Contract No: ED-IES-12-C-0007

					

Section	B

June 14, 2013

Submitted to: Submitted by:

Institutes of Education Sciences Marzano Research Laboratory

U.S. Department of Education 9000 E. Nichols Ave., Ste. 210

555 New Jersey Ave., NW Centennial, CO 80112

Washington, DC 20208 (303) 766-9199

(202) 219-1385

Project Officer: Project Director:

Ok-Choon Park Trudy L. Cherasaro
Table	of	Contents

Section B. Data Collection Procedures and Statistical Methods...................................................................2

B1. Respondent Universe and Sampling Methods ...................................................................................2

Pilot Study .............................................................................................................................................2

Full Study...............................................................................................................................................3

B2. Procedures for the Collection of Information.....................................................................................6

Statistical Power....................................................................................................................................6

Data Collection......................................................................................................................................6

B3. Methods to Maximize Response Rates and To Deal With Non-Response .........................................7

B4. Tests of Procedures or Methods to be Undertaken ...........................................................................8

Analysis .................................................................................................................................................9

B5. Individuals Consulted on Statistical Aspects of the Design ..............................................................10

References ..................................................................................................................................................10
Section	B.	Data	Collection	Procedures	and	Statistical	Methods

The purpose of this research study is to examine a model of performance feedback to gain a deeper 

understanding of feedback characteristics that may be necessary for teachers to move from receiving 

feedback to improved performance in the context of teacher evaluation systems. Specifically, the study 

will examine the relationship among the usefulness of feedback, accuracy of feedback, credibility of the 

person providing feedback, learning opportunities related to the feedback, responsiveness to feedback, 

and teacher performance. The results of the study can be used to inform future training and guidance 

on providing feedback in teacher evaluation systems by considering the importance of different 

feedback characteristics (usefulness, accuracy, and credibility) and learning opportunities in the use of 

feedback. This information may be helpful for prioritizing needs both at the state and the district level 

for training and guidance on providing feedback in teacher evaluation systems, and also for informing 

the state of additional data collection needed to further understand feedback characteristics.

B1.	Respondent	Universe	and	Sampling	Methods

Pilot Study Sample

The pilot test is intended to test the survey prior to full study implementation on a small sample of 

teachers in districts that are implementing a teacher evaluation system that has the intention of

informing teacher development through feedback. The pilot sample will include teachers from four 

districts in Colorado that are implementing four different teacher evaluation systems. These four 

districts served as partner districts in the development of the Colorado Department of Education (CDE)

model evaluation system during the initial development of the CDE system. These partner districts have 

been implementing locally-developed teacher evaluation systems for a few years, and they shared their 

lessons learned with CDE to inform the development of the model evaluation system. Based on 

conversations with CDE, it is believed that these districts are further along in the teacher evaluation 

process and would be likely to have valuable information about the teacher feedback included in their 

evaluation systems. Table 1 presents demographic information for these districts. Table 2 provides a 

brief description of the district evaluation systems. A random sample of 900 teachers would be drawn 

from these districts to represent various grade levels and subject areas. The 900 teachers is a sufficiently 

large enough sample to conduct the planned analysis, including confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) which 

would require approximately 265 to 530 participants given the proposed CFA model. 

Table 1: Description of partner districts

Partner District Locale Number of Teachers

Brighton School District Rural: Fringe 776

Denver Public Schools City: Large 4960

Eagle County School Districts Town: Remote 455

Harrison School District 2 City: Large 696
Table 2: Brief description of partner district evaluation systems

Partner District Description of Evaluation System

Brighton School District - Coaches and principals are trained on what good teaching looks like. 

- Student achievement data is also used to inform evaluation ratings.

- Observations are conducted by the principal. 

Denver Public Schools - Locally developed rubric with 12 indicators of effective teaching

- Student growth is 50% of performance criteria.

- Observations conducted by peer observers and principal

Eagle County School 

Districts

- Rubric developed based on TAP system with 19 indicators of effective 

teaching

- Student growth measure included

- Observations conducted by master teachers and the principal

Harrison School District 2 - Locally-developed rubric with seven standards of effective teaching

- Student growth is 50% of performance criteria. 

- Four observations are conducted each year to inform evaluation 

ratings. 

Full Study Sample

Within each state, researchers will identify a sample of teachers, large enough to meet the requirements 

described above, using a single sampling framework. In each state, researchers first identified the 

districts who are participating in the pilot of the state’s model evaluation system. Each state sought 

volunteer districts to participate in the pilot of the statewide evaluation system. These districts were 

identified to participate in the proposed study because within each state these districts will all be 

implementing the same evaluation system (the state system), and these districts will have the most 

experience with implementing this system because they have participated in the pilot and therefore 

have implemented the state system for one to three years prior to data collection in this study. Using 

the districts who were involved in the pilot will allow us to identify a sample within each state that is 

using the same system and has the most experience with implementing the system. Additionally, the 

districts that are involved in piloting the teacher evaluation system in each state proportionally 

represent locales across the state in a manner similar to that of the statewide distribution (see Tables 3, 

4, and 5).

Researchers seek to obtain a sample of teachers that represent the various locale/size of the districts 

and teacher types participating in each state’s evaluation system pilot study, which in each state

continues through 2013–14, the year planned for data collection for the proposed study and the year 

before each state plans to offer their model for adoption by any district. Within each state, we will use 

both stratified random sampling and quota sampling in order to obtain representation of teachers from 

all districts and from all grade level and subject area combinations. Both sampling methods are required 

to create a sample that accurately represents the few larger districts and the additional smaller districts 

that are part of the pilot. In both the larger and smaller districts, teachers will be sampled to represent 

six subject areas (language arts, math, science, social studies, non-core subjects, and 

ELL/SPED/intervention) and three school levels (elementary, middle, and high school). Stratified random 
sampling will be used in the larger districts to proportionally represent each subgroup, because there 

are enough teachers to allow for this type of sampling. In smaller districts, where there are too few 

teachers to use stratified random sampling, proportional quota sampling will be used to ensure that 

subgroups are accurately represented in the sample. The use of both methods is preferred over random 

sampling to ensure that the larger districts are not overrepresented in the sample, because the majority 

of the teachers will be from these larger districts.

For each state, we will obtain a list of all teachers with information on their grade and subject area from 

each of the participating districts to determine the total number of teachers in each subgroup and the 

number needed to proportionally represent the overall number of teachers in each subgroup. In larger 

districts, the appropriate number of teachers in each subgroup will then be randomly selected using the 

random-number-generator feature in Microsoft Excel. Information about the pilot districts and the 

expected sample for each state is described below.

Colorado Sampling

There are 25 districts who are participating in the pilot of the Colorado model teacher evaluation system 

during the 2012–13 school year. Ten of these districts are also participating in the pilot of the new 

Colorado Academic Standards. This study will include the 15 districts who are participating only in the 

pilot of the model teacher evaluation system. The 15 districts participating in the pilot represent various 

locales (Table 3). In the 15 pilot districts, a pool of approximately 7,200 full-time-equivalent (FTE) 

teachers are available for potential participation in this study. Thirteen of the districts are rural or town 

and therefore have a small teaching population ranging from 18 to 156 FTE teachers. The two remaining 

districts are larger suburban districts with approximately 1500 and 4900 FTE teachers. Approximately 88 

percent of teachers come from the two larger districts and 22 percent come from a smaller district. 

Employing the sampling methods described above to obtain representation from locales/sizes and 

subgroups a sample of 20 percent of teachers in the larger districts (n = 1280) and a sample of 

approximately 200 teachers in the smaller districts will be recruited. This yields a total sample of 

approximately 1,480 teachers that represents the proportion of teachers in the smaller and larger 

districts (88% to 22% respectively) and allows for representation across the subgroups. The final count 

of teachers by subgroup will not be known until we obtain the list of teachers in participating districts 

for the 2014–15 school year.

Table 3: Percent of pilot districts in Colorado by locale

Locale Pilot Districts All Districts

% City 0% 7%

% Suburb 13% 7%

% Town 20% 21%

% Rural 67% 65%
Kansas Sampling

There are 22 districts participating in the pilot of the Kansas Educator Evaluation Protocol (KEEP) during 

the 2012–13 school year. The 22 districts in the pilot represent various locale (Table 4). In the 22 pilot 

districts, a pool of approximately 8,900 FTE teachers are available for potential participation in this 

study. Fifteen of the districts have a small teaching population ranging from 14 to 200 FTE teachers. The

remaining seven districts have between 320 and 3,100 FTE teachers. Approximately 84 percent of 

teachers come from the 7 larger districts and 16 percent come from the 15 smaller districts. Employing 

the sampling methods described above to obtain representation from locales and subgroups, a sample 

of 20 percent of teachers in the larger districts (n = 1512) and a sample of approximately 300 teachers in 

the smaller districts will be recruited. This yields a total sample of approximately 1,812 teachers that 

approximately represents the proportion of teachers in the smaller and larger districts (84% to 16%,

respectively) and allows for representation across the subgroups. The final count of teachers by 

subgroup will not be known until we obtain the list of teachers in participating districts for the 2014–15 

school year.

Table 4: Percent of pilot districts in Kansas by locale

Locale Pilot Districts All Districts

% City 13% 2%

% Rural 50% 71%

% Suburb 5% 3%

% Town 32% 24%

Missouri Sampling

There are 97 school districts participating in the 2012–13 pilot of Missouri’s Educator Evaluation System 

representing various locales (Table 5). In the 97 pilot districts, a pool of approximately 16,400 FTE 

teachers is available for potential participation in this study. Eighty-two of the districts have a small 

teaching population ranging from 6 to 200 FTE teachers. The 15 remaining districts have between 300 

and 1600 FTE teachers. Approximately 68 percent of teachers come from the 15 larger districts and 32

percent come from the 82 smaller districts. Employing the sampling methods described above to obtain 

representation from locales and subgroups, a sample of approximately 10 percent of teachers in the 

larger districts (n = 1100) and a sample of approximately 500 teachers in the smaller districts will be 

recruited. This yields a total sample of approximately 1600 teachers that represents the proportion of 

teachers in the smaller and larger districts (68% to 32% respectively) and allows for representation 

across the subgroups. The final count of teachers by subgroup will not be known until we obtain the list 

of teachers in participating districts for the 2014–15 school year.

Table 5: Percent of pilot districts in Missouri by locale

Locale Pilot Districts All Districts

% City 3% 3%

% Rural 70% 74%
% Suburb 10% 7%

% Town 17% 16%

B2.	Procedures	for	the	Collection	of	Information

Statistical Power

Structural equation modeling requires a minimum of 100 to 150 subjects (Loehlin, 1992), or between 5

and 10 subjects per parameter estimated, depending on the distribution of the variables (Tabachnick & 

Fidell, 2001). We can estimate the number of parameters and degrees of freedom using the proposed 

models, which include the latent variables and the indicators based on the potential survey items and

teacher evaluation rating data. The latent variables are the same in all of the states, and all indicators 

are the same except the indicators for teacher performance. Because of the difference in indicators of 

teacher performance, the model will be tested for each state. Table 6 identifies information about the 

model for each state and presents the sample size needed based on Tabachnick & Fidell’s 

recommendations and also based on the methods for calculating power estimates provided by 

MacCallum, Browne, and Sugawara (1996). For a test of close fit based on the following assumptions: α

= 0.05, ε0 = 0.05 and ε1 = 0.08, where ε0 is the null value of the root-mean-square error of 

approximation, and ε1 is the alternative value.

Table 6: Sample sizes need to test the model in each state 

State Number of 

parameters in 

proposed model

Degrees of 

freedom in 

proposed 

model

Sample size 

(Tabachnick & Fidell

recommendation)

Desired 

power

Sample size 

based on 

desired power

Colorado 69 366 345 to 690 90% 71

Kansas 65 313 325 to 650 90% 78

Missouri 63 288 315 to 630 90% 84

Data Collection 

Prior to data collection, teachers will be asked to sign a consent form to participate in the study, which 

will provide them with information on the procedures for collecting data, including information about 

how the researchers will protect the confidential data. Researchers plan to hold on-site meetings with 

teachers to provide information about the study and to collect consent forms. States and districts 

participating in the study will be members of the research alliance. At the start of the study, researchers 

will identify a point of contact within each district who will provide the evaluation rating data, including 

a unique teacher identifier, and teacher email addresses for invitation.

Pilot	Tests	Data	Collection	Procedures

The pilot test includes two data collection instruments: a researcher-developed survey and a teacher 

interview protocol. Researchers will obtain a list of email addresses for teachers who agreed to 

participate from the districts and will also collect email addresses on the consent forms to verify 
addresses as necessary. The email addresses will be associated with a unique identification number and 

uploaded into an online survey software system such as SurveyMonkey. An online survey will be 

administered to teachers in the pilot sample near the end of the 2013–14 school year. The survey will 

take approximately 30 minutes to complete. Shortly after the survey is administered, a subset of 

approximately 20 teachers will also be asked to participate in an interview in which they will be asked to 

provide feedback on the clarity of the survey. The 20 teachers will be purposively selected to represent 

various response patterns on the survey (such as levels of agreement or disagreement). The in-person

interview will last approximately one hour. 

Full	Study	Data	Collection	Procedures

The study involves two data collection instruments: a teacher evaluation instrument already in use in 

the districts and a researcher-developed teacher survey. 

Teacher Evaluation Instrument. Within each of the states, teachers currently receive a performance 

rating based on their state’s teacher evaluation instrument. At the start of the study, researchers will 

identify a point of contact within each district who will provide the teacher evaluation rating data, 

including a unique teacher identifier. Prior to study implementation, researchers will work with their 

contact in the district to set up protocols for collecting this data to ensure that the data is in the needed 

format. A copy of the current draft of the teacher evaluation protocol for each state is provided in 

Attachment H (Colorado), Attachment I (Missouri) and Attachment J (Kansas).

Teacher Survey. Researchers will obtain a list of email addresses for teachers who agreed to participate 

from the district contact and will also collect email addresses on the consent forms to use to verify email 

addresses as necessary. The email addresses will be associated with a unique identification number and 

uploaded into an online survey software system such as SurveyMonkey. Online surveys will be 

administered to teachers who agree to participate in the study. The survey takes approximately 30 

minutes to complete. In order to maximize response rates, pre-invitation and reminder emails will be 

sent.

Researchers will combine evaluation data from each district into one data set for each state. Teacher 

survey data and evaluation rating data will be combined using a relational database that links the data 

based on the teacher’s assigned identification number. 

B3.	Methods	to	Maximize	Response	Rates	and	To	Deal	With	Non-Response

In order to maximize the response rate, we will employ techniques identified in the tailored design 

survey methods (Dillman, 2000). The tailored design method emphasizes developing easily-understood,

brief surveys, and using personalized and repeated communication with participants as methods for 

increasing response rates.

We will aim to minimize the burden on the participants by designing a survey that is easily understood 

and takes a minimal amount of time to complete, and by working with educators to determine a 

window of time within the school year to administer the online survey that would allow for greater 

response. We will involve members of our research alliance, including key personnel in the state and 
districts, early in the research process. The involvement of key personnel will help with appropriate 

messaging about the study, and communication about the importance of the study to states and 

districts.

In order to obtain an 80% or higher response rate, as suggested by the Office of Management and 

Budget (2006), we will focus on personalized and repeated communication. We will first meet in-person 

with teachers, followed by personalized email invitations, and targeted email reminders. In addition, we 

will offer incentives for participation. Because we are collecting teacher evaluation rating in addition to 

the survey data, and teacher evaluation rating data is somewhat sensitive information, it will be 

important for the participants to have an understanding of how this data will be used. Teachers who are 

identified in the sample will be invited to attend an in-person meeting in which they will receive

information on the study and procedures for collecting data, including information about how the 

researchers will protect the confidential data. Consent forms will be collected during this meeting; 

therefore, teachers will provide consent to participate prior to receiving the survey email invitation. We 

will communicate with our district contacts to coordinate the in-person meeting, so that the invitation 

will come from the district and teachers will meet in a central location in the district in which the district 

typically convenes teachers. The district contact will send a letter about the study with the invitation to 

the in-person meeting. In this letter, the district contact will show their support and endorsement of the 

study and explain to teachers the benefits of their participation. Researchers will also send up to three 

targeted email reminders in order to increase the response rate (see Attachment G for the email 

invitation and reminders). If teachers do not respond after two email reminders, we will also send a 

reminder in the mail to the teacher’s school address. Teachers will be provided with the option to 

request a paper survey rather than completing an online survey in the initial invitation. Additionally, 

teachers will be offered an incentive of a $30 Visa gift card upon completion of the survey as part of the 

study. As part of the Reading First Impact study, researchers conducted a study to examine the effects of 

monetary incentives on survey response rates for teachers and found that incentives significantly 

increased response rates (Games, Bloom, Kemple & Jacob, 2008). This incentive was determined using 

NCEE guidance, which suggests a $30 incentive for a 30-minute survey about interventions (NCEE, 2005).

The NCEE guidance noted that collective bargaining agreements in 

districts may not allow teachers to complete surveys during school time, which may result in a 

decreased response rate without the offer of an incentive. 

In order to address the potential of incorrect email addresses in the list provided by the district, we will 

collect email addresses on the consent forms as well. If an email is “bounced back” as undeliverable, we 

will verify the email address against the address provided on the consent form and make necessary 

changes. If the problem cannot be resolved by checking the email address on the consent form, we will 

contact the district to identify a correct email address and/or the reason why the email address is not 

working.

B4.	Tests	of	Procedures	or	Methods	to	be	Undertaken
During the 2013–14 school year, researchers will conduct a pilot test of the survey instrument. The pilot 

test will be used to gather data to refine the survey and assess reliability and validity. This refined survey 

will then be used to conduct the full study in the 2014–15 school year. Information about the sample, 

data collection, and analysis for the pilot test is presented below. 

The online survey will be administered to teachers in the pilot sample near the end of the 2013–14 

school year. Shortly after the survey is administered, a subset of approximately 20 teachers will also be 

asked to participate in an interview in which they will be asked to provide feedback on the clarity of the 

survey. The interviews will be transcribed. Teachers will be provided with a copy of the survey and asked 

to review it and respond to questions such as those proposed by the National Service Knowledge 

Network (2008): 

 What problems, if any, did you have completing the survey?

 Are the directions clear? 

 Are there any words or language in the instrument that teachers might not understand?

 Did you find any of the questions to be unnecessary or redundant?

 Were any questions difficult to answer? 

 What did you think this question was asking? How would you phrase it in your own words?

 Did the answer choices allow you to answer as you intended?

 Is there anything you would change about the instrument?

Analysis

Researchers will examine the clarity and psychometric properties of the survey. Data from the 

interviews will be analyzed to help determine if the respondents interpreted the directions and 

questions as the researchers intended. Interview transcripts will be coded using MAXQDA, a qualitative 

analysis program, to identify patterns in responses to the interview questions. Researchers will modify 

the survey based on common responses about the clarity of the survey.

Researchers will conduct item analysis to identify problematic items and to examine internal consistency 

of the survey. Cronbach’s alpha coefficients will be computed for each scale and correlation analysis will 

be used to determine the extent to which the items correlate with the scales and the effect on 

Cronbach’s alpha if the item were removed. Items will be deleted if removal of the items would increase

Cronbach’s alpha and increase the average inter-item correlation. Following the criterion proposed by 

Nunnally & Bernstein (1994), alpha coefficients of 0.70 or higher will be considered as reliable. 

Following the item analysis, researchers will analyze the proposed measurement model in Figure 3, 

Section A, using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). The factors in this measurement model will be 

assumed to covary, with no hypothesis that any one factor causes the other. The methods for CFA 

proposed by Kline (2005) will be followed. First, researchers will test for a single factor. This step allows 

researchers to examine the feasibility of testing a more complex model, and to determine if the fit of the 

single-factor model is comparable. Selected fit indexes will be examined to determine if the results 

indicate a poor fit, which would substantiate the need for a more complex model. Next, the five-factor 

model will be examined. Researchers will examine the model fit indices, the indicator loadings, and the 
factor correlations to determine not only if the model fits the data, but also if the indicators have 

significant loadings on the associated factors, and if the estimated correlations between the factors are 

not “excessively high (e.g., > .85)”(Kline, 2005; p. 73). If the model does not fit the data, the model will 

be respecified based on an examination of modification indices, correlation residuals, and practical and 

theoretical considerations. To determine if the fit of the five-factor significantly reduces model fit, Chisquare difference tests will be performed. These results could inform changes to the final study, such as 

determining that certain indicators or survey items are not good indicators of the factors, or 

determining that there are more or fewer factors than originally conceived.

B5.	Individuals	Consulted	on	Statistical	Aspects	of	the	Design	

The following individuals were consulted on the statistical, data collection, and analytic aspects of this 

study:

Name Title Organization Contact Information

Dr. Steve Meyer Senior Researcher RMC Research 

Corporation

meyer@rmcdenver.com

303-305-4261

Dr. Fatih Unlu Senior Scientist Abt Associates Fatih_Unlu@abtassoc.com

617-520-2528

The following individuals will be involved in the study implementation:

Name Role Organization Contact Information

Dr. Trudy 

Cherasaro

Principal 

Investigator

Marzano Research 

Laboratory

trudy.cherasaro@marzanoresearch.com

303-766-9199

Dr. Helen 

Apthorp

Co-Principal 

Investigator

Marzano Research 

Laboratory

helen.apthorp@marzanoresearch.com

303-766-9199

Dr. Kerry Englert Technical Working 

Group Member

Seneca Consulting kenglert@senecaconsulting.org

References

Dillman, D. A., (2000). Mail and internet surveys: The tailored design method (2nd ed.). New York: Wiley.

Gamse, B.C., Bloom, H.S., Kemple, J.J., Jacob, R.T., (2008). Reading First impact study: Interim report 

(NCEE 2008-4016). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional 

Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.

Kline, R.B. (2005). Principles and practices of structural equation modeling (2nd ed.). New York: Guilford.

Loehlin, J. C. (1992). Latent variable models; An introduction to factor, path, and structural analysis. 

Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

MacCallum, R. C., Browne, M. W., & Sugawara, H. M. (1996). Power analysis and determination of 

sample size for covariance structure modeling. Psychological Methods, 1, 130–149.
National Center for Education Evaluation (2005). Guidelines for incentives for NCEE impact evaluations. 

Washington, DC: Author.

National Service Knowledge Network (2008). Planning and conducting a pilot test. Scotts Valley, CA: 

Author. Retrieved July 18, 2012 from http://www.nationalserviceresources.org/practices/19498.

Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Office of Management and Budget (2006). Guidance on agency survey and statistical information 

collections. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved July 18, 2012 from: 

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/inforeg/pmc_survey_guidance_2006.pdf.

Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2001). Using multivariate statistics (4th ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.