Validating Inferences from National Assessment of Educational Progress Achievement-Level Reporting

Applied Measurement in Education

Volumn 11, Issue 1, 1998, Pages 23-47

  Linn, Robert L ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0032331518     PISSN: 08957347     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1207/s15324818ame1101_2     Document Type: Article

References (44)

1. Augustus F. Hawkins-Robert T. Stafford Elementary and Secondary School Improvement Amendments, Pub. L. 100-297, Part C, § 3403(6)(A) (1988).
2. American College Testing Program. (1993). Setting achievement levels on the 1992 National Assessment of Educational Progress in mathematics, reading and writing: A technical report on reliability and validity. Iowa City, IA: Author.
3. American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, and the National Council on Measurement in Education. (1985). Standards far educational and psychological testing. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
4. Beatty, A. S., Reese, C. M., Persky, H. R., & Carr, P. (1996). NAEP 1994 U.S. history report card: Findings from the National Assessment of Educational Progress. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.
5. Berk, R. A. (1995). Standard-setting - The next generation. Proceedings of the joint conference on standard setting for large-scale assessments of the National Assessment Governing Board (NAGB) and the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) (Vol. 2, pp. 161-181). Washington, DC: National Assessment Governing Board and National Center for Education Statistics.
6. Brennan, R. L. (1995). Standard setting from the perspective of generalizability theory. Proceedings of the joint conference on Standard Setting for Large-Scale Assessments of the National Assessment Governing Board (NAGB) and the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) (Vol. 2, pp. 269-287). Washington, DC: National Assessment Governing Board and National Center for Education Statistics.
7. Burstein, L., Koretz, D. M., Linn, R. L., Baker, E. L., Sugrue, B., Novak, J., & Lewis, E. (1995-96). Describing performance standards: The validity of the 1992 NAEP achievement level descriptors as characterizations of mathematics performance. Educational Assessment, 3, 9-51.
8. Burstein, L., Koretz, D. M., Linn, R. L., Sugrue, B., Novak, J., Lewis, E., & Baker, E. L. (1993, August). The validity of interpretations of the 1992 NAEP achievement levels in mathematics (Tech. Rep.). Los Angeles: University of California, Center for the Study of Evaluation.
9. Campbell, J. R., Donahue, P. L., Reese, C. M., & Phillips, G. W. (1996). NAEP 1994 reading report card for the nation and the stales: Findings from the National Assessment of Educational Progress and trial state assessment. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.
10. Cizek, G. J. (1993). Reactions to National Academy of Education report: Setting performance standards for student achievement. Washington, DC: National Assessment Governing Board.
11. Cronbach, L. J. (1980). Validity on parole: How can we go straight? In W. B. Schrader (Ed.), Proceedings of the 1979 ETS invitational conference. New directions for testing and assessment: Measuring progress over a decade (pp. 99-108). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
12. Cronbach, L. J. (1988). Five perspectives on validity argument. In H. Wainer & H. I. Braun (Eds.), Test validity (pp. 3-17). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
13. Cronbach, L. J. (1989). Construct validity after thirty years. In R. L. Linn (Ed.), Proceedings of a symposium in honor of Lloyd G. Humphreys. Intelligence: Measurement theory and public policy (pp. 147-171). Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.
14. Forsyth, R. A. (1991). Do NAEP scales yield valid criterion-referenced interpretations? Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 10(3), 3-9, 16.
15. Gipps, C. V. (1994). Beyond testing: Towards a theory of educational assessment. London: Palmer.
16. Glaser, R. (1963). Instructional technology and the measurement of learning outcomes: Some questions. American Psychologist, 18, 519-521.
17. Glaser, R., Linn, R., & Bohrnstedt, G. (1996). Quality and utility: The 1994 trial state assessment in reading: The fourth report of the National Academy of Education Panel on the evaluation of the NAEP trial state assessment in reading. Stanford, CA: Stanford University, National Academy of Education.
18. Glass, G. V. (1978). Standards and criteria. Journal of Educational Measurement, 15, 237-261.
19. Kane, M. T. (1992). An argument-based approach to validity. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 527-535.
20. Kane, M. T. (1993). Comments on the NAE evaluation of the NAGB achievement levels. Washington, DC: National Assessment Governing Board.
21. Kane, M. T. (1995). Examinee-centered versus task-centered standard setting. In Proceedings of the joint conference on standard setting for large-scale assessments of the National Assessment Governing Board (NAGB) and the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) (Vol. 2, pp. 119-141). Washington, DC: National Assessment Governing Board and National Center for Education Statistics.
22. Koretz, D., & Deibert, E. (1995-96). Setting standards and interpreting achievement: A cautionary tale from the National Assessment of Educational Progress. Educational Assessment, 3, 53-81.
23. Linn, R. L., Koretz, D. M., Baker, E. L., & Burstein, L. (1991). The validity and credibility of the achievement levels for the 1990 National Assessment of Educational Progress in mathematics. (Tech. Report). Los Angeles: University of California, Center for the Study of Evaluation.
24. Lissitz, R. W., & Bourque, M. L. (1995). Reporting NAEP results using standards. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 14(2), 14-23, 31.
25. Mehrens, W. A. (1995). Methodological issues in standard setting for educational exams. In Proceedings of the joint conference on standard setting for large-scale assessments of the National Assessment Governing Board (NAGB) and the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) (Vol. 2, pp. 221-263). Washington, DC: National Assessment Governing Board and National Center for Education Statistics.
26. Messick, S. (1989). Validity. In R. L. Linn (Ed.), Educational measurement (3rd ed., pp. 13-103). New York: Macmillan.
27. Messick, S. (1995). Standards-based score interpretation: Establishing valid grounds for valid inferences. In Proceedings of the joint conference on standard setting for large-scale assessments of the National Assessment Governing Board (NAGB) and the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) (Vol. II, pp. 291-305). Washington, DC: National Assessment Governing Board and National Center for Education Statistics.
28. Millman, J. (1994). Criterion-referenced testing 30 years later: Promise broken, promise kept. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 13(4), 1-20, 39.
29. Mullis, I. V. A., Dossey, J. A., Owen, E. H., & Phillips, G. W. (1991). The state of mathematics achievement: NAEP 's 1990 assessment of the nation and the trial assessment of the states (Rep. No. 21-ST-04). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.
30. Mullis, I. V. A., Dossey, J. A., Owen, E. H., & Phillips, G. W. (1993). NAEP 1992 mathematics report card for the nation and the states: Data from the national and trial state assessments (Rep. No. 23-ST-02). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.
31. Mullis, I. V. A., Owen, E. H., & Phillips, G. W. (1990). America's challenge: Accelerating academic achievement: A summary of findings from 20 years of NAEP. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
32. National Assessment Governing Board. (1991). Request for proposal: Statement of work for setting achievement levels on the 1992 National Assessment of Educational Progress in mathematics, reading, and writing. Washington, DC: Author.
33. National Assessment Governing Board and National Center for Education Statistics. (1995). In Proceedings of the Joint Conference on Standard Setting for Large-Scale Assessments of the National Assessment Governing Board (NAGB) and the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) (Vol. II, pp. 143-160). Washington, DC: Author.
34. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (1989). Curriculum and evaluation standards for school mathematics Reston, VA: Author.
35. National Education Goals Panel. (1995). The national education goals report: Building a nation of learners, 1995. Washington, DC: Author.
36. Persky, H. R., Reese, C. M., O'Sullivan, C. Y., Lazer, S., Moore, J., & Shakrani, S. (1996). NAEP 1994 geography report card: Findings from the National Assessment of Educational Progress. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.
37. Shanker, A. (1990). The end of the traditional model of schooling and a proposal for using incentives to restructure schools. Phi Delta Kappan, 71, 344-348.
38. Shepard, L. A. (1993). Evaluating test validity. Review of Research in Education. 19, 405-450.
39. Shepard, L. A. (1995). Implications for standard setting of the National Academy of Education evaluation of the National Assessment of Educational Progress achievement levels. In Proceedings of the joint conference on standard setting for large-scale assessments of the National Assessment Governing Board (NAGB) and the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) (Vol. 2, pp. 143-160). Washington, DC: National Assessment Governing Board and National Center for Education Statistics.
40. Shepard, L. A., Glaser, R., Linn, R. L., & Bohrnstedt, G. (1993). Setting performance standards for student achievement: A report of the National Academy of Education Panel of the evaluation of the NAEP trial state assessment: An evaluation of the 1992 achievement levels. Stanford, CA: Stanford University, National Academy of Education.
41. Stufflebeam, D., Jaeger, R. M., & Scriven, M. (1991, August). Summative evaluation of the National Assessment Governing Board's inaugural 1990-91 effort to set achievement levels on the National Assessment of Educational Progress. Washington, DC: National Assessment Governing Board.
42. U.S. Department of Education. (1997). A call to action for American education in the 21st century. Washington, DC: Author.
43. U.S. General Accounting Office. (1993). Educational achievement standards: NAGB's approach yields misleading interpretations (Rep. No. GAO-PEMD-93-12). Washington, DC: Author.
44. Zieky, M. J. (1995). A historical perspective on setting standards. Proceedings of the joint conference on standard setting for large-scale assessments of the National Assessment Governing Board (NAGB) and the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) (Vol. 2, pp. 1-38). Washington, DC: National Assessment Governing Board and National Center for Education Statistics.