ABSTRACT
Are the evaluations valid over a wide application?
SET instruments are utilized for a number of different applications. In addition to the normal measures of validity, it is necessary to ask if the evaluations can validly accomplish the goals determined by these applications. The evaluations are utilized for: 1) instructional improvement, the so-called formative function; 2) evaluation of performance with personnel and managerial implications, the summative function; and/or 3) necessary feedback to comply with legislative, administrative, or student demands, or a utilitarian function. As with other measures of validity, the validity of SET has been hampered by a lack of adequate definitions. Although the evidence is mixed, the research has found the instruments generally fail the formative function, i.e., improving instruction. Determining the validity of the summative function is difficult. There are a number of legitimate administrative outcomes which justify summative procedures. However, the evidence for improvement of instruction is weak, and if the purpose of the evaluations is to identify teachers from whom students learn, then research indicates the summative utilization of the instruments is invalid. Further, questionable methodological and statistical applications have called into question administrators’ comparative use of SET. The utilitarian validity of the instruments depend upon whether compliance or long-range improvement are proper goals.
