Assessment validation in the context of high-stakes assessment

Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice

Volumn 21, Issue 1, 2002, Pages 7-15

  Ryan, Katherine ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT URBANA CHAMPAIGN   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0011703970     PISSN: 07311745     EISSN: 17453992     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1745-3992.2002.tb00080.x     Document Type: Article

References (32)

1. American Educational Research Association (AERA), American Psychological Association (APA), & National Council on Measurement in Education (NCME) (1999) Standards for educational and psychological testing. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
2. Blair, J. A. (1995) Informal logic and reasoning in evaluation. In D. M. Fournier, (Ed.), Reasoning in evaluation: Inferential leaps and links. (pp. 71–80). New Directions for Evaluation, 68.
3. Brennan, R. L. (2001) Some problems, pit-falls, and paradoxes in educational measurement. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 20(4), 6–18.
4. Cole, N. S., &Zieky, M. J. (2001) The new faces of fairness. Journal of Educational Measurement, 38(4), 369–382.
5. Cronbach, L. J. (1988) Five perspectives on validity argument. In H. Wainer & H. Braun, (Eds.), Test validity (pp. 3–37). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
6. Cronbach, L. J. (1989) Construct validation after thirty years. In R. E. Linn, (Ed.), Intelligence: Measurement, theory, and public policy (pp. 147–171). Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
7. Cronbach, L. J., et al. (1980) Toward a reform of program evaluation: Aims, methods, and institutional arrangements. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
8. Fremer, J. (2000b, December). My last (?) comment on construct validity. National Council on Measurement Newsletter, 8(4), 2.
9. Fremer, J. (2000a, September) Promoting high standards and the problem of construct validation. National Council on Measurement Newsletter, 8(3), 1.
10. Green, J. (2000, December) Standards for validation. National Council on Measurement Newsletter, 8(4), 8.
11. Haertel, E. H. (1999) Validity arguments for high-stakes testing: In search of evidence. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 18(4), 5–9.
12. Haertel, E. H. (2001, April) Standard setting as a participatory process. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Seattle, WA.
13. Heubert, J. P., &Hauer, R. M. (Eds.). (1999) High stakes: Testing for tracking, promotion, and graduation. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
14. House, E. R. (1977) The logic of the evaluation argument. Los Angeles: Center for the Study of Evaluation.
15. House, E. R. (1995) Putting things together coherently: Logic and justice. In D. M. Fournier, (Ed.), Reasoning in evaluation: Inferential leaps and links (pp. 33–48). New Directions for Evaluation, 68.
16. House, E. R., &Howe, K. (1999) Values in evaluation and social research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
17. Jacob, B. A. (2001) Getting tough? The impact of high school graduation exams. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 23(2), 99–121.
18. Kane, M. T. (1992) An argument-based approach to validity. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 527–535.
19. Kane M. T. (2001, April) The role of policy assumptions in validating high-stakes testing programs. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Seattle, WA.
20. Kupermintz, H., Ennis, M. M., Hamilton, L. S., Talbert, J. E., &Snow, R. E. (1995) Enhancing the validity and usefulness of large-scale assessments: I. NELS:88 mathematics achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 32, 525–554.
21. Ladd, H. F., (Ed.), (1996) Holding schools accountable: Performance-based reform in Education. Washington, DC: Brookings Institute.
22. Lane, S., Park, C. S., &Stone, C. A. (1998) A framework for evaluating the consequences of assessment programs. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 17(2), 24–27.
23. Linn, R. L. (1998) Partitioning responsibility for the evaluation of consequences of assessment programs. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 17(2), 28–30.
24. Loevinger, J. (1957) Objective tests as instruments of psychological theory [Monograph]. Psychological Reports, 3, 635–694.
25. Mehrens, W. A. (1990) Combining evaluation data from multiple sources. In J. Millman and L. Darling-Hammond, (Eds.), Teacher evaluation (pp. 322–344). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
26. Messick, S. (1989) Validity. In R. L. Linn, (Ed.), Educational Measurement (3rd ed.) (pp. 13–103). New York: American Council on Education and Macmillan.
27. Messick, S. (1995) Validity of psychological assessment: Validation of inferences from persons, responses and performances as scientific inquiry into score meaning. American Psychologist, 50(9), 741–749.
28. Moss, P. A. (1998), The role of consequences in validity theory. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 17(2), 6–13.
29. Scriven, M. (1994) The final synthesis. Evaluation Practice, 15(3), 367–382.
30. Shadish, W. R., Cook, T. D., &Leviton, L. C. (1991) Foundations of program evaluation. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
31. Shepard, L. (1993) Evaluating test validity. Review of Research in education, 19, 405–450.
32. Willingham, W. W., &Cole, N. S. (1997) Gender and fair assessment. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.