Determination of the Coefficients of the Subscale for the Assessment of Professional Competencies (ASLAH) of Graduates of Farhangian University

Document Type : Original Article



In many countries, the qualifications of teachers are measured before entering the profession of teaching, and it has been started in Iran since 2016. The purpose of this study was to investigate the predictive validity of the professional qualification evaluation (ASLAH) test at  Farhangian University. The present research is applied in terms of purpose and as a method is a correlation type. The research population is all students of the 28th Madeh of the year 2015-16 in Farhangian University, whose number is 2823. Due to the dispersion of the community in all provinces of the country, the available sample was used and the students of Khorasan Razavi province, which numbered 190, were selected as samples. The main part of the research data is the results of the ASLAH test of Farhangian University, which was held in Shahrivar, 2016. A researcher-made test was used to investigate the success of teachers from the perspective of their colleagues. The reliability of this test was obtained by using Cronbach's alpha method of 0.89 and its validity was evaluated using factor analysis. According to the method of letter of ASLAH, the share of the subscale "cultural", "teaching of reason", "science" and "performance" is 20, 35, 20 and 25 percent respectively. According to the results of this study, to increase the predictive validity, the share of subscale is 15, 11, 38 and 36 percent, respectively. It was also found that the coefficient of the subscales based on the validity results in different outcomes.


دلاور، علی (1395). مقدمه‏ای بر نظریه‏های اندازه‏گیری (روان‌سنجی). تهران: انتشارات سمت.
دلاور، علی .(1377). مقدمهای بر تحلیل عاملی. تهران: انتشارات دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، واحد تهران مرکزی.
سرمد، زهره؛ بازرگان، عباس و حجازی، الهه (1395). روشهای تحقیق در علوم رفتاری. تهران: انتشارات آگاه.
طرح تفصیلی ارزشیابی صلاحیت‌های حرفه‌ای (اصلح) دانش‌آموختگان دانشگاه فرهنگیان (1394). معاونت نظارت، ارزیابی و تضمین کیفیت، مرکز سنجش شایستگی­های حرفه­ای، ویراست بیست و یکم، منتشر نشده.
کریمی، مسلم (1394). آموزش‌و‌پرورش محور شبکه‌ی تضمین کیفیت در نظام آموزشی. مجموعه مقالات دومین کنفرانس ملی و نهمین همایش ارزیابی کیفیت نظام‌های دانشگاهی. تهران، دانشگاه فرهنگیان، صص 74-63.
مگنوسون، داوید (1967). مبانی نظری آزمون‌های روانی؛ ترجمه محمدتقی براهنی. تهران: انتشارات دانشگاه تهران.
مؤمنی، منصور و فعال قیومی، علی (1389). تحلیل آماری با استفاده از SPSS، ویرایش سوم. تهران: انتشارات مؤلف.
نادری، عزت‌الله؛ حاجی‌زاده، محمد؛ شریعتمداری، علی؛ و سیف نراقی، مریم (1389). بررسی و مقایسه مهارت‌های حرفه‌ای معلمان دروس علوم پایه و علوم انسانی دوره راهنمایی شهرستان بهشهر به‌منظور ارائه روش‌های ارتقای کیفی این مهارت‌ها. تحقیقات مدیریت آموزشی، 2 (2)، 75 – 96.
هومن، حیدرعلی (1385). تحلیل داده‌های چندمتغیری در پژوهش رفتاری. تهران: نشر پیک فرهنگ.
Baldwin, P. (2015). Weighting Components of a Composite Score Using Naïve Expert Judgments about Their Relative Importance. Applied Psychological Measurement, 39 (7) 539–550.
Brennan, R. L. (2001). Generalizability theory. New York: Springer.
Brookhart, S. M.; & Loadman, W. E. (1992). Schooluniversity collaboration: Across cultures. Teaching Education, 4 (2), 53–68.
Chester, M. D. (2003). Multiple measures and highstakes decisions: A framework for combining measures. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 22, 32–41.
Cronbach, L. J.; Linn, R. L.; Brennan, R. L & .Haertel, E. H. (1997). Generalizability analysis for performance assessments of student achievement or school effectiveness. Educational & Psychological Measurement, 57, 373–399.
Douglas, K. M.; & Mislevy, R. J. (2010). Estimating classification accuracy for complex decision rules based on multiple scores. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 35, 1–27.
Glazerman, S.; Goldhaber, D.; Loeb, S.; Raudenbush, S.; Staiger, D. O.; & Whitehurst, G. J. (2011). Passing muster: Evaluating evaluation systems. Washington, DC: Brown Center on Education Policy at Brookings.
Goe, L.; & Croft, A. (2009). Methods of evaluating teacher effectiveness. Washington, DC: National Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality.
Huberman, F.; & Boomhan, T. (2005). Applying TQM, philospphy to the teaching and learning process. Monash University, Malaysia.
Ingvarson, L. J.; Schwille, M. T. T.; Glenn R.; Ray P.; & Sharon L. S. (2013). An Analysis of Teacher Education Context, Structure, and QualityAssurance Arrangements inTEDS-M Countries, Findings from the IEA Teacher Education and Development Study in Mathematics (TEDS-M). Australian Council for Educational Research Michigan State University, Amsterdam, the Netherlands,
Kane, M.; & Case, S. M. (2004). The reliability and validity of weighted composite scores. Applied Measurement in Education, 17, 221–240.
Martínez, J .F.; Schweig, J.; & Goldschmidt, P. (2016). Approaches for Combining Multiple Measures of Teacher Performance: Reliability, Validity, and Implications for Evaluation Policy. Educational Evaluation & Policy Analysis, 38 (4), 738–756.
Mehrens, W. (1989). Combining evaluation data from multiple sources. In J. Millman & L. DarlingHammond (Eds.), the new handbook of teacher evaluation: Assessment of elementary and secondary school teachers (pp. 322–336). Newbury Park, CA: SAGE.
Mihaly, K.; McCaffrey, D.; Staiger, D.; & Lockwood, J. R. (2013). A composite estimator of effective teaching (MET Project). The RAND Corporation. Retrieved from http:ll=// external_publications /EP50155.html
Moss, P. (1994). Can there be validity without reliability? Educational Researcher, 23 (2), 5–12.
Runder, L. (2001). Informed test component weighting, Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 0, pp. 16-19.
Taylor, E. S.; & Tyler, J. (2012). The effect of evaluation on teacher performance. American Economic Review, 102, 3628–3651.
villegas-Reimers, E. (2007). Teacher professional development: an international review of the literature. UNESCO; International Institute for Educational Planning
Wang, M. W.; & Stanley, J. C. (1970). Differential weighting: A review of methods and empirical studies. Review of Educational Research, 4, 663–704.