To better understand how teaching quality has been conceptualized and measured within the sub-field of mathematics education, we conducted a systematic review of 24 journals to identify instruments that have been used to measure mathematics teaching quality; which instruments have interpretation and use statements; and the validity, reliability, and fairness evidence for each instrument. We found 47 instruments with validity, reliability, and fairness evidence. These instruments primarily captured teachers’ enactment of specific teaching practices through classroom observations or student questionnaires. Some instruments captured approximations of practice through teacher questionnaires or interviews. Only two instruments presented an integrated interpretation and use argument (IUA) framework, although eleven included at least one component of an IUA framework. We found that measure developers were most likely to present reliability evidence and evidence related to test content, internal structure, and relations to other variables. They were least likely to present evidence related to response processes, consequences of testing, or fairness. These findings suggest that although there are many instruments of mathematics teaching quality, instrument developers still have considerable work to do in collecting and presenting validity and fairness evidence for these instruments.
Gallagher et al. (2025) studied this question.