Assessing the validity of a language arts instruction log through triangulation

Elementary School Journal

Volumn 105, Issue 1, 2004, Pages 49-73

  Camburn, Eric ^a   Barnes, Carol A ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 7044263221     PISSN: 00135984     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1086/428802     Document Type: Article

References (36)

1. Aldrich, J. H., & Nelson, D. (1984). Logit and probit models. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
2. American Psychological Association, American Educational Research Association, National Council on Measurement in Education. (1999). Standards for educational and psychological testing. Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
3. Branley, F. M. (1990). Tornado alert. New York: HarperTrophy.
4. Burnett, F. H. (1910-1911). The secret garden. New York: Phillips.
5. Burstein, L., McDonnell, L. M., VanWinkle, J., Ormseth, T., Mirocha, J., & Guiton, G. (1995). Validating national curriculum indicators. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
6. Campbell, D. T., & Fiske, D. W. (1959). Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 56, 81-105.
7. Cohen, D. K., & Ball, D. L. (1999). Instruction, capacity and improvement (CPRE Research Report No. RR-43). Philadelphia: Consortium for Policy Research in Education.
8. Cohen, D. K., Raudenbush, S., & Ball, D. L. (2002). Resources, instruction and research. In R. F. Boruch & F. W. Mosteller (Eds.), Evidence matters: Randomized trials in educational research (pp. 80-119). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
9. Cronbach, L. J. (1989). Construct validation after thirty years. In R. Linn (Ed.), Intelligence: Measurement theory and public policy (pp. 147-171). Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
10. Denzin, N. K. (1978). The research act: A theoretical introduction to sociological methods (2d ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
11. Denzin, N. K. (1989). The research act: A theoretical introduction to sociological methods (3d ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
12. Dunkin, M., & Biddle, B. (1974). The study of teaching. New York: Holt, Rhinehart & Winston.
13. Eisner, E. W. (1991). The enlightened eye: Qualitative inquiry and the enhancement of educational practice. New York: Macmillan.
14. Freeman, D. (1996). To take them at their word: Language data in the study of teachers' knowledge. Harvard Educational Review, 66(4), 732-761.
15. Hawkins, D. (1974). The informed visions: Essays on learning and human nature. New York: Agathon.
16. Jick, T. D. (1979). Mixing qualitative and quantitative methods: Triangulation in action. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24(4), 602-611.
17. Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
18. Mathison, S. (1988). Why triangulate? Educational Researcher, 17(2), 13-17.
19. Messick, S. (Ed.). (1988). The once and future issues of validity: Assessing the meaning and consequences of measurement. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
20. Messick, S. (1989). Validity. In R. L. Linn (Ed.), Educational measurement (pp. 13-103). Washington, DC: American Council on Education and National Council on Measurement in Education.
21. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis (2d ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
22. Moss, P. A. (1992). Shifting conceptions of validity in educational measurement: Implications for performance assessment. Review of Educational Research, 62(3), 229-258.
23. Moss, P. A. (1994). Can there be validity without reliability? Educational Researcher, 23(2), 5-12.
24. Moss, P. A. (1995). Themes and variations in validity theory. Educational Measurement: Issues and Pactice, 14(2), 5-13.
25. Mullens, J., & Gayler, K. (1999). Measuring classroom instructional processes: Using survey and case study field test results to improve item construction. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement, National Center for Education Statistics.
26. Mullens, J., & Kasprzyk, D. (1996). Using qualitative methods to validate quantitative survey instruments: Proceedings of the section on survey research methods. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Statistical Association, Alexandria, VA.
27. Mullens, J., & Kasprzyk, D. (1999). Validating item responses on self-report teacher surveys: NCES working paper. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
28. Newman, I., & Benz, C. R. (1998). Qualitative-quantitative research methodology: Exploring the interactive continuum. Carbondale and Edwardsville: Southern Illinois University Press.
29. Patton, M. Q. (1980). Qualitative evaluation methods. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
30. Porter, A. G., Kirst, M., Osthoff, E., Smithson, J., & Schneider, S. (1993). Reform up close: An analysis of high school mathematics and science classrooms. Madison: University of Wisconsin, Wisconsin Center for Education Research.
31. QSR NUD*IST [Qualitative data analysis software]. (1991-1997). Melbourne, Australia: Qualitative Solutions and Research Pty.
32. Raudenbush, S. W., & Bryk, A. S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
33. Rowan, B., Correnti, R., & Miller, R. (2002). What large-scale survey research tells us about teacher effects on student achievement: Insights from "The Prospects Study of Elementary Schools." Teachers College Record, 104(8), 1525-1567.
34. Shavelson, R. J., Webb, N. M., & Burstein, L. (1986). Measurement of teaching. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching. New York: Macmillan.
35. Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (1998). Mixed methodology: Combining qualitative and quantitative approaches, 46. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
36. Webb, E. J., Campbell, D. T., Schwartz, R. D., & Sechrest, L. (1966). Unobtrusive measures. Chicago: Rand McNally.