What does this research mean for the field?

The majority of quantitative instruments in mathematics teacher education focus on affective characteristics using questionnaires, and while reliability evidence is common, evidence regarding testing consequences or fairness is rare. Novelty: ClaimNovelty.SYNTHESIS. Consensus alignment: ConsensusAlignment.NEUTRAL.

What question did this study set out to answer?

To synthesize literature and create an archival infrastructure characterizing the psychometric evidence base for instruments evaluating mathematics teacher affect and instructional practice.

August 22, 2026Journal of Mathematics Teacher EducationOpen Access

Creating an archival infrastructure: a comprehensive review of the evidence base for mathematics teacher affect and practices instruments

View Full Paper

Ask AI

Bookmark

Authors

AWAnne Garrison Wilhelm MGMelissa A. Gallagher TFTimothy D. Folger

Discussion

Member takes

Overview

Literature synthesis reveals gaps in fairness and consequential validity evidence across mathematics teacher assessment instruments, highlighting the need for more rigorous measurement standards.

Key Points

To synthesize literature and create an archival infrastructure characterizing the psychometric evidence base for instruments evaluating mathematics teacher affect and instructional practice.
Screened 2,286 articles across 24 mathematics education journals published over a 20-year period.
Identified and categorized 164 quantitative instruments providing evidence of validity, reliability, or fairness across construct types, equity focus, and instrument design.
Most instruments targeted teacher affect through self-report questionnaires, with nearly half evaluating beliefs about mathematics teaching and learning, while 48 instruments evaluated classroom practice primarily through observational tools.
Reliability evidence and test content validity were the most frequently reported metrics, whereas empirical evidence regarding testing consequences and fairness was rarely documented across instrument types.

Cite This Study

Wilhelm et al. (2026) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/6a895fd3ca7ade938187eb37 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10857-026-09779-6

View Full Paper

Ask AI

Bookmark

August 22, 2026Journal of Mathematics Teacher EducationOpen Access

Creating an archival infrastructure: a comprehensive review of the evidence base for mathematics teacher affect and practices instruments

View Full Paper

Ask AI

Bookmark

Authors

AWAnne Garrison Wilhelm MGMelissa A. Gallagher TFTimothy D. Folger

Discussion

Member takes

Overview

Literature synthesis reveals gaps in fairness and consequential validity evidence across mathematics teacher assessment instruments, highlighting the need for more rigorous measurement standards.

Key Points

To synthesize literature and create an archival infrastructure characterizing the psychometric evidence base for instruments evaluating mathematics teacher affect and instructional practice.
Screened 2,286 articles across 24 mathematics education journals published over a 20-year period.
Identified and categorized 164 quantitative instruments providing evidence of validity, reliability, or fairness across construct types, equity focus, and instrument design.
Most instruments targeted teacher affect through self-report questionnaires, with nearly half evaluating beliefs about mathematics teaching and learning, while 48 instruments evaluated classroom practice primarily through observational tools.
Reliability evidence and test content validity were the most frequently reported metrics, whereas empirical evidence regarding testing consequences and fairness was rarely documented across instrument types.

Cite This Study

Wilhelm et al. (2026) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/6a895fd3ca7ade938187eb37 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10857-026-09779-6

Also Consider

Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context:

View Full Paper

Ask AI

Bookmark