A meta-validation model for assessing the score-validity of student teaching evaluations

Virtually every institution of higher education in the US uses some type of student teaching evaluation (STE) instrument as a means of assessing instructors’ instructional performance in courses. Unfortunately, many administrators and faculty misinterpret STE ratings. Therefore, the present article provides a comprehensive critique of STE instruments. In particular, we build on Messick’s (Educational Measurement, MacMillan, pp. 13–103, and Messick (Am. Psychol., 50, 741–749, 1995, 1989) conceptualization of validity to yield what we refer to as a meta-validity model that subdivides content-, criterion-, and construct-related validity into several areas of evidence. We use our meta-validity model to conduct a meta-validity analysis of STEs. Specifically, we assessed the score-validity of STEs based on findings from the extant literature. We conclude that strong evidence has been provided with respect to areas of criterion-related validity; however, for the most part, weak or inadequate evidence has been provided with regard to areas of both content-related and construct-related validity. This seriously calls into question both the score-validity and utility of STEs.