In order to tailor the educational context to students’ individual needs, teachers must accurately judge their students’ abilities. Educational researchers and practitioners thus need robust estimates of teachers’ judgment accuracy and also need to understand how it can be improved. In the current study, we use a modern, psychometric meta-analytical approach to re-analyze the data from Hoge and Coladarci (1989) seminal, descriptive review of teachers’ judgment accuracy. Replication scientists advise first re-analyzing data before examining whether a new study produces the same results. We therefore conduct an important first step in checking whether their results can be replicated. We were particularly interested in whether correcting for artifacts and publication bias would lead to a new estimate of teachers’ judgment accuracy and whether there was evidence of potential moderators (subject, student learning disability, student grade level). The results indicate that Hoge and Coladarci (1989) underestimated teachers’ judgment accuracy (r = 0.65 in the original study versus r = 0.80 in the current study). We found no evidence that teachers’ judgment accuracy differed between “classical” or social judgment theory tasks, nor did we find evidence that teachers’ judgment accuracy depended on subject (language/mathematics/miscellaneous), whether students had a learning disability, or grade level. Consistent with previous research, our results demonstrate the importance of correcting for artifacts and publication bias when conducting meta-analyses. Future studies should use our psychometric approach to (re)analyze and systematically compare different samples of studies on teachers’ judgment accuracy.

为了使教育环境适应学生的个人需求，教师必须准确地判断学生的能力。因此，教育研究人员和从业人员需要对教师的判断准确性进行可靠的估计，并且还需要了解如何提高其准确性。在当前的研究中，我们使用一种现代的心理计量学元分析方法来重新分析Hoge和Coladarci（1989）对教师的判断准确性进行的描述性回顾性研究的数据。复制科学家建议在检查新研究是否产生相同结果之前，先重新分析数据。因此，我们在检查其结果是否可以复制方面迈出了重要的第一步。我们特别关注校正文物和出版物偏倚是否会导致教师判断准确性的新估计，以及是否存在潜在的主持人（受试者，学生学习障碍，学生等级水平）的证据。结果表明，Hoge和Coladarci（1989）低估了教师的判断准确性（ 原始研究中的r = 0.65，而 当前研究中的r = 0.80）。我们没有发现证据表明教师的判断准确度在“古典”或社会判断理论任务之间存在差异，也没有发现教师的判断准确度取决于学科（语言/数学/其他），学生是否有学习障碍或年级的证据。水平。与先前的研究一致，我们的结果证明了进行荟萃分析时纠正假象和出版物偏倚的重要性。未来的研究应使用我们的心理测量方法来（重新）分析和系统地比较不同研究样本的教师判断准确性。