Causal Inference and COVID: Contrasting Methods for Evaluating Pandemic Impacts Using State Assessments

IF 2.7 4区 教育学 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH
Benjamin R. Shear
{"title":"Causal Inference and COVID: Contrasting Methods for Evaluating Pandemic Impacts Using State Assessments","authors":"Benjamin R. Shear","doi":"10.1111/emip.12540","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>In the spring of 2021, just 1 year after schools were forced to close for COVID-19, state assessments were administered at great expense to provide data about impacts of the pandemic on student learning and to help target resources where they were most needed. Using state assessment data from Colorado, this article describes the biggest threats to making valid inferences about student learning to study pandemic impacts using state assessment data: measurement artifacts affecting the comparability of scores, secular trends, and changes in the tested population. The article compares three statistical approaches (the Fair Trend, baseline student growth percentiles, and multiple regression with demographic covariates) that can support more valid inferences about student learning during the pandemic and in other scenarios in which the tested population changes over time. All three approaches lead to similar inferences about statewide student performance but can lead to very different inferences about student subgroups. Results show that controlling statistically for prepandemic demographic differences can reverse the conclusions about groups most affected by the pandemic and decisions about prioritizing resources.</p>","PeriodicalId":47345,"journal":{"name":"Educational Measurement-Issues and Practice","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2023-02-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Educational Measurement-Issues and Practice","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/emip.12540","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

In the spring of 2021, just 1 year after schools were forced to close for COVID-19, state assessments were administered at great expense to provide data about impacts of the pandemic on student learning and to help target resources where they were most needed. Using state assessment data from Colorado, this article describes the biggest threats to making valid inferences about student learning to study pandemic impacts using state assessment data: measurement artifacts affecting the comparability of scores, secular trends, and changes in the tested population. The article compares three statistical approaches (the Fair Trend, baseline student growth percentiles, and multiple regression with demographic covariates) that can support more valid inferences about student learning during the pandemic and in other scenarios in which the tested population changes over time. All three approaches lead to similar inferences about statewide student performance but can lead to very different inferences about student subgroups. Results show that controlling statistically for prepandemic demographic differences can reverse the conclusions about groups most affected by the pandemic and decisions about prioritizing resources.

因果推理与COVID:使用状态评估评估大流行影响的对比方法
2021年春,也就是学校因COVID-19而被迫关闭仅仅一年后,为了提供有关大流行对学生学习影响的数据,并帮助将资源定向到最需要的地方,政府付出了巨大代价进行了评估。本文使用来自科罗拉多州的州评估数据,描述了使用州评估数据对学生学习进行有效推断以研究大流行影响的最大威胁:影响分数可比性的测量伪影、长期趋势和受测人群的变化。本文比较了三种统计方法(公平趋势、基线学生增长百分位数和人口统计学协变量的多元回归),这些方法可以支持关于大流行期间和受测人群随时间变化的其他情况下学生学习情况的更有效推断。这三种方法对全州学生的表现得出了相似的结论,但对学生分组的推断却截然不同。结果表明,在统计上控制大流行前的人口统计学差异,可以扭转关于受大流行影响最严重群体的结论和有关优先分配资源的决定。©2023国家教育计量委员会。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.90
自引率
15.00%
发文量
47
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信