Equity and high stakes testing: Implications for computerized testing

Equity and Excellence in Education

Volumn 30, Issue 1, 1997, Pages 5-15

  Sutton, Rosemary E ^a  

^a CLEVELAND STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0002152322     PISSN: 10665684     EISSN: 15473457     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/1066568970300102     Document Type: Article

References (88)

1. Allen, B. A., & Boykin, A. W. (1991). The influence of contextual factors on Afro-American and Euro-American children's performance: Effects of movement opportunity and music. International Journal of Psychology, 26(3), 373-387.
2. Allen, M. J., & Yen, W. M. (1979). Introduction of measurement theory. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.
3. American Council on Education. (1995). Guidelines for computer-adaptive test development and use in education. Washington, D.C: Author.
4. American Psychological Association. (1954). Technical recommendations for psychological tests and diagnostic techniques. Prepared by a joint committee of the American Psychological Association, American Educational Research Association, and National Council on Measurements used in Education. Washington, DC: Author.
5. American Psychological Association. (1974). Standards for educational and psychological tests. Prepared by a joint committee of the American Psychological Association, American Educational Research Association, and National Council on Measurement in Education. Washington, DC: Author.
6. American Psychological Association. (1985). Standards for educational and psychological testing. Prepared by a joint committee of the American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, and the National Council on Measurement in Education. Washington, DC: Author.
7. American Psychological Association. Committee on Professional Standards and Committee on Psychological Tests and Assessment (1986). Guidelines for computerbased tests and interpretations. Washington, DC: Author.
8. Anderman, E. M., & Maehr, M. L. (1994). Motivation and schooling in the middle grades. Review of Educational Research, 64, 287-309.
9. Belenky, M. F., Clinchy, B. M., Goldberger, N. R., & Tarule, J. M. (1986). Women's ways of knowing: The development of self, voice, and mind. New York: Basic Books.
10. Ben-Shakhar, G., & Sinai, Y. (1991). Gender differences in multiple-choice tests: The role of differential guessing tendencies. Journal of Educational Measurement, 28(1), 23-35.
11. Best, J. W., & Kahn, J. V. (1993). Research in education. 7th ed. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
12. Bidell, T. R., & Fischer, K. W. (1992). Beyond the stage debate: Action, structure, and variability in Piagetian theory and research. In R. J. Sternberg & C. A. Berg (Eds.), Intellectual development (pp. 161-196). New York: Cambridge University Press
13. Bolger, N., & Kellaghan, T. (1990). Method of measurement and gender differences in scholastic achievement. Journal of Educational Measurement, 27(2), 165-174.
14. Bond, L. (1995). Unintended consequences of performance assessment: Issues of bias and fairness. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 14(4), 21-24.
15. Boykin, A. W. (1978). Psychological/behavioral verve in academic task performance: Pre-thepretical considerations. Journal of Negro Education, 47, 343-354.
16. Boykin, A. W. (1982). Task variability and the performance of Black and White school children: Vervistic explorations. Journal of Black Studies, 12, 469-485.
17. Bunderson, C. V., Inouye, D. K., & Olsen, J. B. (1989). The four generations of computerized educational measurement. In R. L. Linn (Ed.), Educational measurement (3rd ed.) (pp. 367-408). New York: Macmillan.
18. Ceci, S. J., Bronfenbrenner, U., & Baker, J. G. (1988). Memory in context: The case of prospective memory. In F. Weinert & M. Perlmutter (Eds.), Memory development: Universal changes and individual differences (pp. 243-256). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
19. Ced, S. J., & Roazzi A. (1994). The effects of context on cognition: Postcards from Brazil. In R. J. Sternberg & R. K. Wagner (Eds.), Mind in context: Interactionalist perspectives on human intelligence (pp. 74-101). New York: Cambridge University Press.
20. CNN (1993). Connections: Point/Counterpoint--Issues in Educational Psychology. [Videotape]. Available from Allyn & Bacon, Needham Heights, MA.
21. Cole, N. S., & Moss, P. A. (1989). Bias in test use. In R. L. Linn (Ed.), Educational measurement (3rd ed) (pp. 201-219). New York: Macmillan.
22. Dambrot, F. H., Watkins-Malek, M. A., Silling, S. M., Marshall, R. S., & Garver, J. A. (1985). Correlates of sex differences in attitudes toward and involvement with computers. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 27, 71-86.
23. Dimock, P. H., & Cormier, P. (1991). The effects of format differences and computer experience on performance and anxiety on a computer-administered test. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 24, 119-126.
24. Dreisbach, M., & Keogh, B. K. (1982). Testwiseness as a factor in readiness test performance of young Mexican-American children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 74, 224-229.
25. Dreyden, J. I., & Gallagher, S. A. (1989). The effects of time and direction on the SAT performance of academically gifted adolescents. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 12(3), 187-204.
26. Dweck, C. S. (1986). Motivational processes affecting learning. American Psychologist, 41(10), 1040-1048.
27. ETS. (1992). Development of a computer-based test for the GRE general test. Symposium presented at the 1992 Annual Meeting of the National Council on Measurement in Education, San Francisco, CA.
28. ETS. (1995). Praxis I: Academic skills assessments. Princeton, NJ: Author.
29. ETS. (1996a., June 7). What's new in GRE? http://WWW.gre.org/newannchtml.
30. ETS. (1996). GRE 1996-7 information & registration bulletin. Princeton, NJ: Author.
31. ETS. (1996c). The PRAXIS series: Registration bulletin. Princeton, NJ: Author.
32. Evans, F. R., & Reilly, R. R. (1972). A study of speededness as a source of test bias. Journal of Educational Measurement, 9(2), 123-131.
33. Evans, F. R., & Reilly, R. R. (1973). A study of test speededness as a potential source of bias in the quantitative score of the admission test for graduate study in business. Research in Higher Education, 1, 173-183.
34. Frederiksen, N. (1984). The real test bias: Influences of testing on teaching and learning. American Psychologist, 39, 191-202.
35. Gallagher, S. A., & Johnson, E. S. (1992). The effect of time limits on performance of mental rotations by gifted adolescents. Gifted Child Quarterly, 36(1), 19-26.
36. Garcia, G. E., & Pearson, P. D. (1994). Assessment and diversity. In L. Darling-Hammond (Ed.), Review of research in education, 20 (pp. 337-391). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
37. Gay, L. R. (1992). Educational Research. (4th Ed). New York: Macmillan.
38. Gershon, R. C., Bergstrom, B. A., & Lunz, M. (1993, April). Computer adaptive testing: Exploring examinee response time. Part 1. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Atlanta, GA.
39. Gould, S. J. (1981). The mismeasure of man. New York: Norton.
40. Haney, W. (1993). Testing and minorities. In L. Weis & M. Fine, (Eds.), Beyond silenced voices: Class, race, and gender in United States schools (pp. 45-73). Albany: State University of New York Press.
41. Hedges, L. V., & Friedman, L. (1993). Gender differences in variability in intellectual ability: A reanalysis of Feingold's results. Review of Educational Research, 63, 94-105.
42. Hyde, J. S., Fennema, E., & Lamon, S. J. (1990). Gender differences in mathematics performance: A meta-analyses. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 139-155.
43. Hyde, J. S., & Linn, M. C. (1988). Gender differences in verbal ability: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 104, 53-69.
44. Jaynes, G. D., & Williams, R. M. (Eds.) (1989). A common destiny: Blacks and American society. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
45. Johnson, D. F., & White, C. B. (1980). Effects of training on computerized test performance in the elderly. Journal of Applied Psychology, 65, 357-358.
46. Kalechstein, P., Kalechstein, M., & Docter, R. (1981). The effects of instruction on test-taking skills in second-grade black children. Measurement and Evaluation in Guidance, 13(4), 198-202.
47. Kamin, L. J. (1974). The science and politics of I.Q. Potomac, MD: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
48. Kimble, M. M. (1989). A new perspective on women's math achievement. Psychological Bulletin, 105, 198-214.
49. LeMahieu, P. G., Gitomer, D. H., & Eresh, J. T. (1995). Portfolios in large-scale assessment: Difficult but not impossible. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 14(3), 11-28.
50. Lee, M. W. (1986). The match: Learning styles of black children and microcomputer programming. Journal of Negro Education, 55(1), 78-90.
51. Linn, R. L. (1991). Test use: Why is it so prevalent? (Report No. TM 018 025). Washington, DC: Office of Technology Assessment, Congress of the U.S. (ERIC Document NO. ED340 778).
52. Llabre, M. M. (1991). Time as a factor in the cognitive test performance of Latino college students. In G. D. Keller, J. R. Deneer, & R. J. Magallan (Eds.), Assessment and access: Hispanics in higher education. Albany: State University of New York Press.
53. Llabre, M. M., & Froman, T. W. (1987). Allocation of time to test items: A study of ethnic differences. Journal of Experimental Education, 55, 137-140.
54. Loyd, B. H., & Loyd, D. E. (1988). Computer attitudes: Differences by gender and amount of computer experience. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
55. Madaus, G. (1994). A technological and historical consideration of equity issues associated with proposals to change the nation's testing policy. Harvard Educational Review, 64(1) 76-95.
56. Maspons, M.M., & Llabre, M. M. (1985). The influence of training Hispanics in test taking on the psychometric properties of a test. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 16, 177-183.
57. Mazzeo, J., & Harvey, A. L. (1988). The equivalence of scores from automated and conventional educational and psychological tests: A review of the literature. (Research Report No. CBR 87-8, ETS RR 88-21). Princeton, NJ: ETS.
58. Messick, S. (1989). Validity. In R. L. Linn (Ed.), Educational Measurement (3rd ed.) (pp. 13-103). New York: Macmillan.
59. Moe, K. C. & Johnson, M. F. (1988). Participants' reactions to computerized testing. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 4, 79-86.
60. Murphy, P. (1994, April). Sources of inequity: Understanding students' responses to assessment. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
61. Murphy, R. J. L. (1982). Sex differences in test performance. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 52, 213-219.
62. Nairn, A., & Associates. (1980). The reign of ETS: The corporation that makes up minds. Washington, DC: The Ralph Nader Report on the Educational Testing Service.
63. Nicholls, J. G. (1990). What is ability and why are we mindful of it? A developmental perspective. In R. J. Sternberg & J. Kolligan Jr., (Eds.), Competence considered (pp. 11-40). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
64. O'Neill, K., & Kubiak, A. (1992, April). Lessons learned from examinees about computer-based tests: Attitude analysis. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Council on Measurement in Education, San Francisco, CA.
65. O'Neill, K., & Powers, D. E. (1993, April). The performance of examinee subgroups on a computer-administered test of basic academic skills. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Council on Measurement in Education, Atlanta, GA.
66. O'Neill, K., & Ramsey, P. A. (1993). Equity in the development of a computer based test. Unpublished paper. Princeton, NJ:ETS.
67. Parshall, C. G., & Kromrey, J. D. (1993, April). Computer testing versus paper-and-pencil testing: An analysis of examinee characteristics associated with mode effect. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Atlanta, GA.
68. Powers, D. E., & O'Neill, K. (1992). Inexperienced and anxious computer users: Coping with a computer-administered test of academic skills. (Research Report No. RR.92-75). Princeton, NJ: ETS.
69. Robinson-Staveley, K., & Cooper, J. (1990). Mere presence, gender, and reactions to computers: Studying human-computer interaction in the social context. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 26, 168-183.
70. Sarnacki, R. E. (1979). An examination of test-wiseness in the cognitive domain. Review of Educational Research, 49, 252-279.
71. Schmitt, A. P., & Dorans, N. J. (1990). Differential item functioning for minority examinees on the SAT. Journal of Educational Measurement, 27, 66-81.
72. Secada, W. G. (Ed.) (1989). Equity in education. New York: The Falmer Press.
73. Shepard, L. (1993). Evaluating test validity. In L. Darling-Hammond (Ed.), Review of research in education, 19 (pp. 405-450). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
74. Slakter, M. J., Koehler, R. A., Hampton, S. H., & Grennell, R. L.(1971). Sex, grade level, and risk taking on objective examinations. The Journal of Experimental Education, 39 (3), 65-68.
75. Spencer, J., & Steele, C. M. (1992, August). The effect of stereotype vulnerability on women's math performance. Paper presented at the 100th Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association in Washington, DC.
76. Steele, C. M. (1992). Race and the schooling of Black Americans. The Atlantic, 269(4), 68, 70, 72, 74-78.
77. Steele, C. M., & Aronson, J. (1995). Stereotype threat and the intellectual test performance of African Americans. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69(5), 797-811.
78. Stemberg, R. J., & Wagner, R. K. (Eds). (1994). Mind in context: Interactional perspectives on human intelligence. New York: Cambridge University Press.
79. Sutton, R. E. (1991). Equity and computers in the schools: A decade of research. American Educational Research Journal, 61, 475-503.
80. Temple, L., & Lips, H. M. (1989). Gender differences and similarities in attitudes towards computers. Computers in Human Behavior, 5, 215-226.
81. Turner, J. A. (1987, April 29). Microcomputers found more available--and more often required--at selective colleges. Chronicle of Higher Education, 13, 17.
82. Wainer, H. (1990). Introduction and history. In H. Wainer, N. Dorans, R. Flaughter, B. Green, R. Mislevy, L. Steinberg, & D. Thissen (Eds.), Computerized adaptive testing: A primer (pp. 1-22). Hilkdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
83. Wainer, H. (1993). Some practical considerations when converting a linearly administered test to an adaptive format. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 12(1), 15-20.
84. Ward, W. C. (1988). The college board computerized placement tests: An application of computerized adaptive testing. Machine-mediated Learning, 2, 271-282.
85. Wild, C. L., Durso, R., & Rubin, D. B. (1982). Effect of increased test-taking time on test scores by ethnic group, years out of school, and sex. Journal of Educational Measurement, 19 (1), 19-28.
86. Wise, S. L., Barnes, L. B., Harvey, A., & Plake, B. S. (1989). The effects of computer anxiety and computer experience on the computer-based achievement test performance of college students. Applied Educational Measurement in Education, 2, 235-241.
87. Wise, S. L., & Plake, B. S. (1990). Computer-based testing in higher education. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 23(1), 3-10.
88. Wu, Y-K., & Morgan, M. (1989). Computer use, computer attitudes and gender. Differential implications of micro and mainframe usage among college students. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 21, 214-228.