Curriculum sensitive assessment: Content does make a difference

International Journal of Educational Research

Volumn 29, Issue 6, 1998, Pages 503-527

  Schmidt, William H ^a   Jakwerth, Pamela M ^b,d   McKnight, Curtis C ^c,e  

^a MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b AMERICAN INSTITUTES FOR RESEARCH   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA   (United States)

^d US National Research Center   (United States)

^e US National Center   (United States)

Author keywords

Content validity; International assessment; International comparisons; Mathematics and science assessment; Sampling effects; Score level; TIMMS; Translation effects

Indexed keywords

EID: 0007269930     PISSN: 08830355     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S0883-0355(98)00045-7     Document Type: Article

References (46)

1. Airasian, P. W., & Madaus, G. F. (1983). Linking testing and instruction: Policy issues. Journal of Educational Measurement, 20(2), 103-118.
2. Beaton, A. E., Martin, M. O., Mullis, I. V. S., Gonzales, E. J., Smith, T. A., & Kelly, D. L., (1996a). Science achievement in the middle school years. Chestnut Hill, MA: TIMSS International Study Center, Boston College.
3. Beaton, A. E., Mullis, I. V. S., Martin, M. O., Gonzales, E. J., Kelly, D. L., & Smith, T. A. (1996b). Mathematics achievement in the middle school years. Chestnut Hill, MA: TIMSS International Study Center, Boston College.
4. Berliner, D. C. (1993). International comparisons of student achievement: A false guide for reform. National Forum, LXXII(3), 25-29.
5. Bracey, G. W. (1997). On comparing the incomparable: A response to Baker and Stedman. Educational Researcher, 26(3), 19-26.
6. Burstein, L. (1991). Conceptual considerations in instructionally sensitive assessment. Los Angeles: Center for Research in Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 335367)
7. Burstein, L. (1993). Studying learning, growth, and instruction cross-nationally: Lessons learned about why and why not engage in cross-national studies. In L. Burstein (Ed.), The IEA study of mathematics III: student growth and classroom processes (pp. xxvi-lii). New York: Pergamon Press.
8. Burstein, L., Aschbacher, P., Chen, Z., Lin, L., & Sen, Q. (1990). Establishing the content validity of tests designed to serve multiple purposes: Bridging secondary-postsecondary mathematics, Los Angeles, CA: UCLA Graduate School of Education. CSE Dissemination Office.
9. Cohen, M. (1988). Designing state assessment systems. Phi Delta Kappan, 68(8), 583-588.
10. Cronbach, L. J. (1971). Test validation. In R. L. Thorndike (Ed.), Educational measurement. Washington, DC: American Council on Education.
11. Guskey, T. R., & Kifer, E. W. (1990). Ranking school districts on the basis of statewide test results: Is it meaningful or misleading? Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 9(1), 11-16.
12. Guthrie, J. T. (1986). Roles of the National Assessment of International Progress in international studies (Publication NO. TM 870 049). The Nation's Report Card. (ERIC Document Report Service NO. ED279678).
13. Hamilton, L. S., Nussbaum, M., Kupermintz, H., Kerkhoven, J. I. M., & Snow, R. E. (1995). Enhancing the validity and usefulness of large-scale educational assessments: II. NELS:88 science achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 32(3), 555-581.
14. Husen, T. (1982). A cross-national perspective on assessing the quality of learning. Washington, DC: National Commission on Excellence in Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service NO. ED225992).
15. Husen, T. (1983). Are standards in US schools really lagging behind those in other countries? Phi Delta Kappan, 64, 455-461.
16. Husen, T. (1987). Policy impact of IEA research. Comparative Education Review, 31(1), 81-92.
17. Jakwerth, P. M. (1996). Evaluating the content validity of cross-national achievement tests. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, Michigan.
18. Jakwerth, P. M. (1997a). Domain definitions for curriculum-sensitive tests: Improving the content validity of cross-national assessments. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago.
19. Jakwerth, P. M. (1997b). Evaluating test-to-curriculum match; Indices of content validity for curriculum-sensitive assessment. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago.
20. Kupermintz, H., Ennis, M. M., Hamilton, L. S., Talbert, J. E., & Snow, R. E. (1995). Enhancing the validity and usefulness of large-scale educational assessments: I. NELS: 88 mathematics achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 32(3), 523-554.
21. Linn, R. L. (1987). State-b-state comparisons of student achievement: The definition of the content domain for assessment. (Technical Report # 275). Los Angeles, CA: University of California Los Angeles, Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing.
22. Linn, R. L., & Baker, E. L. (1995). What do international assessments imply for world-class standards? Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 17(4), 405-418.
23. Maeroff, G. (1991). The public's expectations for assessment of National Educational Goals. The Assessment of National Goals: Proceedings of the 1990 ETS Invitational Conference, (pp. 87-95).
24. McDonnell, L. M. (1995). Opportunity to learn as a research concept and a policy instrument. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 17(3), 305-322.
25. McKnight, C. C. (1992). Explanatory notes for the mathematics framework. (SMSO Research Report 41). East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University.
26. McKnight, C. C., & Swafford, J. A. (1991). Mathematics curriculum framework, Draft 1. (SMSO Research Report 2). East lansing, MI: Michigan State University.
27. Mislevy, R. J. (1995). What can we learn from international assessments? Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 77(4), 419-437.
28. Muthen, B., Huang, L., Jo, B., Khoo, S., Goff, G., Novak, J., & Shih, J. (1995). Opportunity-to-learn effects on achievement: Analytical aspects. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 17(3), 371-403.
29. Passow, A. H. (1984). The IEA national case study. Educational Forum, 48, 469-487.
30. Postlethwaite, T. N. (1987). Comparative educational achievement research: Can it be improved? Comparative Education Review, 31, 150-163.
31. Purves, A. C. (1987). The evolution of the IEA: A memoire. Comparative Education Review, 31(1), 10-28.
32. Raizen, S. A., & Jones, L. V. (1985). Indicators of pre-college education in science and mathematics: A preliminary review. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
33. Robitaille, D. F., Schmidt, W. H., Raizen, S., McKnight, C., Britton, E., & Nicol, C. (1993). Curriculum frameworks for mathematics and science. Vancouver, BC: Pacific Educational Press.
34. Schmidt, W. H., Jorde, D., Cogan, L. S., Barrier, E., Gonzalo, I., Moser, U., Shimizu, K., Sawada, T., Valverde, G. A., McKnight, C., Prawat, R., Wiley, D. E., Raizen, S. A., Britton, E. D., & Wolfe, R. G. (1996). Characterizing pedagogical flow: An investigation of mathematics and science teaching in six countries. Dordrecht, Boston, London: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
35. Schmidt, W. H., & McKnight, C. C. (1995). Surveying educational opportunity in mathematics and science: An international perspective. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 17(3), 337-353.
36. Schmidt, W. H., McKnight, C. C., & Raizen, S. A. (1997a). A splintered vision: An investigation of U.S. Science and Mathematics Education. Dordrecht, Boston, London: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
37. Schmidt, W. H., McKnight, C. C., Valverde, G. A., Houang, R. T., & Wiley, D. E. (1997b). Many visions, many aims: A cross-national investigation of curricular intentions in school mathematics, Dordrecht, Boston, London: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
38. Schmidt, W. H., Raizen, S. A., Britton, E. D., Bianchi, L. J., & Wolfe, R. G. (1997c). Many visions, many aims: A cross-national investigation of curricular intentions in science education. Dordrecht, Boston, London: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
39. Schmidt, W. H., & Valverde, G. A. (1995). National policy and cross-national research: United States participation in the Third International Mathematics and Science Study. Manuscript in preparation, East Lansing, MI: Michigan state University, Third International Mathematics and Science Study.
40. Stedman, L. C. (1994). Incomplete explanations: The case of U.S. performance in the international assessments of education. Educational Researcher, 23(7), 24-32.
41. Stedman, L. C. (1997). International achievement differences: An assessment of a new perspective. Educational Researcher, 26(3), 4-15.
42. Survey of Mathematics and Science Opportunity (SMSO). (1992). Mathematics curriculum framework, Draft 4, SMSO Research Report 38. East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University.
43. Survey of Mathematics and Science Opportunity (SMSO). (1993). A description of the TIMSS' achievement test content design test hlueprints, SMSO Research Report 59. East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University.
44. Walker, D., & Schaffarzick, T. (1974). Comparing curricula. Review of Educational Research, 44(1), 83-11.
45. Westbury, I. (1992). Comparing American and Japanese achievement: Is the United States really a low achiever? Educational Researcher, 21(5), 18-24.
46. Westbury, I. (1993). American and Japanese achievement ... again. Educational Researcher, 22(3), 21-25.