The influence of test familiarity and student disability status upon teachers' judgments of students' test performance
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Current research indicates group-specific biases in teacher expectations.
“A central challenge in the implementation of high expectations for all students, however, may be to reduce biasing influences associated with students' gender, family backgrounds and disabilities, as current research indicates group-specific biases in teacher expectations (e.g., Hurwitz et al., 2007; Lorenz et al., 2016).”
From Self-fulfilling prophecies in the classroom: Teacher expectations, teacher feedback and student achievement (2020) · cites this paper as Hurwitz et al., 2007
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 9 · Cited by 56
- Authors
- Hurwitz, J. T., Elliott, S. N., & Braden, J. P.
- Affiliations
- University of Wisconsin–Madison (US)
- Vanderbilt University (US)
- North Carolina State University (US)
- Venue
- School Psychology Quarterly
- Published
- 2007-06
- Volume
- 22
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 115-144
- ISSN
- 1045-3830 (ISSN-L)
- 1939-1560
- OpenAlex
- W1963936957
- Cited by
- 56
- References
- 9
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 3 · 2012: 1
- FWCI
- 2.87
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- School Psychology Quarterly (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Psychometric Methodologies and Testing
- Social Sciences › Education › Student Assessment and Feedback
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Educational Technology and Assessment
- Keywords
- test familiarity, student disability, test performance, teacher ratings, students with disabilities
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
