tsang_measure comparison hand in

8/10/2019 Tsang_Measure Comparison HAND In

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/tsangmeasure-comparison-hand-in 1/14

Measures of Educational LeadershipA Measure Comparison

Carol Tsang

EDLD 663 – Nov 2014



Educational LeadershipThe Educational Leadership PolicyStandards: ISLLC 2008

▫ Setting a shared vision for learning▫ Developing a school culture for student

learning and staff professional growth

▫ Ensuring effective management

▫ Collaborating with faculty andcommunity members

▫ Acting with integrity, fairness, and in anethical manner

▫ Understanding, responding to andinfluencing the local context



Measures Compared

• The Leadership Practices Inventory (LPI)▫ Kouzes, J.M. & Posner, B.Z., 2006

• The Vanderbilt Assessment of Leadership inEducation (VAL-ED)▫ Porter et al., 2008

▫ Linked to ISLLC standards



Construct Definition

Definition LPI – 5 Practices VAL-ED - Framework

Construct Leadership capacity

5 exemplary practices thatinfluence an individual’scompetencies to lead otherseffectively

Leadership framework

6 core components and 6 keyprocesses that influenceteacher performance andstudent learning



Measure DescriptionsSubscales LPI VAL-EDNumber 5 12

Types • Modeling the way• Inspiring a shared vision• Challenging the process• Enabling others to act• Encouraging the heart

Core Components• High standards for student learning• Rigorous curriculum• Quality instruction• Culture of learning and professional

behavior• Connects to external communities• Performance Accountability

Key Processes• Planning• Implementing• Supporting• Advocating• Communicating• Monitoring



More Measure Descriptions

LPI VAL-ED

Number of Alternate Forms

• Self form• Observer form

• 2 parallel forms

AdministrationTime

10 – 20 minutes ~20 minutes

AdministrationMethod

• Individual• 360 degree• Paper or Online

• 360 degree• Paper or Online

Accommodations n/a n/a

Items and ScoringDescriptions

• 30 items• 10 point rating scale• (1 = never to 10 = almost

always)• Total raw score = sum of

all subscale raw scores

• 72 items• Check evidence first• 5 point ordinal scale• (1=ineffective to 5 =

outstandingly effective)• Mean item response for total

scores and each subscale



Scoring and ScalesLPI VAL-ED

Available scales (unitsand properties)

• Likert typefrequency scale

• Raw scores• Percentile ranks

• Ordinal rating scale• Raw scores• Percentile ranks• Performance levels

Norming sample • > 350,000participants ofmanagementseminars

• > 8000• National field trial

Criterion descriptions n/a • National expert panel• Distinguished, proficient, basic,

below-basic leadershipeffectiveness



Technical Adequacy - Reliability

Reliability LPI VAL-ED

Internal consistency >0.75 for all subscales 0.87 - 0.90 for all subscales

Test-retest o.79 for principals0.86 for superintendents

n/a

Alternate form n/a 0.98 for all 12 subscales

Inter-rater n/a n/a



Technical Adequacy: Validity Validity LPI VAL-ED

Content • Extensive interviews andsurveys of leaders

• Examination of researchliterature conceptualframework

Criterion • Between LPI and otherevaluations of managerialeffectiveness (no specificexamples of these listed)

• Between teacher andprincipal ratings are related(r=0.47)

Construct • Confirmatory factoranalysis

• Regression equation(adjusted r2=0.756)

• Confirmatory factor analyses• High inter-correlations

between component andprocess (0.73-0.90)

DiagnosticEfficiency

n/a n/a



InterpretationLPI VAL-ED

Pros • Broad• Various languages• Self-evaluation, reflection• Flexible: self-form and

observer-form• Readily available, inexpensive

($16)• 20 minutes to complete

• Aligned with ISLLC standards• Empirical support• Excellent reliability and validity• Input from all members of the

school’s professional community • 20 minutes to complete

Cons • Lower reliability• Does not specifically measure

educational leadership

• Expensive, $250 for 1 schoolleader or can be purchasedcollectively as a district or state



RecommendationsLPI VAL-ED

• Useful for self-evaluation,development of general leadershipskills

• Excellent for a full evaluation of aprincipal’s performance in a school

• Useful for high stakes decisionsabout whom to hire as principalsand what investments should bemade to improve

• 360 degree approach which givesprincipals feedback about theirperformance from all constituents



References• Council of Chief State School Officers. (2008). Educational Leadership

Policy Standards: ISLLC 2008. Washington, DC. Retrieved fromhttp://www.ccsso.org/Documents/2008/Educational_Leadership_Policy_Standards_2008.pdf

• Kouzes, J. M., & Posner, B.Z. (1988). Development and validation of theLeadership practices inventory. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 48, 483-496. doi:10.1177/0013164488482024

• Kouzes, J. M., & Posner, B.Z. (2002). The leadership practices inventory:

Theory and evidence behind the five practices of exemplary leaders.Retrieved fromhttp://www.leadershipchallenge.com/UserFiles/lc_jb_appendix.pdf

• Leithwood, K., & Seashore-Louis, K. (2011). Linking leadership to studentlearning. Hoboken, NJ: Jossey-Bass.



References• Porter, A. C., Murphy, J., Goldring, E., Elliott, S. N., Polikoff, M. S.,

& May, H (2008). Vanderbilt assessment of leadership ineducation: Technical manual 1.0. Retrieved fromhttp://www.wallacefoundation.org/knowledge-center/school-

leadership/principal-evaluation/Pages/Vanderbilt-Assessment-of-Leadership-in-Education-Technical-Manual-1.aspx

• Porter, A. C., Polikoff, M. S., Goldring, E. B., Murphy, J, Elliott, S.N., & May, H (2010). Investigating the validity and reliability of the Vanderbilt assessment of leadership in education. The Elementary

School Journal, 111, 282-313.

• Robinson, V. M. J., Lloyd, C. A., & Rowe, K. J., (2008). The impactof leadership on student outcomes” an analysis of the differentialeffects of leadership types. Educational Administration Quarterly,44, 635-674. doi:10.1177/001316X08351209