Policy and validity prospects for performance-based assessment

American Psychologist

Volumn 48, Issue 12, 1993, Pages 1210-1218

  Baker, Eva L ^a   O'Neil Jr , Harold F ^b   Linn, Robert L ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0000029547     PISSN: 0003066X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1037/0003-066X.48.12.1210     Document Type: Article

References (41)

1. Advisory Committee on Testing in Chapter 1. (1993, May). Reinforcing the promise, reforming the paradigm. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
2. American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, and the National Council on Measurement in Education. (1985). Standards for educational and psychological testing. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
3. Baker, E. L. (1990a, October). Assessment and public policy: Does validity matter? Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Evaluation Association, Washington, DC.
4. Baker, E. L. (1990b, October). What "probably works" in alternative assessment. Presentation at the conference The Promise and Peril of Alternative Assessment, Office of Educational Research and Instruction, Washington, DC.
5. Baker, E. L. (1991, April). Expectations and evidence for alternative assessment. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago.
6. Baker, E. L. (in press). Learning-based assessments of history understanding [Special issue]. Educational Psychologist.
7. Baker, E. L., Freeman, M., & Clayton, S. (1991). Cognitive assessment of history for large-scale testing. In M. C. Wittrock & E. L. Baker (Eds.), Testing and cognition (pp. 131-153). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
8. Baker, E. L., & Linn, R. L. (1990). Advancing educational quality through learning-based assessment, evaluation, and testing (Institutional Grant Proposal for OERI Center on Assessment, Evaluation, and Testing). Los Angeles: University of California, Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing.
9. Baker, E. L., Niemi, D., Novak, J., & Herl, H. (1992). Hypertext as a strategy for teaching and assessing knowledge representation. In S. Dijkstra, H. P. M. Drammer, & J. J. G. van Merriënboer (Eds.), Instructional models in computer-based learning environments (pp. 365-384). Heidelberg, Germany: Springer-Verlag.
10. Baker, E. L., O'Neil, H. F., Jr., & Linn, R. (1990). Performance assessment framework. In S. J. Andriole (Ed.), Advanced technology for command and control systems engineering (pp. 192-214). Fairfax, VA: AFCEA International.
11. Baron, J. B. (1991, April). Performance-based assessment at the state level: Developing and implementing high school math and science assessments. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago.
12. Bennett, R. E., Rock, D. A., & Wang, M. (1991). Equivalence of free-response and multiple-choice items. Journal of Educational Measurement, 28, 77-92.
13. Bernheimer, L. P., Gallimore, R., & Weisner, T. S. (1990). Eco-cultural theory as a context for the individual family service plan. Journal of Early Intervention, 14, 219-233.
14. Braun, H. (1991, April). Assessing technology in assessment. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago.
15. Braun, H. (in press). Assessing technology in assessment. In E. L. Baker & H. F. O'Neil, Jr. (Eds.), Technology assessment in education and training. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
16. Bray, D. W., & Grant, D. L. (1966). The assessment center in the measurement of potential for business management. Psychological Monographs, 80(17).
17. Breland, H. M., Danos, D. O., Kahn, H. D., Kubota, M. Y., & Sudlow, M. W. (1991). A study of gender and performance on advanced placement history examinations (College Board Report No. 91-4; ETS RR No. 91-61). New York: College Entrance Examination Board.
18. Brewer, R. (1991, April). Panel member for session: Authentic assessment: The rhetoric and the reality. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago.
19. Britton, B. (1991, April). Pushing around mental representations by revising texts. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago.
20. Burstein, L. (1993, April). Validating national curriculum indicators: A conceptual overview of the RAND/CRESST NSF project. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Atlanta, GA.
21. Byham, W. C., & Thornton, G. C., III. (1986). Assessment centers. In R. A. Berk (Ed.), Performance assessment: Methods and applications (pp. 143-166). Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
22. California Assessment Program. (1991). A new student assessment system for California schools. Sacramento, CA: Author.
23. California State Department of Education. (1989). A question of thinking: A first look at students' performance on open-ended questions in mathematics. Sacramento, CA: Author.
24. Campbell, C. H., Ford, P., Rumsey, M. G., Pulakos, E. D., Borman, W. C., Felker, D. B., DeVera, M. V., & Riegelhaupt, B. J. (1990). Development of multiple job performance measures in a representative sample of jobs. Personnel Psychology, 43, 277-300.
25. Campbell, J. P., McHenry, J. J., & Wise, L. L. (1990). Modeling job performance in a population of jobs. Personnel Psychology, 43, 313-333.
26. Carlson, D. (1991). A proposal for a multi-stage, portfolio-hosed national examining system. Unpublished report to the Assessment Task Force of the National Council on Education Standards and Testing, Sacramento, CA.
27. Chi, M. T. H., Glaser, R., & Farr, M. (Eds.). (1988). The nature of expertise. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
28. Collis, K., & Romberg, T. A. (1991). Assessment of mathematical performance: An analysis of open-ended test items. In M. C. Wittrock & E. L. Baker (Eds.), Testing and cognition (pp. 82-130). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
29. Dunbar, S. B., Koretz, D., & Hoover, H. D. (1991). Quality control in the development and use of performance assessments. Applied Measurement in Education, 4, 289-302.
30. Franken, J. E. (in press). The effects of stress induced anxiety on individuals and teams in a simulator environment. In H. F. O'Neil, Jr. & M. Dillings (Eds.), Motivation: Theory and research. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
31. Frederiksen, J. R., & Collins, A. (1989). A system approach to educational testing. Educational Researcher, 18(9), 27-32.
32. Gaugler, B. B., Rosenthal, D. B., Thornton, G. C., III, & Bentson, C. (1987). Meta-analysis of assessment center validity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 72, 493-511.
33. Gearhart, M., Saxe, G. B., Stipek, D. J., & Hakansson, S. W. (1992, June). Portfolios in practice Integrating assessment and instruction in elementary mathematics. Presentation at the meeting of the Education Commission of the States, Boulder, CO.
34. Glaser, R., Lesgold, A., & Gott, S. (1991). Implications of cognitive psychology for measuring job performance. In A. K. Wigdor & B. F. Green, Jr. (Eds.), Performance assessment for the workplace (Vol.2, pp. 1-26). Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
35. Glaser, R., Lesgold, A., & Lajoie, S. (1987). Toward a cognitive theory for the measurement of achievement. In R. R. Ronning, J. Glover, J. C. Conoley, & J. C. Witt (Eds.), The influence of cognitive psychology on testing and measurement (pp. 41-85). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
36. Glaser, R., Raghavan, K., & Baxter, G. (1992). Cognitive theory as the basis far design of innovative assessment: Design characteristics of science assessments. (CSE Tech. Rep. No. 349). Los Angeles: University of California, National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing.
37. Webb, N. M. (1993). Collaborative group versus individual assessment in mathematics: Group processes and outcomes (CSE Tech. Rep. No. 352). Los Angeles: University of California, Center for the Study of Evaluation.
38. Webb, N. M., Van, K., Qi, S., & Bushey, B. (1991). Assessment of problem solving: Structured alternatives to traditional word problems. Los Angeles: University of California, National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing.
39. Webb, N. M., & Yasui, E. (1992). The influence of problem context on mathematics performance (CSE Tech. Rep. No. 346). Los Angeles: University of California, Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing.
40. Wigdor, A. K., & Green, B. F., Jr. (1991). Performance assessment for the workplace (Vol. I). Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
41. Wiggins, G. (1989). A true test: Toward more authentic and equitable assessment. Phi Delta Kappan, 70, 703-713.