Cited by 11Physical Education and PedagogyEvaluation of Teaching PracticesEducational Assessment and Pedagogy

Exploring the reliability of generic and content-specific instructional aspects in physical education lessons

Charalambous, Charalambos Y., Kyriakides, Ermis, Tsangaridou, Niki, Kyriakides, Leonidas·2017·School Effectiveness and School Improvement

Abstract

Heightened accountability pressures and an increased emphasis on teaching quality have directed scholarly attention to scrutinizing instruction, particularly with respect to issues of validity and reliability. However, these attempts have largely been directed toward “core” content areas and investigated generic or content-specific instructional aspects separately. Focusing on a less explored area, physical education, and concurrently attending to both instructional aspects, in this exploratory study, we examined whether the optimal lesson-rater combination needed to obtain reliable teaching-quality estimates differs depending on the type of instructional aspects considered. Data analysis of 147 lessons using generalizability theory suggested that either a 3-lesson-2-rater or a 4-lesson-1-rater combination yields sufficiently reliable estimates for nearly all dimensions examined (generic or content specific). Quality of student practice, however, required 11 lessons scored by 2 raters. These findings underline the importance of examining individual dimensions within a given observational instrument and the merit of carefully selecting and training raters.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/09243453.2017.1311929

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • In prior studies using generalizability theory to decompose variance in observation protocol scores, there is an important hidden facet to the measurement procedure: the occasion or temporal location of the observation within the academic school year.

    “However, in all of these studies, it can be argued that there is an important ''hidden'' facet to the measurement procedure involved in the scoring of a classroom observation. This facet is the occasion or, more specifically, the temporal location of the observation within the academic school year.”

    From Making Inferences About Teacher Observation Scores Over Time (2019) · cites this paper as Charalambous, Kyriakides, Tsangaridou, & Kyriakides, 2017

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Charalambous, C. Y., Kyriakides, E., Tsangaridou, N., & Kyriakides, L.
Affiliations
University of Cyprus (CY)
Corresponding author
Charalambous, Charalambos Y.
Venue
School Effectiveness and School Improvement
Published
2017-04-03
Volume
28
Issue
4
Pages
555-577
ISSN
  • 0924-3453 (ISSN-L)
  • 1744-5124
OpenAlex
W2605127301
Cited by
11
References
2
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 1
FWCI
2.70
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • School Effectiveness and School Improvement (publishedVersion)
  • The Library of Electronic Cyprus Thematic Organized Collections (LYKYTHOS) (University of Cyprus) (submittedVersion)
Funders
A.G. Leventis Foundation (8037P-12083)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Physical Therapy, Sports Therapy and Rehabilitation › Physical Education and Pedagogy
  • Social Sciences › Education › Evaluation of Teaching Practices
  • Social Sciences › Education › Educational Assessment and Pedagogy
Keywords
physical education, teaching quality, classroom observation, rater reliability, generalizability theory, rater training

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