Phelps, 2013. "Strategies for Improving Power in School-Randomized Studies of Professional Development," Evaluation Review, , vol. 37(6), pages 520-554, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:sae:evarev:v:37:y:2013:i:6:p:520-554
    DOI: 10.1177/0193841X14528906
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0193841X14528906
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0193841X14528906?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Nathan Barrett & J. S. Butler & Eugenia F. Toma, 2012. "Do Less Effective Teachers Choose Professional Development Does It Matter?," Evaluation Review, , vol. 36(5), pages 346-374, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Paul Burkander, 2013. "The Causal Effect of School Reform: Evidence from California's Quality Education Investment Act," 2013 Papers pbu326, Job Market Papers.
    2. Barrett, Nathan & Toma, Eugenia F., 2013. "Reward or punishment? Class size and teacher quality," Economics of Education Review, Elsevier, vol. 35(C), pages 41-52.

    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:sae:evarev:v:37:y:2013:i:6:p:520-554. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    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.