judge the importance of the enabling skills that resulted from Phase One. The rating scale for importance was a five-point scale with the highest rating being Extremely Important (a value of 5) and the lowest rating being Not Important (a value of 1). Based on analyses of all respondents and of respondents by subgroup (e.g., race, subject taught), 84 percent (113) of the 134 enabling skills were considered eligible for inclusion in the Praxis I tests because they had importance ratings of 3.5 or higher on the five-point scale. Of these, 21 of the original 26 Reading enabling skills were retained.

In addition to determining the average overall and subgroup ratings, reliability estimates were computed (group split-half correlations and intraclass correlations). All split-half correlations exceeded .96. To check for across-respondent consistency, means for each item were calculated for each of 26 respondent characteristic (e.g., subject area, region of the country, race) and the correlations of means of selected pairs of characteristics were calculated to check the extent that the relative ordering of the enabling skills was the same across different mutually exclusive comparison groups (e.g., men and women; elementary school teachers, middle school teachers, secondary school teachers).

A 1991 ETS report entitled Identification of a Core of Important Enabling Skills for the NTE Successor Stage I Examination describes the job analysis in detail. Also included are the names of the non-ETS participants in Phase One and the teachers who participated in the pilot survey. Copies of the various instruments and cover letters also are included.

Comment: The process described is consistent with the literature for conducting a job analysis. This is not the only method, but it is an acceptable one.

Phase One was well done. The use of professional organizations to nominate a qualified group of external reviewers was appropriate. The National Advisory Committee was also made up of individuals from the various national organizations. Although there was some nonresponse by members of the External Review Panel, the subsequent review by the National Advisory Committee helped ensure an adequate list of skills.

Phase Two was also well done. Although normally one would expect a larger sample in the pilot survey, the use of only six teachers seems justified. It is not clear, however, that these six individuals included minority representation to check for potential bias and sensitivity. The verification survey sample was quite large. The response rates for each of the three separate samples were consistent with (or superior to) those from job analyses for other licensure programs. An inspection of the characteristics of the 2,269 respondents in the teacher sample showed a profile consistent with that of the sampling frame.

Overall the job analysis was well done. It is, however, more than 10 years old. An update of Phase One consisting of a current literature review that includes a review of skills required across a wider variety of states and professional organizations and forming committees of professionals nominated by their national organizations is desirable. Phase Two should also be repeated if the

The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement